Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 10:01:08 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Bountys bubbles dont rise to the top,


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 10:05:22 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Does it matter to anyone that the open carry law in Virginia only allows the open carry of rifles and shotguns while going to and from a dealer, range or from a place where hunting is being done?


just posted this on the other thread where you said the same thing; this may not be comprehensive, but what little is here does not support your contention

quote:

Open carry is generally allowed without a permit for people 18 years of age and older. The following cities and counties have exceptions that disallow the open carry of "assault weapons" (any firearm that is equipped with a magazine that will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or is designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock) or shotguns equipped with a magazine that holds more than 7 rounds: the Cities of Alexandria, Chesapeake, Fairfax, Falls Church, Newport News, Norfolk, Richmond, and Virginia Beach and in the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Henrico, Loudoun, and Prince William. These restrictions do not apply to valid concealed carry permit holders. Stated differently, you may open carry an assault weapon/shotgun with more than 7 rounds with a permit in the aforementioned locations, but do not need a permit to do so in any other locality in Virginia.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Virginia




Forget wikipedia, go directly to the Virginia gun laws.

Granted, you are going to go blind reading the damn things, and for a state almost as pro gun as Texas, they have a nice way of hiding shit, but but it is there.

Rank it right up there with how they buried the regulations about having a radar detector in a semi.

Those bastards could give you a ticket even if it was unplugged and laying in the passenger seat out of reach from the drivers seat and it would cost you a nice $496 in 1990.

Oh, and I am actively involved in the gun owner movement for open carry and not hiding little regs that will get firearms confiscated from gun owners.

There are a few states that pull this shit, Virginia (known as the communist state to some) is bad about hiding little loopholes to fuck people over in obscure subsections of the statutes.

The state of Texas tried the same bullshit which was why the final open carry law took 3 years to finally get passed, not that it was actually needed, since there is an old law from the early 1900's that stated any citizen could legally openly carry a firearm except when there was a possibility (in the mind of the arresting officer) that the act constituted a threat to public safety.

They could have saved a shit ton of time in just stating what the fuck constituted a threat to public safety.

The same could be said for some of the 'stand your ground laws' around the country, the wording is so vague that in some states a paraplegic in a wheel chair with a pin knife could be considered a threat to personal safety.

But there in lies the rub with a lot of the gun regulations currently in effect, either they are so vague as to be useless, or they hide shit in the subsections as to make it possible for a gun owner to be in violation without knowing it.

My personal opinion, is that any person with the legal right to own a firearm should be allowed to openly carry a gun that would be prudent for self defense while not presenting a possible threat to the general public.

That is to say, it should be perfectly alright to openly carry a pistol without having to have a special permit with the only requirement as having passed a state approved gun safety course, and that being said, the pistol could be anything from a .22 to .450 marlin (largest handgun caliber currently made.)

And the anti gun liberal lobby can go fuck themselves with a barbed wired dildo covered in salt for all I care.

Hell there have been a couple of times I have carried a replica walker colt saddle pistol instead of my preferred baby (a colt 1911 I call Doris- dont ask.)

Now, if someone were to come up with a center fire version of the walker, I could honestly say I would be in heaven.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 10:26:25 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

So, if the neo-Nazi apologists are just about done with their knee-jerk silly defense of "but what about violent lefties . . . "

That's not the topic of this thread. Add it the other threads that address that.

The issue HERE is the suppression of the first amendment by misuse of the second amendment. If you can find gun-totting nuns that fit, fine. What the fuck ever. But if we could have a tiny bit of conversation on the actual topic, that'd be great.

We already know what everyone thinks here about left/right. Yawn.

Now, about the first and second amendments in conflict. I think we can agree, at least, that the founders didn't intend for armed militia to intimidate law-abiding citizens. Or law enforcement. Or even nasty protestors. Because if not, what separates us from Afghanistan or Somalia? Are we to be a nation of warlords?

So how about it? First vs. second amendment. Issues raised in the article in the OP.





[and thats the rub isnit it? The problem is identifying the perps and victims. How about the situation described below? Where the criminal out of control mobocracy uses their courts for mob rule to make so called laws ['color' of law] which are unconstitutional and all these good citizens instead of operating constitutionally are in fact operating under 'special grant of PRIVILEGES and IMMUNITIES from the law', then using the state mobocracy to enforce their special privileges to extort money from other citizens and demonize law abiding constitutionalists?

So we have gun toters who want the freedoms fought and died for and ZioJiz nutsucker who want privileges and immunity from the law.

Yeh reconcile that for us since we built a statist society that is virtually contrary to the organic [constitutional] law of the land, and have to defend our wonderful orwellian double think cognitively dissonant shit mess we have now.


