Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'll ask you. Do you think we should have control?
Absolutely.
You have no business picking up a gun if you can't control it.
Learn the features before loading it, especially the safety features. Sight it in, understand the range and recoil of the weapon.
A shooter must have control of the weapon.
Thanks for answering .Then the dispute is what controls .
I am not against gun ownership . I took the safety class , next step is to apply for my license .
[
How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?
IMO a criminal is a criminal[
so who here says that any felon should be able to buy a gun?
if there's that many it should be easy to find a quote
It depends on the felony.
Stripping civil rights from someone convicted of cheating on their taxes rubs me the wrong way.
Violent felons are a different story.
choose to break the law lose your rights
Have you ever got a speeding ticket?
Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies
Yes, but the 4th circuit utterly and completely ignored the settled law and precedent.
IMO a criminal is a criminal[
so who here says that any felon should be able to buy a gun?
if there's that many it should be easy to find a quote
It depends on the felony.
Stripping civil rights from someone convicted of cheating on their taxes rubs me the wrong way.
Violent felons are a different story.
choose to break the law lose your rights
Have you ever got a speeding ticket?
Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies
You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.
Yes, but the 4th circuit utterly and completely ignored the settled law and precedent.
It would appear so but the legal precedent has been established that states have the right to apply regulations while the fed doesn't, like Pupps stated yesterday.
4th Circuit Upholds Maryland's 'Assault Weapon' Ban
Yes, but the 4th circuit utterly and completely ignored the settled law and precedent.
It would appear so but the legal precedent has been established that states have the right to apply regulations while the fed doesn't, like Pupps stated yesterday.
4th Circuit Upholds Maryland's 'Assault Weapon' Ban
Yet Heller established that states do not have a right to infringe the 2nd. (as did the 14th Amendment.) The 4th violated both the precedent of Heller and the 14th with their openly unconstitutional ruling.
Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.
It's not a States matter, the 2nd Amendment is one of the least ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Exactly what is hard to understand about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."?
infringe
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
It's simple, any act to limit or undermine the right IS AN INFRINGEMENT, no government entity has that right constitutionally, federal, State or local. Rights can only be withheld as a result of due process.
The problem there is requiring a license doesn't prohibit people from that right. So if challenged, that may be the grounds on which they base their case. You have to register to vote. In some states, you have to obtain a Voter-ID as well.
Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.
It's not a States matter, the 2nd Amendment is one of the least ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Exactly what is hard to understand about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."?
infringe
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
It's simple, any act to limit or undermine the right IS AN INFRINGEMENT, no government entity has that right constitutionally, federal, State or local. Rights can only be withheld as a result of due process.
IMO a criminal is a criminalIt depends on the felony.
Stripping civil rights from someone convicted of cheating on their taxes rubs me the wrong way.
Violent felons are a different story.
choose to break the law lose your rights
Have you ever got a speeding ticket?
Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies
You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.
And that is wrong.
Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.
It's not a States matter, the 2nd Amendment is one of the least ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Exactly what is hard to understand about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."?
infringe
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
It's simple, any act to limit or undermine the right IS AN INFRINGEMENT, no government entity has that right constitutionally, federal, State or local. Rights can only be withheld as a result of due process.
What is unconstitutional about this law?
don't believe your own, right wing propaganda?should we give Chicago, "the memo"?We've had unlicensed conceal/carry in Arizona for a couple years now.....Very little "road rage" any more other than by drunks because everybody has a little something close-by. A mechanic buddy of mine told me he's surprised when he doesn't see a pistol in the glove box or under the seat when the vehicle is in his shop. So far so good...only ones getting shot are those who have it coming.
Chicago???? OH Yea, that's the place with all those tough gun restrictions.
Very little "road rage" any more other than by drunks because everybody has a little something close-by.
The memo should be, more guns equals less crime.
is our military and police exempt from your otherwise, cognitive dissonance?When the federal government regulates anything it fucks over the citizens of this country.Only the unorganized militia whines about it, instead of having a solution of getting well regulated.we have the 2nd and yet I cannot buy certain rifles or magazines in my stateHow is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?
Because it leads to confiscation....as was done in Germany, France, Britain and Australia...it is not the governments business to know who owns a gun...
Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .
And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?
Dear, there can be, no Militia of One. That means we lost. Only paid regulars can afford, paid advertisement.I am a militia of one charged with the protection of my wife and propertySimply mustering into well regulated militia, secures your rights, literally.Are you stupid in the head or are you continually falling down the well.Bingo !
That's why guns should have "titles" like cars . But nooooooo the GOP doesn't want that .
Any form of firearm registration is 100% unconstitutional… Fact
How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?
Really? Registration is the first step on the road to confiscation
Do you have to register to exercise any other Constitutionally protected right?
No.
You claim that; but low population density is what red states red areas use for cover; unlike high population blue states and blue areas.still trying to claim that more guns equals less crime?still don't know the difference between a law abiding gun owner and a criminal huh?should we give Chicago, "the memo"?We've had unlicensed conceal/carry in Arizona for a couple years now.....Very little "road rage" any more other than by drunks because everybody has a little something close-by. A mechanic buddy of mine told me he's surprised when he doesn't see a pistol in the glove box or under the seat when the vehicle is in his shop. So far so good...only ones getting shot are those who have it coming.
The red areas are where firearms outnumber the people many, many times over… Less violent crime in those areas. Because people kill people not firearms. Fact
Sanctuary cities are all that is standing between gun lovers and federal supremacy.
The State legislature has the authority to regulate the unorganized militia.
Yes, but the 4th circuit utterly and completely ignored the settled law and precedent.
It would appear so but the legal precedent has been established that states have the right to apply regulations while the fed doesn't, like Pupps stated yesterday.
4th Circuit Upholds Maryland's 'Assault Weapon' Ban
Yet Heller established that states do not have a right to infringe the 2nd. (as did the 14th Amendment.) The 4th violated both the precedent of Heller and the 14th with their openly unconstitutional ruling.