Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA - The duty of self defense (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And that is a requirement of the bank, (4+ / 0-)

    not the state.

    Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

    by oldpunk on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:08:27 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, no. (0+ / 0-)

      All 50 states require car insurance in order for you to DRIVE your car.

      You can OWN a car without driving it. But to DRIVE it, you need a driver's LICENSE, and INSURANCE.

      And, if you're arguing that the Constitution "enshrines" the right to have firearms without restriction, you're on the wrong side of every single Supreme Court decision on the matter.

      Unless you think it would be OK for mentally ill people to get firearms without restriction. That felons should have firearms without restriction. That the local mosque can create their own armory without restriction. That the local right-wing militia can accumulate firearms without restriction. That it would be OK for any smart nuclear physicist to build his own atom bomb.

      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

      by kmiddle on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:41:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yay nukes. Thanks for that. (5+ / 0-)

        You forgot ON PUBLIC ROADS.

        I started driving, legally, right around the same time I started learning to shoot (less than 10 years old.)

        I was on private property, the car was an old beater, and there was no insurance.

        MF and RKBA Member. It's a sad thing not to have friends, but it is even sadder not to have enemies. -9.00, -4.05

        by KVoimakas on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:44:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Speaking of straw men... (6+ / 0-)

        ...you have a post chock full of 'em.

        All 50 states require car insurance in order for you to DRIVE your car.

        No one has asserted otherwise -- you should try addressing what was actually said, not what you want them to have said.

        And, if you're arguing that the Constitution "enshrines" the right to have firearms without restriction...

        No one has asserted this -- you should try addressing what was actually said, not what you want them to have said.

        Unless you think it would be OK for mentally ill people to get firearms without restriction. That felons should have firearms without restriction. That the local mosque can create their own armory without restriction. That the local right-wing militia can accumulate firearms without restriction. That it would be OK for any smart nuclear physicist to build his own atom bomb.

        And this is just utter crap -- no one has said anything even close to this.

        Complete fail.

      •  A hole in your argument, though. If you don't (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sharoney, rockhound, oldpunk, KVoimakas

        take it out on the public streets, a current plate may not be required.

      •  Again, I was responding to this, (4+ / 0-)

        Precisely... just as people who can't afford car insurance CAN'T HAVE CARS.

        Maybe you should take your own advice:

        AGAIN, please read what I said...Not what you ASSUME I said, or what you WANT me to have said so that you can argue against a position I didn't take.

        You stated very clearly that "...people who can't afford car insurance CAN'T HAVE CARS."

        You are wrong.  

        Oh, and stop yelling it is beginning to hurt my eyes.

        Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

        by oldpunk on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:24:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site