the "British tradition" (conservative) and the "French tradition" (liberal). Hayek saw the [British tradition] as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law, and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition [...] believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion.
ffs kiyo, at least read the op properly
I'll not get into it because it's been a long day but in answer to your 3 things.I'm fine with responsible people owning guns, fire arms should be licensed, no that does not make me a tyrant Alex Jones supporters. I don't support any random cunt going into a gun store and walking out with a light machine gun. However if you're a responsible person then I don't see why you can't own a gun. The gun debate in America is a joke, with the likes of the right threatening a revolution and the left threatening to outright ban guns.I'm pro-choice, personally I would only support abortion if the womans life was in danger but it's a grey area that's sensitive to the pro-lifers and pro-choicers and I can't be fucked with the bitch fighting that starts when the two sides go head to head..The rich should be taxed higher than the middle and working class.
I'll not get into it
First of, being licensed costs money. If a person doesn't have the money to get a license then they can't buy a gun, which is an infringement.
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 12, 2014, 02:33:01 PM First of, being licensed costs money. If a person doesn't have the money to get a license then they can't buy a gun, which is an infringement.Why is the same is not applied to cars? Isn't access to transportation very important to an individual's liberty, at least to a similar extent as being able to kill or hunt? Do you think it's wrong that people are forced to pay for insurance and DMV fees in order to be able to use something that may be necessary for their livelihood?
Because cars are not a Constitutional right
Pretty pathetic comparison you got there
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 12, 2014, 03:40:17 PMBecause cars are not a Constitutional rightWhy shouldn't they be? Would they be if they existed during the 1700's?
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 12, 2014, 03:46:08 PMQuote from: God on September 12, 2014, 03:43:15 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 12, 2014, 03:40:17 PMBecause cars are not a Constitutional rightWhy shouldn't they be? Would they be if they existed during the 1700's?I can't tell if troll or just stupidHorses existed back in the 1700's but there is no Amendment about themI can sum up 90% of Kinder's posts in the Serious board."muh constitution"
Quote from: God on September 12, 2014, 03:43:15 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 12, 2014, 03:40:17 PMBecause cars are not a Constitutional rightWhy shouldn't they be? Would they be if they existed during the 1700's?I can't tell if troll or just stupidHorses existed back in the 1700's but there is no Amendment about them
Conservative
Quote from: BrenMan 94 on September 13, 2014, 05:23:59 AMConservativeAbout time you got here.
Conservative on economicsLiberal on social issues