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Stupid Question, from a gun owner, and who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon:

Does it matter to anyone that the open carry law in Virginia only allows the open carry of rifles and shotguns while going to and from a dealer, range or from a place where hunting is being done?

Open carry of pistols is one thing, but what the idiots on both sides were toting around violated the law, unless you are trying to say that every one of them on both sides were going to a gunsmith, just bought the damn things, going to or coming from a shooting range or had just gone hunting and decided at the spur of the moment to take part in a demonstration that, is in essence, stupid on both sides?

I do have a solution to this issue.

The federal government can allow gun owning members of both sides of the issue to use one of the live fire training areas used by the military, we bus em all in and let them blast each other to hell and gone.

Then we leave the dead and wounded out for the buzzards, and whatever else wants to have a free meal.



Great idea jlf!

Be sure to make several more laws that require licensing taxes to go with that so they have to beg permission to exercize a right that needs no fucking permission at all. Your argument follows ZioJiz mass mind control judge deredd 'it da lewal' programming. Anything that infringes on the bearing arms is not a law, but color of law, not that anyone here including those who boast about being attorneys seem to grasp that concept simple as it is.

NO ONE can constitutionally convert a right to a gubmint regulated privilege for ANY reason and that goes for the supreme court and the congress without an amendment to the constitution, good luck with that!


Murdock v. Pennsylvania
319 U.S. 105 (1943)

U.S. Supreme Court
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
No. 480


Here again we are at the same place arent we.... I must have missed that part in the constitution too.


The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, EXCEPT if ZioJiz nutsucking asswipes in Virginia only allow the open carry of rifles and shotguns while going to and from a dealer, range or from a place where hunting is being done!"

Sure enough there it is in the constitution, I missed it damn it, I need to read that constitution really close this time.

Now if you think you or anyone else can constitutionally convert rights we already have to privileges by all means show us how its done other than through hook n crook legalese fucking mind games these courts are using against the people of this nation.






_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 10:34:09 AM   
BoscoX


Posts: 10663
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Bountys bubbles dont rise to the top,



He can post on topic, rather than be nothing more than a troll. So...

_____________________________

Hunter is the smartest guy I know

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 10:40:50 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Oh, and I am actively involved in the gun owner movement for open carry and not hiding little regs that will get firearms confiscated from gun owners.

There are a few states that pull this shit, Virginia (known as the communist state to some) is bad about hiding little loopholes to fuck people over in obscure subsections of the statutes.

The state of Texas tried the same bullshit which was why the final open carry law took 3 years to finally get passed, not that it was actually needed, since there is an old law from the early 1900's that stated any citizen could legally openly carry a firearm except when there was a possibility (in the mind of the arresting officer) that the act constituted a threat to public safety.

They could have saved a shit ton of time in just stating what the fuck constituted a threat to public safety.

The same could be said for some of the 'stand your ground laws' around the country, the wording is so vague that in some states a paraplegic in a wheel chair with a pin knife could be considered a threat to personal safety.

But there in lies the rub with a lot of the gun regulations currently in effect, either they are so vague as to be useless, or they hide shit in the subsections as to make it possible for a gun owner to be in violation without knowing it.

My personal opinion, is that any person with the legal right to own a firearm should be allowed to openly carry a gun that would be prudent for self defense while not presenting a possible threat to the general public.

That is to say, it should be perfectly alright to openly carry a pistol without having to have a special permit with the only requirement as having passed a state approved gun safety course, and that being said, the pistol could be anything from a .22 to .450 marlin (largest handgun caliber currently made.)

And the anti gun liberal lobby can go fuck themselves with a barbed wired dildo covered in salt for all I care.

Hell there have been a couple of times I have carried a replica walker colt saddle pistol instead of my preferred baby (a colt 1911 I call Doris- dont ask.)

Now, if someone were to come up with a center fire version of the walker, I could honestly say I would be in heaven.



jlf, you made several good points.

The courts pad the fucking bill to feed their monopoly as well as legislatures by purposely putting out vague laws, the more vague or the more ways a law can be interpreted the more confusion and the more confusion or ways to interpret a law the more business it generates for the asswipe nutsucking scumbag attorneys and the legal system at large. More extortion, its what gubmint is about now days.

Lower courts in cases involving municipal and other gubmint issues will simply rule for the state forcing you to make several appeals, as they will not take a position against the corrupt colluded municipality, and oft times you even see appeals do the same, especially if its an issue that affects the intake of state dollars, you can bet your ass unless there is absolutely no argument to the contrary that can be made what so ever you are on your way to the supreme court. Thats where its at today, and that if you can beat the state presumptions which may not apply to your case but the judges will happily stretch the meaning of words to suit their agenda, and good luck getting it past the gate keepers since they have summary judgment which violates our right to TRIAL by JURY, leaving it up to a judge to decide circumventing the jury process altogether!

