I'm not complaining rkz. I'm arguing a point. There's a difference.

Anyway, I'm sure if I lived in the US I'd want to carry a gun too, so go ahead and do what you want along with the likes of UG and MaggieL et al. :)

Can you please make this make sense?

It means, that if your idea of freedom conflicts with his therefor one of you will not be free if the other is.

How does my owning and carrying a gun, without any intent to harm anyone who isn't trying to harm me, conflict with anyone else's freedom?

And we'd probably enjoy an afternoon at the shooting range with you if you did live here, making noise and holes in paper.:cool:

This sort of question gets answered empirically in our Republic weekly if not daily. The results have been largely satisfactory these 230 years, counting from 1776, or 217 counting from 1789's adoption of the Constitution.

Again, others disagree.

And if you lived in the US, you'd be allowed to.

Probably.

Really missing the point there. In the phrase you quoted, I was expressing my opinion that the government should stop trying to protect drug users from themselves; there's far too many unintended consequences and collateral damage from those efforts. The Darwininan effect would arise when someone managed to kill himself with cheap, freely available drugs.

Those who are up to "my standard of responsibility" only use deadly force when it is consistant with the principles of the law on justification. That doesn't happen much...and with drugs legalized it would happen even less.

I think people should make thier own decisions about it, but if you don't think you can handle the responsibility, I encourage you to opt out. Do read that link I posted to Ethics from the Barrel of A Gun.

I still don't agree with that concept either, but apologize for the misquote.
You seemed to have forgotten, I have owned guns since I was 16 yrs old and still have two. They are both kept at my parents home so that there are no "accidents." I have a son that lives with me.
I respect the fact that you want to own certain types of weapons, but it seems a bit overboard. What realistic purpose does a machine gun, a bomb, tank or a howitzer serve for Joe Average in todays society?

You sound like the PMRC.

Today's society is not composed totally of "Joe Average", and people's activities are not subject to your review for compliance with "realistic purpose" and assurance that it's not "a bit overboard". This whole principle of "prove to us you need this before we'll permit you to have it" is odious.

You certainly have a strange way of showing your "respect".

Imagine being legally required to prove to your local Green people that you *need* an internal combustion engine before you could have one. (And watch how many morons pipe up here with "Yeah, I think that would be a great idea!") Or how about being require to prove to the Pope that you "need" condoms...

By the way, there are over 13,000 machine guns currently registered by the ATF in Pennsylvania. I'm unaware that *any* of them have been used in a crime, although someone may be able to produce an anecdote or two.

Shouldn't you have to prove there's a problem before imposing a restriction on somebody else, rather than imposing a requrement on them to prove that there isn't? Awfully difficult to prove a negative...

Will you be introducing your son to firearms when *he* turns 16?

Why the scare quotes on "accidents"? Do you really just mean accidents, or something more sinister?

Trying to intimidate Dwellars into silence, are we? Classy.