With the shut down of twitter and the internet in Egypt, I'm surprised that no one has seen or mentioned the term "reasonable restrictions" on things like communication, right to assemble and so on.  The case could easily be made that such restrictions are necessary to help maintain "public order".  I'm pretty sure that the same people who think "reasonable restrictions" on the second amendment rights would howl with objections when such "reasonable restrictions" are applied to other rights like assembly, speech, press, religion and so on.  They would say that such "reasonable restrictions" are nothing we have to worry about in the USA because such rights are constitutionally protected here.

Yet, for some reason, these same people believe that "reasonable restrictions" on the rights that other people think are important (the second amendment) are more "logical, sensible" and so on.  I doubt that they would ever see the flaw in their logic.  At least not until such logic is used to take away their rights.

Well, the people that think this should be eaten by bears.

I support this.  If the bears get nice and fat off of humans,  they will be slower and larger next year!

This means an easier time filling my bear tag,  and near record setting weight with my score!

My initial posting has a number of thoughts in it.  To which thought (people who think this) are you referring?

sorry, the folks that would impose any sort of regulation on us, that they would find objectionable in another setting (1A, 4A,5A, etc).

This.

They all deserve to be bear food.

+1 for bear poop.

I like the direction that this is heading.

thread reminds me of that faggoty sounding guy that was video taping himself up in Alaska....