Welcome to the desert of the wonderful world of 'freedom'.

It would be easy to do this constitutionally, simply do like the swiss and have gun education as a requirement course in the schools.



< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/19/2017 11:09:51 AM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 10:53:25 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Bountys bubbles dont rise to the top,



He can post on topic, rather than be nothing more than a troll. So...



I dare you both to name anyone (including myself) that has posted anything but extremist views on either side of the argument.

Christ, even when someone we dont agree with or wouldnt piss on if they were on fire posts a logical argument pro or con, none of us on the boards can accept it.

However, the essence of free speech is to accept that people have the right to say or post anything they wish, even if we disagree with it with every fiber of our existence and if we actually believe in that right, have an obligation to defend their right to be offensive assholes (as a matter of personal opinion) if they so choose.

In other words, if bounty or bosco so desires to post something I consider little more than rehashing of FOX news talking points, which, in my opinion is basically just as biased toward the right as MSNBC and others are to the left, then let them post it.

I have, by the same right, can post arguments to the contrary.

However, with few exceptions, I am going to endeavor to keep personal insults out of future replies.

The exceptions being a poster from Singapore and some dumb bitch that took great pains to tell me that my dog getting hit by a car was my fault (regardless of the fact I spent almost 4 grand trying to make an escape proof fencing system, or the fact that witnesses saw someone swerve off the road to actually hit the dog as she stood next to a fence.)

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 11:13:49 AM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Bountys bubbles dont rise to the top,



He can post on topic, rather than be nothing more than a troll. So...



I dare you both to name anyone (including myself) that has posted anything but extremist views on either side of the argument.

Christ, even when someone we dont agree with or wouldnt piss on if they were on fire posts a logical argument pro or con, none of us on the boards can accept it.

However, the essence of free speech is to accept that people have the right to say or post anything they wish, even if we disagree with it with every fiber of our existence and if we actually believe in that right, have an obligation to defend their right to be offensive assholes (as a matter of personal opinion) if they so choose.

In other words, if bounty or bosco so desires to post something I consider little more than rehashing of FOX news talking points, which, in my opinion is basically just as biased toward the right as MSNBC and others are to the left, then let them post it.

I have, by the same right, can post arguments to the contrary.

However, with few exceptions, I am going to endeavor to keep personal insults out of future replies.

The exceptions being a poster from Singapore and some dumb bitch that took great pains to tell me that my dog getting hit by a car was my fault (regardless of the fact I spent almost 4 grand trying to make an escape proof fencing system, or the fact that witnesses saw someone swerve off the road to actually hit the dog as she stood next to a fence.)



My posts were not extremist views.

Extremists interpreted them that way because their extremist brain was not able to move past itself to comprehend what i was saying.



(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 11:24:06 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

You're not understanding shit again.

Sad.



Always seems to happen to you and only you. Perhaps if you explained using big girl words and ideas you wouldn't have that problem.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 11:28:46 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

Your head is in your ass again. The government often tells you where you can't carry guns, such as schools, places that serve alcohol, court rooms, and government buildings. That's been in the news a lot, at least the issue of guns on campus. You should pay more attention to the news and less to drunk clients.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 11:35:33 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
It has been a while since I lived in Virginia. So, I'll just mention the local carry laws in Mississippi. A summary...

Carrying firearms in a public park, school, government building, festival, sporting game, or at a "gathering of the populace" is banned. Carry of firearms may be permitted with parade, trade meet, or festival permit. A festival permit may require the firearms are unloaded and a loading encumbrance is verified attached.


Not the permitting codicil. That allows a parade permit to include the National Guard drill team to show off with their rifles. It allows for gun shows to have a police officer at the door verifying weapons clear and putting orange tie wraps through the chamber as they come in the door. It allows for the marching band to use signal cannon for rendering the 1812 overture.

If the parade in Chancellorsville were held in Mississippi; anyone showing up armed would be subject to charges. Baseball bats, sticks, bricks, would be bludgeoning weapons and part and parcel of being "armed". Personally, I think the City of Charlottesville should have responded with fire hoses when the violence first broke out.

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 11:37:34 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Now there's a thought.

Though there were folks carrying firearms. I can't believe they'd just stand there and get wet.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 11:42:34 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

At the risk of being shot down in flames, I have to point out that the United States of America is just about the only place in the world that it is deemed acceptable to bring offensive weapons to a public march.

I know that you guys have a unique perspective on this subject, and I respect that, but almost everywhere in the world that the rule of law holds being part of an armed group on the streets would practically guarantee a forceful police or military response. I'm not a big fan of private citizens carrying guns, except when hunting or involved in sport, but when it is as part of an armed group claiming to be demonstrating peacefully it seems a bit absurd. Carrying a gun for self protection is very different from making it clear that you are armed while you are demonstrating.

