Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
First tell me why you're against state's rights.
Im not........................ Now why do you insist on a double standard?
Clearly - you are.
Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.
A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.
But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.
To me, it makes sense to have gun licenses valid across state lines
I also think Gay Marriages should be valid across state lines
Don't come to New York.
You'll spend a year or two in Jail.
I , and my concealed S&W .357 snub nose magnum, will be in NYC the day after the Law becomes effective.
Umm .357 is sufficient there is no .357 non magnum is there?
Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.
A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.
But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.
To me, it makes sense to have gun licenses valid across state lines
I also think Gay Marriages should be valid across state lines
Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.
Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.
A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.
But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.
the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the federal constitution just as the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. and all those rights are recognized across state lines.
No state should be able to deny a citizen any right specified in the constitution.
Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.
A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.
But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.
Wow - a consistent conservative.
Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.
A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.
But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.
the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the federal constitution just as the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. and all those rights are recognized across state lines.
No state should be able to deny a citizen any right specified in the constitution.
So what's a well REGULATED militia?
To me, it makes sense to have gun licenses valid across state lines
I also think Gay Marriages should be valid across state lines
Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.
To me, it makes sense to have gun licenses valid across state lines
I also think Gay Marriages should be valid across state lines
Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.
Everyone has a right to marry, its a natural right.
One thing to note is that militias are state organizations not federalones, so this leave the regulations of said militias to the states to me.
But are individuals not belonging to militias covered under the second ammendment?
there is a comma in there not a period.
Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. .
Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.
Everyone has a right to marry, its a natural right.
No one has a right period.
To me, it makes sense to have gun licenses valid across state lines
I also think Gay Marriages should be valid across state lines
Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.
They have a right to get Married in New York
It only makes sense that if you can go to a 7-11 in Arizona and get a handgun permit and have it be valid in New York, you should be able to get married in New York and have it be valid in Arizona
One thing to note is that militias are state organizations not federalones, so this leave the regulations of said militias to the states to me.
But are individuals not belonging to militias covered under the second ammendment?
there is a comma in there not a period.
My understanding is that in the context of the 2nd amendment, the term "militia" doesn't necessarily mean a formal, organized militia - it can refer to all able bodied adults of a state that own firearms.
One thing to note is that militias are state organizations not federalones, so this leave the regulations of said militias to the states to me.
But are individuals not belonging to militias covered under the second ammendment?
there is a comma in there not a period.
My understanding is that in the context of the 2nd amendment, the term "militia" doesn't necessarily mean a formal, organized militia - it can refer to all able bodied adults of a state that own firearms.
Yes, but that is an intrepretation. Not the exact meaning as it was written.
so a strict constitutalionist should stick with the strict meaning I would think.
Definition of MILITIA
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Militia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
I do not think the definition of militia has ever applied to individuals acting individually.