Can't speak for 'conservatives' but sane folks do, yeah. For instance, it used to be acceptable for a neighbor to have a 12 pounder field piece if he wanted one in case he needed to fire a round over the State House, but the fact of the matter is that your right to that ends when your cannon ball goes flying over my property and scares my cow outa her milk.
So we have to have 'some' Societal accommodations so that everyone's Rights are good. If you look at the various militia acts and such things the Unorganized Militia- every male between 16 and 45 I think - is required to bear arms against a tyrannical government and to support a Peaceful Society. Those arms are generally defined as equivalent to what Federal Troops might carry, State of the Art arms. Not crew served weapons or specialty weapons, those are kept by the Organized Militias, the Guard units and State Militias.
Our double damned corrupt government says, you peons cannot fight 'us' with rifles, you need nukes and F-15s'... no, we need millions of rifles and the moral strength to use them is all. Cops want 24 guys with body armor, shields, robots, drones, rifles, automatic carbines, shotguns, gas shells, pyrotechnics dogs and social workers to go in against 1 terrorist punk with a rifle and armor. But in reality, millions of guys/gals with rifles OWN this Society, not the double damned corrupt government who does nothing correct.
Yeah we have limits on arms and rightly so, my neighbor does not need a flammenwerfer.
Doesn't hold. You argue against use, not possession. If I don't spook your cows, no harm done by my ownership. This same argument can be made about a .22.
My rights do not end where yours begin. My rights end when I inflict harm. Modern thinking fails when it assumes the purpose of law is to prevent harm. If the purpose of law is to prevent your neighbor from having the ability to inflict harm, then taken to it's logical outcome, you and your neighbor will be jailed preemptively. Nor is it the purpose to ensure you have rights only to what you need; that way lies the elimination of personal property rights. As the Bard wrote, "Oh reason not the need.." Your neighbor may not "need" a flamethrower now, but at some point, you might find you wish he had.
Can't speak for 'conservatives' but sane folks do, yeah. For instance, it used to be acceptable for a neighbor to have a 12 pounder field piece if he wanted one in case he needed to fire a round over the State House, but the fact of the matter is that your right to that ends when your cannon ball goes flying over my property and scares my cow outa her milk.
So we have to have 'some' Societal accommodations so that everyone's Rights are good. If you look at the various militia acts and such things the Unorganized Militia- every male between 16 and 45 I think - is required to bear arms against a tyrannical government and to support a Peaceful Society. Those arms are generally defined as equivalent to what Federal Troops might carry, State of the Art arms. Not crew served weapons or specialty weapons, those are kept by the Organized Militias, the Guard units and State Militias.
Our double damned corrupt government says, you peons cannot fight 'us' with rifles, you need nukes and F-15s'... no, we need millions of rifles and the moral strength to use them is all. Cops want 24 guys with body armor, shields, robots, drones, rifles, automatic carbines, shotguns, gas shells, pyrotechnics dogs and social workers to go in against 1 terrorist punk with a rifle and armor. But in reality, millions of guys/gals with rifles OWN this Society, not the double damned corrupt government who does nothing correct.
Yeah we have limits on arms and rightly so, my neighbor does not need a flammenwerfer.
Doesn't hold. You argue against use, not possession. If I don't spook your cows, no harm done by my ownership. This same argument can be made about a .22.
It was just an example, the point being your Rights end where they meet the Rights of other citizens or the Rights of Greater Society.
That argument is made about .22s, shoot one off on a crowded city street and find out. I merely added glamour to the .22 in question....
My rights do not end where yours begin. My rights end when I inflict harm. Modern thinking fails when it assumes the purpose of law is to prevent harm. If the purpose of law is to prevent your neighbor from having the ability to inflict harm, then taken to it's logical outcome, you and your neighbor will be jailed preemptively. Nor is it the purpose to ensure you have rights only to what you need; that way lies the elimination of personal property rights. As the Bard wrote, "Oh reason not the need.." Your neighbor may not "need" a flamethrower now, but at some point, you might find you wish he had.
You are going to get so down voted for being sensible. It might take a minute, first they have to look up flammenwerfer.
My first Wife used to smack me over head and schreech 'I hate it when you're right'!!
But they gave you the downdoots...KEK!
https://files.catbox.moe/e4h2uj.jpg