vote your conscience not your wallet

[DeletedUser36572]

So, I ask again, who’s to say the government doesn’t ban the sale of firearms, but they ban the presence of them in public areas. Meaning, you can only keep your firearm in your home. By your logic, you should be OK with that.

Public property is not private property.

Plus ... A lot of laws barring firearms in public places (schools) are basically window dressing.

For instance, if you read the laws, and then the exceptions, you will find that the exceptions often negate the law into being ineffectual.

For instance, in my state, Federal Law denies a firearm with 1500 feet of school property ... With the exceptions your home is with 1500 feet of school property. In my state, your vehicle is considered an extension of your home.

So ... I can legally drive up to the front door of a school with a fully loaded firearm. And I will not break any laws, unless I start shooting people.

Plus ... I can gain the priviledge to carry on school property by simply applying for permission to do so (we still teach Hunter’s Education on school property here).

Edit:
Does it irritate big goverment Statist and Marxist when they figure out the politically elite will do whatever they can to limit the General public’s liberties, but will always fall short of limiting everyone’s liberties? They will protect their own liberties and put limits on the people stupid enough to keep voting for them.

 

[Freshmeboy]

Interesting arguments here with lively discussion. I applaud you all for ten pages without resorting to personal attacks or name calling..While amendment rights are the topic at present, I'd like to point out the travesty that is the Stop and ID laws in several states around the country a direct violation of our fourth amendment rights and upheld by the Supreme Court. The same court whose profound duty is to monitor and protect our freedoms under the Constitution...

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Exactly. So her "belief" isn't absolute, it depends on whether it's her "freedom" being curtailed or someone else's. Which is why it's hypocrisy.

You are starting to figure it out.

Your desires don’t trump my freedoms. The freedom to govern my private property is as protected as my freedom to bear arms in the Constitution. I cannot/won’t restrict someone’s freedom to exercise their liberties where I am not granted the power to do so.

But ... Government never gets that correct ... Like Hunter’s Education at school.

Seems like that would be impossible ... Until the government passes a law that requires Hunter’s Ed to acquire the priviledge of a Hunting License.

Since it is unconstitutional to limit the ability to exercise a protected freedom ... When they required the certification, it would be unconstitutional to limit the kids from having reasonable access towards acquiring the required training.

It is often hard for Statist to appreciate the ability/right/freedom to self-govern, because it negates their ability to control and restrict the freedoms of others. Mainly because they don’t have what it takes to achieve their goals on their own and in regards to their desires for what they have been granted the power to govern.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

It is often hard for Statist to appreciate the ability/right/freedom to self-govern, because it negates their ability to control and restrict the freedoms of others. Mainly because they don’t have what it takes to achieve their goals on their own and in regards to their desires for what they have been granted the power to govern.

Indeed. Why is it that those who won't govern themselves, always want to govern others?

 

[DeletedUser]

Indeed. Why is it that those who won't govern themselves, always want to govern others?

Nice Fox News talking point, but incorrect. And what little truth there may be to the statement would equally apply to all points on the political spectrum.

Your desires don’t trump my freedoms.

You keep talking about your "freedoms" as if they (and you) are independent of society. For that to be true, you would have to buy yourself an island and go live there. Each society decides what freedoms there are within it, not individuals.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

I think it’s easy to see from the past 10 comments that there is not two beliefs on this matter or even one sole truth to it either.

Bipartisanship has worsened over the past 4 years and it has worsened the state of the Union. DT is using the bipartisanship and exploiting it for his own gain, which sickens me. He’s not the only one, not even close. Democrats and Republicans have polarized to such a point that it’s nearly impossible to get anything accomplished at this point.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Nice Fox News talking point, but incorrect. And what little truth there may be to the statement would equally apply to all points on the political spectrum.

As far as that being a Fox News talking point, I wouldn't know. I don't watch any network news. I'm interested in truth, not propaganda, from either side of the political spectrum. That you think there's a spectrum is laughable. There's right/wrong, good/evil. Attempting to strip your fellow citizens of their God given right to defend themselves, even from their own Government, is evil. Pure evil.

You, being Mr. Bible teacher man, should know that God intended Himself to be all the Government that was ever needed. When Jesus returns, that is indeed how it will be. But Israel didn't want to be answerable only to God, they wanted a king like the other nations. As God explained to Samuel, Israel was not rejecting Samuel they were rejecting Him, God. All Governments are instituted by men to oppose the evil perpetrated by other men. When the Government itself becomes infected by evil men (and women) and becomes the evil that needs to be opposed, I will exercise my God given right to defend myself from an evil Government.

