the right to bear arms (152)
lindsyjones: Are you for it? Or NOT?
Why?
This is part of the Constitutional amendment ratified in December 1791.
Although primarily created to arm the citizens against tyrannical rule, today there's a lot of other reasons why it's still in effect.
One of the most debated topic today and I would love to hear the pros and cons. Thanks all for your participation.
Why?
This is part of the Constitutional amendment ratified in December 1791.
Although primarily created to arm the citizens against tyrannical rule, today there's a lot of other reasons why it's still in effect.
One of the most debated topic today and I would love to hear the pros and cons. Thanks all for your participation.
Oh yay...here we go again
------ This thread is Archived ------
unlaoised: Oh yay...here we go again
Which means? Do I sense that you don't like me, neither are my post, yet you keep on coming in here. What's exactly your motivation? I don't need your permission to put out any topic of my choice, do I? Especially when it's affecting so many of us in my country.
I expect you not to like me at all but being so negative kn my controversial post is not expected of you. I suggest you should stay out of it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lindsyjones: Are you for it? Or NOT?
Why?
This is part of the Constitutional amendment ratified in December 1791.
Although primarily created to arm the citizens against tyrannical rule, today there's a lot of other reasons why it's still in effect.
One of the most debated topic today and I would love to hear the pros and cons. Thanks all for your participation.
Why?
This is part of the Constitutional amendment ratified in December 1791.
Although primarily created to arm the citizens against tyrannical rule, today there's a lot of other reasons why it's still in effect.
One of the most debated topic today and I would love to hear the pros and cons. Thanks all for your participation.
Yes, it does appear to be one of the most debated topics.
The most recent thread was contributed to 20 hours ago:
And there's plenty of other recent threads on the subject if you're interested in people's opinions.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lindsyjones: Are you for it? Or NOT?
Why?
This is part of the Constitutional amendment ratified in December 1791.
Although primarily created to arm the citizens against tyrannical rule, today there's a lot of other reasons why it's still in effect.
One of the most debated topic today and I would love to hear the pros and cons. Thanks all for your participation.
Why?
This is part of the Constitutional amendment ratified in December 1791.
Although primarily created to arm the citizens against tyrannical rule, today there's a lot of other reasons why it's still in effect.
One of the most debated topic today and I would love to hear the pros and cons. Thanks all for your participation.
I heard Hilary's confusing position on this agenda and I am not sure if she wants to take away this right.
------ This thread is Archived ------
jac_the_gripper: Yes, it does appear to be one of the most debated topics.
The most recent thread was contributed to 20 hours ago:
And there's plenty of other recent threads on the subject if you're interested in people's opinions.
The most recent thread was contributed to 20 hours ago:
And there's plenty of other recent threads on the subject if you're interested in people's opinions.
Thanks for your information. I was listening to the respond of Hilary last night previewed on the news and yes I am interested to know what impact she would create about this. I'm sure your country is not affected, I suppose. You don't have this right, do you?
------ This thread is Archived ------
lindsyjones: Are you for it? Or NOT? Why?This is part of the Constitutional amendment ratified in December 1791.
No I am not.
Why ?
Because by having no restrictions it is totally out of date and barbaric in any civilized society and especially one which claims it rules the world yet hypocritically allows anyone to
1. Legally carry a Bible in one hand and a Gun in the in the other
2. Legally allows the continued persecution of the American Indian nation,
3. Legally allows the wearing of a White Burka, Funny pointy hat with slits for the eyes only and carrying a burning cross to persecute the Afro American.
If you had a less corrupt social and voting system where big mouths and bigger money talks and buys votes you would have had the guts to have banned all Guns from anyone other than the Police, Military and Security Guards whose physical and mental records must be checked every 6 months.
Those who are tested and found medically and/or mentally unfit to hold a licence should not be able to either get one and/or keep or to carry any gun whatsoever.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lindsyjones: Are you for it? Or NOT? Why?This is part of the Constitutional amendment ratified in December 1791.
No I am not.
Why ?
Because by having no restrictions it is totally out of date and barbaric in any civilized society and especially one which claims it rules the world yet hypocritically allows anyone to
1. Legally carry a Bible in one hand and a Gun in the in the other
2. Legally allows the continued persecution of the American Indian nation,
3. Legally allows the wearing of a White Burka, Funny pointy hat with slits for the eyes only and carrying a burning cross to persecute the Afro American.
If you had a less corrupt social and voting system where big mouths and bigger money talks and buys votes you would have had the guts to have banned all Guns from anyone other than the Police, Military and Security Guards whose physical and mental records must be checked every 6 months.
Those who are tested and found medically and/or mentally unfit to hold a licence should not be able to either get one and/or keep or to carry any gun whatsoever.
------ This thread is Archived ------
MikeD12: No I am not.
Why ?
Because by having no restrictions it is totally out of date and barbaric in any civilized society and especially one which claims it rules the world yet hypocritically allows anyone to
1. Legally carry a Bible in one hand and a Gun in the in the other
2. Legally allows the continued persecution of the American Indian nation,
3. Legally allows the wearing of a White Burka, Funny pointy hat with slits for the eyes only and carrying a burning cross to persecute the Afro American.
