Debate: Constitutional Provision for Gun Ownership is Out of Date with Current Realities

Discussion in 'Congress' started by rocket propelled, Jan 7, 2017.

  1. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    35,807
    Thanks Received:
    4,966
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Ratings:
    +16,779
    Your reading of Heller is of course wrong, and biased by your "ME LAW ENFORCEMENT ME GET GUNS YOU DON'T" bullshit.


    I don't care about the training requirements, they are a non issue because I have the right to keep and bear arms, and unless I am convicted of a felony or mentally adjudicated no government entity has the constitutional power to say otherwise.
     
  2. Conservative65
    Offline

    Conservative65 BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    24,927
    Thanks Received:
    2,091
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +9,766
    Plenty of you lefties constantly talk about gun control but when offered the chance to take away, individually, what you say people shouldn't own, you hide behind the government.
     
  3. Conservative65
    Offline

    Conservative65 BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    24,927
    Thanks Received:
    2,091
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +9,766
    They have the power to promulgate the law based on the authority the supreme law at that level of government allows them to do so. When whatever body establishes law beyond that authority, they aren't making law but pushing an agenda.

    You idiots on the left talk about what you think related to something that is in the Constitution (2nd Amendment) yet have no problem with pushing an agenda involving things for which the Constitution makes absolutely no mention (marriage, social welfare, healthcare).
     
  4. Conservative65
    Offline

    Conservative65 BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    24,927
    Thanks Received:
    2,091
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +9,766
    They do the same thing with the Constitution itself. More than once, a lefty has argued that the 2nd amendment related to the militia. A cursory reading of my State's laws provide something that stated who was considered to be in the militia in my State. Three standards were set and I met one of them.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Frankeneinstein
    Offline

    Frankeneinstein VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,151
    Thanks Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +1,286
    My compliments to you as well

    Who said they could? I said the lefts argument is transparent, not that it was possible, you just keep making it about something else

    Have no idea, and for the purpose of this post don't care what they would or would not support...the argument is transparent as is evidenced by the title of the thread....that for some reason you just keep running from pillar to post to avoid.
     
  6. fncceo
    Offline

    fncceo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Messages:
    4,654
    Thanks Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +6,087
    Speak for yourself.
     
  7. Wry Catcher
    Online

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    37,316
    Thanks Received:
    4,918
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +11,534
    What does the phrase "general Welfare" mean to you?
     
  8. Conservative65
    Offline

    Conservative65 BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    24,927
    Thanks Received:
    2,091
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +9,766
    The concept of creating an environment where people do for themselves what they should be doing for themselves. It does not mean a situation where one group is constantly forced to provide for another group with socialist based programs.

    General welfare does not mean social welfare. Social welfare enables people to refuse to do for themselves yet still get for nothing what those who do for themselves have to earn.

    It's not the responsibility of the government to fund healthcare, food, clothing, shelter, or anything else people should be providing themselves. When a government enables those that can do for themselves the ability to skirt that responsibility, they aren't promoting the general welfare, they are destroying. If an able bodied person won't do for themselves, I have no problem seeing them go without. While I do believe everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, their right to do so should not infringe on my rights.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content