Just one other thought. A car rams into a crowd of people with the explicit intent of causing serious injury in Europe and it is terrorism. I am struggling to see why this is any different.

I've legally carried guns for years. I believe the city, county, state has every right to exclude carrying guns at any gathering they permit. Well, unless it was a Faternal Order of Police picnic. I have no problem with them checking of guns among protesters. I have no problem with your concept of the rule of law of armed groups on the streets. Anyone that wanted an armed group for a demonstration then could decide whether or not to attend the "peaceful" demonstration. As an aside, where I live, if the sheriff showed up on my property and expected me not to be armed he'd be foolish.

(in reply to longwayhome)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 11:52:13 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
If only they'd all stayed home. Everyone would be fine with the firearms then.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 12:58:00 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

At the risk of being shot down in flames, I have to point out that the United States of America is just about the only place in the world that it is deemed acceptable to bring offensive weapons to a public march.

I know that you guys have a unique perspective on this subject, and I respect that, but almost everywhere in the world that the rule of law holds being part of an armed group on the streets would practically guarantee a forceful police or military response. I'm not a big fan of private citizens carrying guns, except when hunting or involved in sport, but when it is as part of an armed group claiming to be demonstrating peacefully it seems a bit absurd. Carrying a gun for self protection is very different from making it clear that you are armed while you are demonstrating.

Just one other thought. A car rams into a crowd of people with the explicit intent of causing serious injury in Europe and it is terrorism. I am struggling to see why this is any different.

I've legally carried guns for years. I believe the city, county, state has every right to exclude carrying guns at any gathering they permit. Well, unless it was a Faternal Order of Police picnic. I have no problem with them checking of guns among protesters. I have no problem with your concept of the rule of law of armed groups on the streets. Anyone that wanted an armed group for a demonstration then could decide whether or not to attend the "peaceful" demonstration. As an aside, where I live, if the sheriff showed up on my property and expected me not to be armed he'd be foolish.



well then you have a fucked up belief system since the gubmint has no rights what so ever, they have 'authority' granted by the people, not one spec more.

So you are part of the problem not the solution, and promote the destruction of the constitution for some unknown whatever you think is better with complete disregard to the fact that the bill of rights is fire tested over thousands of years how to prevent the overlords from taking over, and you just hand it to them on a platter.

The second applies liberty, thqat is the carrying of arms outside your property.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 1:01:05 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

If only they'd all stayed home. Everyone would be fine with the firearms then.



yeh thats what the constitution is for right?

You can have free speech at home, right to assmble at home, petition th egubmint at home, exercise your religion at home democracy at home brilliant!

Bosco is right about one thing a whole board full or howlers.


so reserved rights secured by the constitution are for home use only is that it?


< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/19/2017 1:13:47 PM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 1:08:53 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
Wikipedia referenced the gun laws.

if what i posted from Wikipedia is incorrect, YOU go to the laws and find the appropriate writing that amends what Wikipedia says or provides direct support of your contention.

that's the way it works---or at least is supposed to work.


< Message edited by bounty44 -- 8/19/2017 1:26:26 PM >

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 1:14:02 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Meanwhile, back at the topic: First vs. Second Amendment.


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 1:14:28 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Bountys bubbles dont rise to the top,



He can post on topic, rather than be nothing more than a troll. So...


I don't expect liberals to accept anything conservative or libertarian that I post---but unfortunately, im continually finding they also are incapable of rational thought.

not that I want to convert any of them---but when an argument is well made, or well said, or supported, or a counter argument is well critiqued, or whatever "well"---they aren't even capable of acknowledging or understanding that.

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 1:16:33 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech



Carrying firearms in a public park, school, government building, festival, sporting game, or at a "gathering of the populace" is banned.




yeh we all get it, thats the way its done and the states trample the constitution without batting an eye, we get it. Really we get it, the problem is that you and your ilk do not get it.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed EXCEPT in a public park, school, government building, festival, sporting game, or at a "gathering of the populace".

No matter what I do I just keep missing that part in the constitution and there it is in black and white.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech - 8/19/2017 1:16:55 PM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Bountys bubbles dont rise to the top,



He can post on topic, rather than be nothing more than a troll. So...


I don't expect liberals to accept anything conservative or libertarian that I post---but unfortunately, im continually finding they also are incapable of rational thought.

not that I want to convert any of them---but when an argument is well made, or well said, or supported, or a counter argument is well critiqued, or whatever "well"---they aren't even capable of acknowledging or understanding that.



Your assumption is that they want to understand. They don't. They live on emotional energy and that's why they like graphics so much.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.240