Should STY get a machine gun?

You can't have freedom without security. Why do you hate both?

Bullshit. Freedom, by its very nature, works against security.

A free society means criminals can move more easily, commit crimes more readily, and people are not safe and secure.
 
I noticed you didn't answer the question.

It was a bogus question, and you know it.

YOur claim that you cannot have freedom without security is nonsense, so the question based on that is nonsense.

A free society is probably the least secure place to live.
 
what, like a varon-T disruptor? do you think those should only belong in the hands of police officers or military?
Yes, like that. Do you think they should be sold at Wal-Mart or not?
So now you turn to science fiction to defend your support of a totalitarian government?

But. to go with your little flight of fancy, if the government has it, then the people should have access also. Period.

Bottom line: if the government has superior weapons to the people, the liberty of the people will be eventually eroded. The bigger the disparity in available force, the more likely government will negate your rights. We are watching it happen right now, and insecure little weanie assholes like you cheer them on.

You can't have freedom without security. Why do you hate both?
Yeah but we have nutsoids who would use WMDs or Dissolve-A-Matics just for the fun of it. I see that as an infringement on my right to live a peaceful existence.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin
You want perfect security, go dig a hole, climb in, and pull the cover closed behind you. Meanwhile, keep your liberty-infringing lines to yourself and leave freedom loving Americans alone.
 
So now you turn to science fiction to defend your support of a totalitarian government?

But. to go with your little flight of fancy, if the government has it, then the people should have access also. Period.

Bottom line: if the government has superior weapons to the people, the liberty of the people will be eventually eroded. The bigger the disparity in available force, the more likely government will negate your rights. We are watching it happen right now, and insecure little weanie assholes like you cheer them on.



Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin
You want perfect security, go dig a hole, climb in, and pull the cover closed behind you. Meanwhile, keep your liberty-infringing lines to yourself and leave freedom loving Americans alone.

So we should have access to nukes, right?
 
So we should have access to nukes, right?

Rather than resorting to a strawman, why not explain to us why you insist that freedom requires security??

Logically, the more free the society the easier it is to commit crimes, so the security is less.
 
So we should have access to nukes, right?
Why do you mindless anti-liberty dweebs ALWAYS go there? It's so fucking STUPID as to defy imagination. If you have to ask stupid assed questions to support your argument, you lose.

Besides, the subject of nucs has already been addressed. They are not a military weapon, they are a political weapon. Therefore they are outside the realm of people's access to military weapons. No government in the world, or all the history of the world is so assininely stupid as to use, or even threaten to use, nuclear weapons in their own territory against their own people. So any perceived need of the people to be able to counter nucs is a boogie - and a stupid one at that.

Now, get off the stupid assed bullshit, and the science fiction. Can you, or can you not give us a genuine reason why law abiding citizens should be denied any weapon carried by the common soldier in a standing army?

And before you go there (again) because of what a criminal MIGHT do with them is a bullshit reason. Should we curb free speech because someone MIGHT shout fire in a crowded theater? Should we allow warrantless searches because people are using the 4th Amendment to hide their criminal activities, or terrorist plans?

Whre is the difference between curbing the right of speech based on what someine MIGHT say, and curbing my right to firearms based on what someone MIGHT do with them? It's a crap argument. But then, that's all liberals have when it comes to defending curbing liberty so they can enjoy their securities.
 
Why do you mindless anti-liberty dweebs ALWAYS go there? It's so fucking STUPID as to defy imagination. If you have to ask stupid assed questions to support your argument, you lose.

Besides, the subject of nucs has already been addressed. They are not a military weapon, they are a political weapon. Therefore they are outside the realm of people's access to military weapons. No government in the world, or all the history of the world is so assininely stupid as to use, or even threaten to use, nuclear weapons in their own territory against their own people. So any perceived need of the people to be able to counter nucs is a boogie - and a stupid one at that.

Now, get off the stupid assed bullshit, and the science fiction. Can you, or can you not give us a genuine reason why law abiding citizens should be denied any weapon carried by the common soldier in a standing army?

And before you go there (again) because of what a criminal MIGHT do with them is a bullshit reason. Should we curb free speech because someone MIGHT shout fire in a crowded theater? Should we allow warrantless searches because people are using the 4th Amendment to hide their criminal activities, or terrorist plans?

Whre is the difference between curbing the right of speech based on what someine MIGHT say, and curbing my right to firearms based on what someone MIGHT do with them? It's a crap argument. But then, that's all liberals have when it comes to defending curbing liberty so they can enjoy their securities.

A political weapon? LOL What is that? And why can't I have one?
 
Do you, in your totalitarian mindset, seriously think that the US government would drop a nuke on it's own soil, no matter the size of any rebellion? :pke:
So you would draw the line somewhere then. But mechanism is there now to stop a President who turned into a totalitarian (The Obama comes close) decide to stop an insurrection the way Truman stopped Japan?
 
A political weapon? LOL What is that? And why can't I have one?

Yes its a political weapon and not one that any nation will use on its own soil.

Nukes aside, what logical reason do you have for the prohibition of machine guns?

And I see you still haven't answered my question.
 
So you would draw the line somewhere then. But mechanism is there now to stop a President who turned into a totalitarian (The Obama comes close) decide to stop an insurrection the way Truman stopped Japan?

again, do you seriously believe that any president (along with whoever the second person to approve a launch would be) would drop a nuclear weapon on american citizens on american soil and risk the huge political fallout that would occur afterwards?
 
again, do you seriously believe that any president (along with whoever the second person to approve a launch would be) would drop a nuclear weapon on american citizens on american soil and risk the huge political fallout that would occur afterwards?
A tactical nuke, yes.
 
Back
Top