Wonder what would have happened had the German people not allowed Hitler to disarm them on his rise to power? That's the point most 2nd Amendment adherents will run someone like him out on a rail. Which is why there are those in our Government who want to disarm us. You can't usher in the one world government (New World Order) and the beast system with an armed US populace.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

That you think there's a spectrum is laughable. There's right/wrong, good/evil. Attempting to strip your fellow citizens of their God given right to defend themselves, even from their own Government, is evil. Pure evil.

This is where you are incorrect. There’s grey area. What’s right for you may not be right for me, and vice verse. If I do not feel safe around guns, then you are infringing on my right to defend myself and feel secure by being there. Why don’t I leave? Why don’t you leave? See? That’s the conflict. How is your right to bear arms greater than my right for a sense of good security? It’s not. That’s why there’s conflict. Because there is not JUST right and wrong. There’s middle ground.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

There’s grey area. What’s right for you may not be right for me, and vice verse.

This is where you are incorrect. There are absolutes which are non-negotiable. Right and wrong are not subjective, nor are Rights, capital R, Rights. The only reason there is a conflict is you want to deny me of something God has given me. There is no bi-partisan agreement possible, you have nothing to offer. All you want is to control others, sorry, your irrational fears have no bearing on me, my Rights, or my ability to exercise my Rights.

Why do you want to infringe on your fellow American's God given Rights? What makes you believe you even have the right to do so?

 

[DeletedUser]

your irrational fears

Look in the mirror.

You, being Mr. Bible teacher man, should know that God intended Himself to be all the Government that was ever needed.

For the nation of Israel in Old Testament times you would be correct, but only in that case. And even in that case God was the one that instituted the line of kings after Saul. He chose David and had him anointed to rule. In fact, even though God intended to be Israel's only ruler, he still had Saul anointed to rule when He gave the Israelites what they asked for. (Yes, another case illustrating that you should be careful what you ask for.)

Wonder what would have happened had the German people not allowed Hitler to disarm them on his rise to power?

Such ignorance of history. Check this article in response to Ben Carson's spurious claim of the same thing.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...en-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/
In particular this section:

"German gun laws

As the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany, it inherited a 1928 gun registration law that had replaced a total ban on gun ownership imposed on a defeated Germany after World War I. The 1928 law created a permit system to own and sell firearms and ammunition.

"But this order was followed quite rarely, so that largely, only newly bought weapons became registered," said Dagmar Ellerbrock, an expert on German gun policies at the Dresden Technical University. "At that time, most men, and many women, still owned the weapons they acquired before or during the first World War."...

...The Nazis adopted a new gun law in 1938. According to an analysis by Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia University School of Law, it loosened gun ownership rules in several ways.

It deregulated the buying and selling of rifles, shotguns and ammunition. It made handguns easier to own by allowing anyone with a hunting license to buy, sell or carry one at any time. (You didn’t need to be hunting.) It also extended the permit period from one year to three and gave local officials more discretion in letting people under 18 get a gun.

The regulations to implement this law, rather than the law itself, did impose new limits on one group: Jews."

As you can see, the truth is exactly the opposite of what you (and Ben Carson) claim.

Why do you want to infringe on your fellow American's God given Rights?

Where exactly does it say anywhere that owning/possessing semi-automatic weapons is a "God given Right"???

As far as that being a Fox News talking point, I wouldn't know. I don't watch any network news.

Then you must frequent far right-wing websites, because pretty much everything you say parrots their dubious logic.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

There are absolutes which are non-negotiable. Right and wrong are not subjective, nor are Rights, capital R, Rights. The only reason there is a conflict is you want to deny me of something God has given me. There is no bi-partisan agreement possible, you have nothing to offer. All you want is to control others, sorry, your irrational fears have no bearing on me, my Rights, or my ability to exercise my Rights.

Riddle me this: A woman leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of said cave. In a short time, the tide will rise, and unless she is unstuck, they will all drown except the woman whose head is outside of the cave. Now, say someone has some kind of tool that will remove the woman, but kill her in the process. There’s no other way out except through her, and they will die if she is not forcibly removed. What should be done in this situation? What would you do?

Because from your past responses, it seems your God given Right to live trumps hers? Is that right? Or wrong? Or grey?

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Look in the mirror.

Then you must frequent far right-wing websites, because pretty much everything you say parrots their dubious logic.

Exactly how and when did supporting the founding principles of the country become far right wing? You've completely lost the ability to think on your own. You've become fully indoctrinated, and you refuse to even do the research. You use no logic, you have no logic. You simply repeat the talking points, from Politifact? The far left 'fact checker?'

 

[DeletedUser]

Exactly how and when did supporting the founding principles of the country become far right wing?

Did I say that? No, I didn't. But nice try.

You've completely lost the ability to think on your own. You've become fully indoctrinated, and you refuse to even do the research. You use no logic, you have no logic.

Excuse me? By the way, did you find where God gave you the Right to own/possess a semi-automatic weapon? That's what you're saying.

