One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights
Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>
Oct 20, 2013 15:22:54   #
uptight
 
So VERY True!

Reply
Oct 20, 2013 15:23:16   #
uptight
 
So VERY True!

Reply
Oct 20, 2013 17:56:45   #
dukeofsc
 
The English language is probably one of the most difficult to understand and learn so I'm told, I know it sounds like "WHAT"? English hard to learn, but, yes it is, ask anyone who has studied it or has a job as interpreter, they will tell you we have such montage of all different languages in our common verbiage that sometimes its literally impossible to translate so someone of another tongue can actually understand what it is we mean to get across.
However I digress, the fact I'm trying to make is this, being a veteran and a firearms owner and shooter for more than half a century, and what with all the hub bub about the meaning of words and phraseology in DC this day and age, you know you cant say "pollock" anymore its offensive, you cant say "shuffle" in anything that has to do with referencing blacks cuz its "offensive" and with that I mean to say people don't understand the words they sling around at will, firearms are just that "firearms", like nails or thumb tacks or screwdrivers or gasoline cans or matches or yada, yada, yada, if we're ever going to get over this manufactured fear of inanimate things we've got to start with the basic educating of our citizens, namely a firearm is NOT a weapon, until its used as such, just like a screwdriver or a nail or a hammer or a kitchen knife, people are so used to saying
"oh what do you want that weapon for"
its a firearm, see if you say weapon it always sound evil and bad and wicked, but if you say hey did you see that new firearm from S&W, see how the whole convo can change if we simply use the proper word in the proper frame, all I'm saying in my round about fashion is , weapons are anything and everything someone uses to inflict harm or death on someone or something else, the 50,000$ reward offered 50 years ago to this day is still unclaimed for he person who catch's that firearm that armed itself , jumped off the shelf, pulled its own trigger and assaulted a person all on its own.
Nuff Said?

Reply
Oct 20, 2013 20:12:00   #
Harry Cat Loc: Taxachusetts
 
No, a permit is generally required for concealed carry. In most states, a long gun does not require a permit as a long gun cannot reasonably be concealed.

Reply
Oct 20, 2013 21:42:49   #
alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
 
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
Then they can go their local sporting goods store and purchase one!


FOR NOW!!!!!

Reply
Oct 21, 2013 00:00:37   #
ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio
 
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
The people in the U.S. are most armed in the World, why would we need more?


Obastard and his minions are the answer to that!

Reply
Oct 21, 2013 01:44:57   #
meadt4USA Loc: pa. usa.
 
Could someone please show me where in the constitution it says a felon losses his rights to anything . Because i don't recall ever reading it anywhere . I may have missed it but i don't belive so .

Reply
Oct 21, 2013 01:47:42   #
meadt4USA Loc: pa. usa.
 
Could someone please show me where in the constitution it says a felon losses his rights to anything . Because i don't recall ever reading it anywhere . I may have missed it but i don't belive so .

Reply
Oct 21, 2013 07:25:46   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
meadt4USA wrote:
Could someone please show me where in the constitution it says a felon losses his rights to anything . Because i don't recall ever reading it anywhere . I may have missed it but i don't belive so .


To the best of my knowlege, it isn't in there. I'm pretty sure it wasn't even in the US Code until after the 14th Amendment was passed. I will see if I can find out, you have piqued my curiosity.

Reply
Oct 21, 2013 07:59:14   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
meadt4USA wrote:
Could someone please show me where in the constitution it says a felon losses his rights to anything . Because i don't recall ever reading it anywhere . I may have missed it but i don't belive so .


This law is part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, passed by a Democratic (LBJ) president, with a Democrat controlled House and Senate. It was challenged and upheld in Richardson v Ramirez in 1974. I was right, it supposedly draws on the 14th Amendment for it's Constitutionality, and is considered part of "Felon Disenfranchisment." Once again, citing the 14th Amendment as Constitutional authority. I firmly believe that there were people in Congress who used the knee jerk furor of the aftermath of the Civil War to include language in the 14th Amendment specifically designed to vastly increase the scope and power of the Federal Government, and that this language was included and the Amendment passed with no realization of the long term ramifications of this wording. There was, and has been ever since the founding of our country a faction which supports a powerful central government, as opposed to State's Rights. There is no question that the 14th Amendment vastly increased the scope of the Federal Government.

Reply
Oct 21, 2013 11:29:16   #
dukeofsc
 
Which I've been told was pretty much copied almost in its entirety from Adolph Hitlers directorate in Nazi Germany during his rise to fame and glory to also DISARM the general population so he wouldn't have any resistance to his push for world domination.
It's always amazed me that people here in the comfort zone don't seem to remember their past and continue to just repeat the same old mistakes over and over and over.
What is it you don't understand (them not you), about the part that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", and to top it off they defend certain parts of the US constitution but not others, which seems to be the way now days to take only parts of what you want and those you don't want, condemn. Remember this my friend, if the second falls so go the rest, for without the second amendment "WE WILL HAVE NO MEANS TO FIGHT BACK"

Reply
 
 
Oct 21, 2013 11:59:28   #
bmac32 Loc: West Florida
 
What amendment are you talking about? You have used the reply button rather than the quote reply.


dukeofsc wrote:
Which I've been told was pretty much copied almost in its entirety from Adolph Hitlers directorate in Nazi Germany during his rise to fame and glory to also DISARM the general population so he wouldn't have any resistance to his push for world domination.
It's always amazed me that people here in the comfort zone don't seem to remember their past and continue to just repeat the same old mistakes over and over and over.
What is it you don't understand (them not you), about the part that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", and to top it off they defend certain parts of the US constitution but not others, which seems to be the way now days to take only parts of what you want and those you don't want, condemn. Remember this my friend, if the second falls so go the rest, for without the second amendment "WE WILL HAVE NO MEANS TO FIGHT BACK"
Which I've been told was pretty much copied almost... (show quote)

Reply
Oct 21, 2013 12:32:31   #
dukeofsc
 
In my reply I specifically mention the Second amendment(2'nd) , and I was replying to the statement prior to my reply of the 1968 gun control act.
Sorry if you were confused.

Reply
Oct 21, 2013 14:07:32   #
alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
 
dukeofsc wrote:
In my reply I specifically mention the Second amendment(2'nd) , and I was replying to the statement prior to my reply of the 1968 gun control act.
Sorry if you were confused.


but you still are not using the quote reply

Reply
Oct 21, 2013 17:32:02   #
dukeofsc
 
In my reply I specifically mention the Second amendment(2'nd) , and I was replying to the statement prior to my reply of the 1968 gun control act.
Sorry if you were confused.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.