Oh yeah, I forgot about that, now I recall it. That was some messed up deal.Didn't we have a pharmacist....oh never mind.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that, now I recall it. That was some messed up deal.Didn't we have a pharmacist....oh never mind.
Oh Canada! Remember, the four other English speaking countries are not the US; they don't have the same rights as we do. They still answer to the crown and they have the queen (now the king) on their money. Not the same comparison at all.
Every one of them can and does use their military to kill their own citizens. Their "rights" are priveleges that are given to them by men. As long as they are beholden to the crown, they will always be dictators.
Not a real good example.Didn't we have a pharmacist....oh never mind.
It is important to remember that rights are not secured by governments, ideologies or old documents. They are secured by weapons.Yes, they do have the same inalienable rights that all people have.
Their government simply chooses to infringe upon those rights and the subjects of said government are unwilling to stand up for their rights.
Nor are they, as too many people believe, given by government.It is important to remember that rights are not secured by governments, ideologies or old documents. They are secured by weapons.
Because he put a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th I cant remember) one in him just to make sure?Not a real good example.
Pretty much. While I don't have too much against what he did in the moral sense, he did go a bit overboard. The functional purpose of the use of deadly force in self defense is to stop the threat, not necessarily to kill the assailant.Because he put a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th I cant remember) one in him just to make sure?
Isnt that kinda how/why this country got started, demanding taxes, confiscating weapons, etc????It is important to remember that rights are not secured by governments, ideologies or old documents. They are secured by weapons.
Enter your email address to join: