37L1
Good Dog!
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 11,820
- Likes
- 17,767
????? I don't understand your point.
My question is "are any safety regulations placed on the manufacture of guns constitutional?"
Speaking of black and white, the abuse of black people early in our country's history is a perfect example of why society fails at limiting rights. Even the founders didn't practice all men are created equal with inalienable rights. Why? Because some of society (even influential folks) deemed black people limited from their rights. Infringement was acceptable in society. Was that just?You can continue as if it's all black and white with no grey area, but it's just not true.
No it’s not the same. Don’t be dense. You said you were afraid of people simply having a firearm in plain view which is irrationalI'm trying to walk you guys to a place where you can actually see the point.
So carrying a gun in your hand is not the same as being armed? Interesting.
So the two are rightfully viewed and perceived differently? Even more interesting.
We have far more government oversight and regulation than Haiti or Somalia.Yes the Germans have given into the fact that the government knows what’s best for them as a society ... AGAIN
Restrictions on the capabilities. Manufacturing issue or 2a issue?I don’t care about the gun manufacturers. They have the government to protect them . I can only worry about my rights granted to me by the 2a , that I already have in place . The 2a has nothing to do with the manufacturing of firearms . That’s a whole different law suite you’ll have to bring before the SOTUS .
We have far more government oversight and regulation than Haiti or Somalia.
We have far greater restrictions and regulations on tobacco and alcohol consumption than does Germany. I guess we've placed greater confidence in our government to know what's best for us than has Germany.
Do you have the right to walk into McDonald's, a public park, the library, the courthouse, and/or a school holding a gun in your hand?Speaking of black and white, the abuse of black people early in our country's history is a perfect example of why society fails at limiting rights. Even the founders didn't practice all men are created equal with inalienable rights. Why? Because some of society (even influential folks) deemed black people limited from their rights. Infringement was acceptable in society. Was that just?
I'm sorry your "reasonable" position is crumbling. But my rights are black and white. I either possess them or i do not. And thankfully because society is fickle, society does not get to decide my rights or yours.
Welcome to America.
Restrictions on the capabilities. Manufacturing issue or 2a issue?
Fact: i have the right to bear arms, including those places you mentioned. I can forego my right to carry arms if those places forbid it even though i believe it is unconstitutional to do require me to do so.Do you have the right to walk into McDonald's, a public park, the library, the courthouse, and/or a school holding a gun in your hand?
Black or white.........which I guess means it's either a clear and obvious yes or no.
2a issue. The whole intent for the second amendment was to have a people's who had the ability to stand up to tyranny. The argument I hear from gun control advocates all the time is the founders couldn't have imagined the sophisticated weaponry we have today. However, civilians were armed with equal weaponry as the militaries of the time. Just as the 1st amendment protects our Facebook posts (which the founders could have never imagined), the 2nd should protect our ability to arm ourselves equally, or at least semi-equally, to that of our current government.Restrictions on the capabilities. Manufacturing issue or 2a issue?
I carry, all the time, and except for a courthouse, I've had mine at all of those locations, even more. Just thought you'd enjoy thatDo you have the right to walk into McDonald's, a public park, the library, the courthouse, and/or a school holding a gun in your hand?
Black or white.........which I guess means it's either a clear and obvious yes or no.
Your greater good has killed millions and been responsible for some of the worst actions by humans and this government. I will trust in myself and others long before I put that trust in the government in the name of a greater good.1. So we both have issues with the way 2a has been interpreted.
2. Silly question. Obviously no one is harmed until it is used. Same with a nuclear warhead or vile of typhoid.
Society, in its wisdom, determines when risks outweigh an individual's right to own something they "supposedly" never intend to use.
3. Even more validation of my point. Not only can a person's "rights" be legally restricted for the greater good, but society can even rightfully determine who can (SROs) and who cannot (everyone else) exercise those rights.
One true constant is that things continually change. Some find that more painful than others
How can you as a police woman banging on the drums like that? guess these police officers were bought. If this don’t get your blood pressure high, then nothing will. I think she was trying to get his blood pressure boiling, and that looked like she was looking for an excuse to arrest him. This is an outrage, and there is going to be more tomorrow. This seems already out of hand. It’s not looking good. All he was doing was asking questions, that’s all.