I doubt that would help The very notion that someone being in fear for their lives would make them "unsuitable to hold a gun license ", is such a perverse and immoral position, that it shows far deeper psychological problems.
Of COURSE it's for you to judge. You're the government!
You don't have any problem deciding if someone "needs" a gun, so why would you have a problem deciding if someone "needs" to get out more?
Isn't that the government's FUNCTION? To decide what we all "need?"
How are we supposed to decide that by ourselves? We're not experts. We "need" government help.
Bert, bert... To such as dechuckles, that is an irrelevant issue. Making a false claim of causation to push his gun-control agenda is all that it takes to justify such a lie.
OK, everybody get out more. That's an order from me, the government.
Wait Give me a moment. Need to check that my gun is loaded and then put on my holster. OK. I'm ready..
Don't forget the dum dum's !!
Impossible; the newsgroup's full of 'em.
-- bert@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Notice he doesn't respond......
Why?
So those who don't pass this test don't have the right to protect their families? That is sick. Kid down my way nearly got abducted should he have the right to carry for protection? Come on it is all in if guns are for protection
Touche !!
Dum-dums ?? Don't need lollipops
I carry HP ammo specially loaded for snubbies instead. Goes in .357", comes out ,53"
Used the same bullet last fall, with a tad more powder in a Marlin lever action, to knock a deer down at 60 yards.
Didn't have any lollipops then either
You just blew your original position out of the water, chuckles After all YOU are the one claiming that " feeling the need (to be armed for self-defense) they automatically show themselves to (be) unsuitable to hold a gun license" By your definition ANYONE who feels the need to prepare to protect their families are "unsuitable to hold a gun license"(your words)
More intellectual dishonesty from chuckles There is a difference between adults and kids Although your false argument basically ignores that
What is that nonsense phrase supposed to mean
Yes, like the Greens, he has no plan other than to take them away from the soft targets who are the Licenced firearm holders.
Come on don't kids have the right to protection by carrying?
If guns are a valid form of protection and don't cause any other problems than the entire population should have the right to carry
I think that there are places in America where that is almost the case, they seem to have few firearm problems.
snip
almost
really
ave
t"In 1998, Abbott established a trust fund called "Australians for Honest Politics Trust" to help bankroll civil court cases against the One Nation party and its founders, Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge. [46] Prosecution resulted in Hanson & Ettridge being imprisoned.[47] The conviction against Hanson was ultimately overturned, leading to criticism of a range of politicians for political interference by the adjudicating justice."
Do you really think Abbott would behave any different to Howard?
I will never support the Liberal Party again, no way, no how. I make sure whenever I go to the polls I wear a club badge of some description, I take great delight in pointing it out to whoever is handing out the Liberal Party how to vote cards and asking "What are my guns worth now?" They never seem to appreciate it.
"..right to protection by carrying" ? Carrying what, chucklehead ?
It takes a real idiot to keep repeating the same ignorant cant Why do you need to prove you're an idiot ?
Kids have a right to be protected while they are too small or young to protect themselves And the adults around them have a moral duty to provide that "protection" for the kids as long as they are too small or young to protect themselves
You on the other had fall into the "incompetent" category for adults. You also must be "protected" by society, since you are too stupid to "protect yourself", not to mention reproduce.
False argument again There are members of society, such as the young, the aged and the infirm who for some reason or other are unable to protect themselves even though they do have a right to "protection" They are supposed to be protected by the rest of society. You most clearly fall into the "infirm" category.
Vermont has been that way since it was founded. Minimal restrictions on where and how to carry One of the lowest crime rates in the country Alaska has recently amended it's State Constitution to what Vermont has.
But chucklehead is trying to play word games. Elsewhere he posted that children (of any age) should have the right to carry. It's some kind of stupid attempt to argue all or nothing.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.