So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297, *567*]

[Howard the Duck]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

Dukworld, it's Howard's home planet before he was teleported to Earth landing in Cleveland if I remember the movie correctly.

There you go. The comic book actually, but yeah. Trapped in a world that I never made.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Surely if that is what I meant then I probably would have said that. Did I say that?

All but. Your statement heavily implied that the government cannot steal property because it can define its own actions as legal.

 

[Howard the Duck]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

All but. Your statement heavily implied that the government cannot steal property because it can define its own actions as legal.

No, this Duck is an American duck. The Constitution is in many ways a social compact. We give up small things in order to form a more perfect union. I could list those things but you already know what I am talking about.

For example, I am not allowed to have c4 in my neighborhood. I guess it's a zoning thing. Who knows? But I kind of get their point.

I give up my sacred second amendment right to bear c4 as an armament in exchange for a safer, more orderly society.

I'm fairly sure you know where I am going with this.

I said general welfare clause. That presumably would allow me to tax in order to advance our general welfare. So we'd get guns to melt down in exchange for a tax credit.

Everyone loves them some tax credits. Winner, winner, chicken dinner

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

The General Welfare clause authorizes a lot of things, a lot more than right-wingers claim... and a lot less than they actually do.

But one thing it does not, absolutely can not, authorize is the violation of our Constitutional rights.

The Constitutional theory you are advocating is totalitarian lunacy. It could be used to justify any policy in contradiction to any other part of the Constitution.

All because you do not respect the need, the right, and the duty of your fellow Americans to arm themselves for self-defense.

 

[Howard the Duck]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

The General Welfare clause authorizes a lot of things, a lot more than right-wingers claim... and a lot less than they actually do.

But one thing it does not, absolutely can not, authorize is the violation of our Constitutional rights.

The Constitutional theory you are advocating is totalitarian lunacy. It could be used to justify any policy in contradiction to any other part of the Constitution.

All because you do not respect the need, the right, and the duty of your fellow Americans to arm themselves for self-defense.

How would you spend your Duck plan tax credit?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

How would you spend your Duck plan tax credit?

I wouldn't, because your gunthugs would have to murder me in my own home before I could collect it.

 

[X Factor]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

And it is none of your business why we want to take your guns.

If this isn’t the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen posted here, it’s definitely in the top 10. Of course seizing someone’s property is the business of the property owner.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Steal? Nope.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[Maccabee]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Crime and accidents among CCW holders is VERY VERY low. It works quite well. It should be expanded

The crime rate has little to do with the amount of training. The reason crime rate is so low among CCW holders is mainly because it's the law abiding that seek CCW permits.

 

[X Factor]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

Nah. Eventually we'd have to demonstrate in court a legal justification for our actions (I'm thinking : article 2, "general welfare clause" ), but we never are obliged to tell you of our true motivation.

Don't be a snowflake.

Calling out something incredibly stupid isn’t actually being a snowflake.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

How would you spend your Duck plan tax credit?

Expanding my unicorn herd. I don't suppose you'd be going door to door to collect any guns, though.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

Calling out something incredibly stupid isn’t actually being a snowflake.

He's just trolling at this point.

 

[jet57]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Fine could be "I wish they would get training" or "It's mandatory that they get training". I see you ignored the rest of the post, but that's typical behavior for you. It's much easier for you to play your little games.

What level of training do you believe anyone should have to carry guns in public, and is that sufficient to be able to carry in public?

You can stop now. I'm not entertaining that nonsense.

 

[jet57]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Seems to work just fine as it is. You realize how infrequent accidents occur right?

Do you have any evidence that a statistically significant figure of people can’t handle their rights? You are the one trying to violate rights without a constitutional amenfment after all.

Nice try. The fact is you're fine with people carrying around weapons that they don't know how to use being a danger to themselves and anybody around them.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Nice try. The fact is you're fine with people carrying around weapons that they don't know how to use being a danger to themselves and anybody around them.

Prove that this is an issue. Show that there is a significant number of people who legally own guns, carry them in public and have no training. Show that this has resulted in a danger to the public resulting in deaths and injuries.

Much ado about nothing as usual.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

You can stop now. I'm not entertaining that nonsense.

Yes, actually having to present a cogent argument is outside your comfort zone. So much easier to just dismiss posts pithily.

 

[X Factor]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

He's just trolling at this point.

I think you could largely say that about him at any point. It’s all good. It was time to change up my sig anyway.

 

[Howard the Duck]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Of course seizing someone’s property is the business of the property owner.

Perhaps, but we aren't obliged to tell you our true motivations for doing so.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Nice try. The fact is you're fine with people carrying around weapons that they don't know how to use being a danger to themselves and anybody around them.

assuming factoids not in evidence. Just because the Democrat masters don't trust some folks to carry a firearm, is no reason for you to complain that other citizens live in SHALL ISSUE states

 

[vegas giants]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

The crime rate has little to do with the amount of training. The reason crime rate is so low among CCW holders is mainly because it's the law abiding that seek CCW permits.

You have a theory. Lets mandate the training and test it out

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Perhaps, but we aren't obliged to tell you our true motivations for doing so.

Will you be sending men with guns to take guns from men with guns? Will you stack up with SWAT to help take doors?

 

[vegas giants]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Will you be sending men with guns to take guns from men with guns? Will you stack up with SWAT to help take doors?

No need for SWAT. You will politely turn them over. you will not die over this

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

And it is none of your business why we want to take your guns.

That ^^^^ is certainly a reasonable debate tactic.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

That ^^^^ is certainly a reasonable debate tactic.

He's not here to debate. He's here to bluster and troll.

 

[Howard the Duck]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Will you be sending men with guns to take guns from men with guns? Will you stack up with SWAT to help take doors?

The Australian experience suggests that the vast majority of people would stack their guns up neatly.

The ones who don't should ask David Koresh how things worked out for him.