If you had a less corrupt social and voting system where big mouths and bigger money talks and buys votes you would have had the guts to have banned all Guns from anyone other than the Police, Military and Security Guards whose physical and mental records must be checked every 6 months.
Those who are tested and found medically and/or mentally unfit to hold a licence should not be able to either get one and/or keep or to carry any gun whatsoever.
Why ?
Because by having no restrictions it is totally out of date and barbaric in any civilized society and especially one which claims it rules the world yet hypocritically allows anyone to
1. Legally carry a Bible in one hand and a Gun in the in the other
2. Legally allows the continued persecution of the American Indian nation,
3. Legally allows the wearing of a White Burka, Funny pointy hat with slits for the eyes only and carrying a burning cross to persecute the Afro American.
If you had a less corrupt social and voting system where big mouths and bigger money talks and buys votes you would have had the guts to have banned all Guns from anyone other than the Police, Military and Security Guards whose physical and mental records must be checked every 6 months.
Those who are tested and found medically and/or mentally unfit to hold a licence should not be able to either get one and/or keep or to carry any gun whatsoever.
Mike thanks for your opinion. Here is my dilemma, though, whether we like it or not, guns and ammos are made, and who will buy them? The criminals don't seem to have a problem getting them? Why not provide that right to those that will only use it to defend themselves?
Anyway, you have a very interesting side points there and I would love to hear others take on them.
------ This thread is Archived ------
water guns are best
------ This thread is Archived ------
pedro27: water guns are best
Yes indeed Pedro. How are you? Hope you are enjoying your day/night.
------ This thread is Archived ------
here go the Banausen again!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: here go the Banausen again!
Hello Conrad. I think all the candidates on both parties are going to make a good agenda out of it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Debating is all our government ever does.They talk big talk on their campaign trails but neither party ever really come to a solution or really walk the walk.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ccincy: Debating is all our government ever does.They talk big talk on their campaign trails but neither party ever really come to a solution or really walk the walk.
It is sad CC but it seems we are truly big on talk indeed and not good in actions. Except of course, you know, war?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed
to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual
right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the
Constitution that mention 'the people,' the term
unambiguously refers to all members of the political
community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment
extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment
implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and
declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.'
Justice Antonin Scalia (b. 1936)
District of Columbia v. Heller, June 26, 2008
to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual
right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the
Constitution that mention 'the people,' the term
unambiguously refers to all members of the political
community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment
extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment
implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and
declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.'
Justice Antonin Scalia (b. 1936)
District of Columbia v. Heller, June 26, 2008
------ This thread is Archived ------
lindsyjones: Are you for it? Or NOT?
Why?
This is part of the Constitutional amendment ratified in December 1791.
Although primarily created to arm the citizens against tyrannical rule, today there's a lot of other reasons why it's still in effect.
One of the most debated topic today and I would love to hear the pros and cons. Thanks all for your participation.
Why?
This is part of the Constitutional amendment ratified in December 1791.
Although primarily created to arm the citizens against tyrannical rule, today there's a lot of other reasons why it's still in effect.
One of the most debated topic today and I would love to hear the pros and cons. Thanks all for your participation.
I'm for it.
but I have to wonder what's going to really happen as a lot of States are legalizing medical and party marijuana. Federal law still trumps State or Local laws. What a lot of folks may not realize yet is that if they smoke the weed I believe that they have to forfeit their conceal carry permits and usually can not purchase guns afterwards.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lindsyjones: It is sad CC but it seems we are truly big on talk indeed and not good in actions. Except of course, you know, war?
Gal obviously war is big business.
------ This thread is Archived ------
galrads: I'm for it. but I have to wonder what's going to really happen as a lot of States are legalizing medical and party marijuana. Federal law still trumps State or Local laws.
What a lot of folks may not realize yet is that if they smoke the weed I believe that they have to forfeit their conceal carry permits and usually can not purchase guns afterwards.
What a lot of folks may not realize yet is that if they smoke the weed I believe that they have to forfeit their conceal carry permits and usually can not purchase guns afterwards.
Galrads thanks for joining in. You're right, now that the law on marijuana is legal, definitely will make it questionable to have that right granted to the same person. I agree with you, they must not be allowed to be licensed if they are under medication.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ccincy: Gal obviously war is big business.
Indeed CC.------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
This is a thread that might become a poll..about charging everyone for membership but read!!!
makeover
Have it both ways!
biggest lie
If Our Profiles Were Truly Honest
So, . . .
Manifesting
What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
Keep It Going!
Iran- Israel war
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
6,550 Views
151 Comments
Created: Oct 2015
Last Viewed: Apr 17
Last Commented: Oct 2015
0 Likes
Why?
This is part of the Constitutional amendment ratified in December 1791.
Although primarily created to arm the citizens against tyrannical rule, today there's a lot of other reasons why it's still in effect.
One of the most debated topic today and I would love to hear the pros and cons. Thanks all for your participation.