Mass Murder by Blade, you Vast Idiots

Beefbisquit said:
Magazine limits, and some other things aren't unconstitutional...
Click to expand...

Riiiiiiiight, no sarcasm, seriously.
You are right.
A drivers license does not violate the individual right to travel either, but why?

Because the individual may contract away individual rights for collective rights.

Even if they are unaware of the contract.....ignorance it seems is no excuse.
Imho this is supremly dishonest to leave out of discussion.

So like starbucks uniform does not violate my right to dress expressivly and individually on my own time.....
neither do capacity restrictions....barrel lenghts ect....on my own time.

Who's time are we truly on though....really think its yours?
By your own admission "I'm sure its not cool" you are not on your time.
 
There are a lot of things in Heller that say it is reasonable for self rule governance to have some local restrictions.

Heller, set the stake in the ground about a lot of things. It is strongest in the direct support of the intent of the 2nd to be, up to battle rifle armed,for self protection.
 
I am reading heller for the first time....on page 8 of 157.
Already there is text of individual rights vs collective.
Already text of common language vs hidden language understood only by "society.
 
twostrokenut said:
I am reading heller for the first time....on page 8 of 157.
Already there is text of individual rights vs collective.
Already text of common language vs hidden language understood only by "society.
Click to expand...

Yes, Heller is very straight forward. Doesn't seem to make a dent in Politics, however. :)
 
Beefbisquit said:
It was your free will to sign it, but if you didn't you wouldn't be driving.
Click to expand...

Again correct...you have a flair for the obvious sir.
A driver is what a drivers license is for.
Social security is what social security cards are for.
Fractional reserve lending is what endorsed paychecks are for.

Oh you thought you were required to do any of that?
 
twostrokenut said:
Again correct...you have a flair for the obvious sir.
A driver is what a drivers license is for.
Social security is what social security cards are for.
Fractional reserve lending is what endorsed paychecks are for.

Oh you thought you were required to do any of that?
Click to expand...

No.... but I want the benefits that come from doing/having most/all of those things....
 
Beefbisquit said:
It's not 'which way is it'.... it's only one way.

If you want to drive on the roads, get a job, etc., you sign the papers. There is no, no signing your license, or taking the test and legally driving on the roads.
Click to expand...

right, when you sign, you are bound by the legalities and the contract.
Perhaps it is different in Canada, but here contracts must be signed if they involve limiting rights, and you may not license or make privilege of an individual right without this consent.
 
here cannasylvan totally makes a sane and rational case for "the individual right to travel"

Canna Sylvan said:
The police have no right to stop you if you aren't violating any laws. The police have no right to demand a driver's license. You must only show a driver's license iff you are a driver and therefore have a contract with the dmv. Your instrument of travel, whether by foot, animal or mechanical locomotion, is a right and my not be deprived if for person use of traveling from point A to point B. A driver is a person of hire. A motor vehicle is a means of locomotion used by the driver. If your means of locomotion use id for personal travel, then you aren't a driver. If your means of personal travel is not a motor vehicle, which it isn't if you're not for hire, then your means of transportation is personal property. Your use of public roads is a right under the 5th amendment due process clause and the 14th amendment right to interstate travel.
Click to expand...
 
UncleBuck said:
here cannasylvan totally makes a sane and rational case for "the individual right to travel"
Click to expand...

All I can say for you is that at least you're not technically a hypocrite on the gun issue, not owning any and all being a cannabis user.

Criminals exercise their right to bear any arms they see fit, any capacity magazine they can get their hands on.
Even the ones who signed the right away as part of release conditions from mental hospitals and prisons.

Cant play chess with criminals, they seem to think the pawns can all move like the queen.
We keep telling them its illegal but they just don't seem to care.
 
twostrokenut said:
All I can say for you is that at least you're not technically a hypocrite on the gun issue, not owning any and all being a cannabis user.

Criminals exercise their right to bear any arms they see fit, any capacity magazine they can get their hands on.
Even the ones who signed the right away as part of release conditions from mental hospitals and prisons.

Cant play chess with criminals, they seem to think the pawns can all move like the queen.
We keep telling them its illegal but they just don't seem to care.
Click to expand...

i don't see what a constitutional limit on magazine capacity has to do with your inane belief in "the individual right to travel".
 
UncleBuck said:
i don't see what a constitutional limit on magazine capacity has to do with your inane belief in "the individual right to travel".
Click to expand...

There's a limit on magazine capacity for the Individual? News to me.
When I bird hunt with my shotgun the "legal limit" of shells is 3.
Only on public land though.

What's your limit? Oh yea, zero.

But we only know because you told us, we could not search unconstitutionally.....that's quite a conundrum, having to take your word for it and banning it at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top