You simply repeat the talking points, from Politifact? The far left 'fact checker?'

So show me the authoritative rebuttal to what I researched and found. I'll wait.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Riddle me this: A woman leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of said cave. In a short time, the tide will rise, and unless she is unstuck, they will all drown except the woman whose head is outside of the cave. Now, say someone has some kind of tool that will remove the woman, but kill her in the process. There’s no other way out except through her, and they will die if she is not forcibly removed. What should be done in this situation? What would you do?

Because from your past responses, it seems your God given Right to live trumps hers? Is that right? Or wrong? Or grey?

What does that have to do with disarming your fellow Americans? The Dems have made it clear multiple times, their goal is full disarmament of the American public. Why do you support this? Have you no understanding of history? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot? Oh wait, these are your idols, right? Socialist misery for all? At the point of a Government gun? Why do you hate those who would stand for individual Liberty? Why does that scare you?

 

[RazorbackPirate]

By the way, did you find where God gave you the Right to own/possess a semi-automatic weapon? That's what you're saying.

Show me where the Constitution limits what weapons US citizens are able to own? In fact, at the time of ratification, the weapons the people owned were the same weapons the military owned. So, the question is not what makes me think I can own semi-automatic weapons (nothing more than a rifle, a weapon that fires a single bullet, for each single trigger pull, no different than any other rifle, revolver, or handgun), the question is, what makes you think I can't?

 

[DeletedUser]

Show me where the Constitution limits what weapons US citizens are able to own? In fact, at the time of ratification, the weapons the people owned were the same weapons the military owned. So, the question is not what makes me think I can own semi-automatic weapons (nothing more than a rifle, a weapon that fires a single bullet, for each single trigger pull, no different than any other rifle, revolver, or handgun), the question is, what makes you think I can't?

Quit evading the question. Where does it say that owning a semi-automatic weapon is a "God given Right"? I'm still waiting on that...and on your proof that Hitler disarmed anyone but the Jews.

The Dems have made it clear multiple times, their goal is full disarmament of the American public.

That might be the few of a small minority, but not true of all those who want common sense gun control. Quit evading the topic with these far-right talking points. Apparently you are into the "baffle them with bull-pies" stage.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

What does that have to do with disarming your fellow Americans?

It doesn’t. I was providing a counter-argument against your absolute truths. You have been given an “inalienable” right by the Creator to defend yourself. However, this woman who is merely in an unfortunate situation who by this situation is endangering your life also has an inalienable right to life. So, what do you do? You did not answer that.

The Dems have made it clear multiple times, their goal is full disarmament of the American public. Why do you support this?

Name 5 Democrats who support full disarmament of the people in clear violation of the 2nd amendment. I guarantee all you will find is automatic weaponry disarming, guns whose sole purpose is to destroy as many lives as possible. Why do you support the ability to have these weapons?

Have you no understanding of history? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot? Socialist misery for all? At the point of a Government gun? Why do you hate those who would stand for individual Liberty? Why does that scare you?

See, here’s the thing about those guys: they were communist dictators. Socialism is not, not, a political standpoint. It has only to do with economy. It’s a big, scary 4 syllable word that the fat cat capitalists would have you associate it with communism because that is generally what it is attributed to. There is a thing called a Socialist Democracy. And no, while it hasn’t worked out for Venezuela that was just coming out of being a dictatorship, it could very easily happen where a well established democracy has been for decades, like Germany.

 

[Godly Luke]

in 1945, the generals of the Japanese army and navy were interviewed by US officials. I won't be using the exact quotes more of what the general interview was about. "Instead of attack Pearl Harbor, why didn't you just invade the US from the Pacific Ocean?" "Because we knew every single American had a gun. We would have to fight the entire country, not just the army, navy, marines, air force and all the other enlisted men. The Americans would fight to the end. They wouldn't surrender. By then, almost every American would be dead. What good is a country with no people?" With the government taking away guns from people, our soil becomes more vulnerable that ever before in history.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Indeed. Why is it that those who won't govern themselves, always want to govern others?

I am pretty sure these geniuses don’t think that if they support the right to free speech, and don’t allow me to stand in their living room and say whatever I want, they are hypocrites.

It’s the firearms ... They hate firearms so bad, they will make up crap they don’t even believe to argue with you.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

I am pretty sure these geniuses don’t think that if they support the right to free speech, and don’t allow me to stand in their living room and say whatever I want, they are hypocrites.

It’s the firearms ... They hate firearms so bad, they will make up crap they don’t even believe to argue with you.

Unless you’re shouting angrily at me, I wouldn’t feel endangered by the words coming out of your mouth. So, no, it’s not two peas in the same pod. I can also have people check their guns and their opinions at the door of my own private home. I never argued against you on that. I simply said the government can do the same by that regard.