Virginia - This Is Only The Beginning

[Cellblock2429]

The comments are the most interesting part. I believe Northam and friends truly do not realize what they will awaken.

Dems deliver how-to lesson in 'quid pro quo' ... on guns - WND

/—-/ It appears all the counties have to do is deputized their citizens and they can be legally armed in spite of the Gun grabbing Governor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My right to self-defense predates any form of government. my right to self-defense exists where I step and as far as I can see. it doesn't stop at my property it exceeds past county lines. If I am there my right is there with me. Your compromise is unacceptable.

You're welcome to defend yourself, I just don't think I want you walking in my neighborhood packing a nuclear bomb. Unless you have a permit of course.

How much did that red herring weight you just pulled out of your sewage pound you call your ass?

 

[Blues Man]

That's a contradiction. The right to keep and bear arms is established in our Constitution, as a civil right belonging to the people, which government is forbidden to infringe.

You cannot honestly claim to be in favor of civil rights, if you are in favor of allowing this one to be violated.

That's the kind of either or mentality that has polarized the country. Every right in the Constitution has restrictions, gun rights are no different. Do you think anyone should be able to own a 50-cal machine gun?

Yes why not own one?

The mere ownership of an item is not the issue.


The illegal use of the item is

And as I have said before there is no right to use a firearm only to own and carry (keep and bear)

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I don't want to live where anyone can legally walk into my school or office carrying a ma deuce. It would make me very unhappy (an inalienable right I have).

Where is your right to be happy in the Constitution?

You seem to think the Declaration of independence and the constitution are the same thing



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You're right of course but posters have been applying 'inalienable rights' to the 2nd.

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because those 10 rights were considered to be so important that they needed to be given specific protection.

The second is no less important than any of the others.

You like to mention slander laws as a control on free speech

We have similar laws on the use of firearms

As I said there is no right to use a firearm against another except for one instance and one instance only.

The ownership and the carrying of firearms are not the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

My right to self-defense predates any form of government. my right to self-defense exists where I step and as far as I can see. it doesn't stop at my property it exceeds past county lines. If I am there my right is there with me. Your compromise is unacceptable.

You're welcome to defend yourself, I just don't think I want you walking in my neighborhood packing a nuclear bomb. Unless you have a permit of course.

There is no analogy there

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[bigrebnc1775]

ok shall not be infringed

Except when your rights infringe on the rights of others.

You don't have a right to feel safe but you do have a right to protect yourself. No one but people like you are trying to prevent that.

 

[Cellblock2429]

My right to self-defense predates any form of government. my right to self-defense exists where I step and as far as I can see. it doesn't stop at my property it exceeds past county lines. If I am there my right is there with me. Your compromise is unacceptable.

You're welcome to defend yourself, I just don't think I want you walking in my neighborhood packing a nuclear bomb. Unless you have a permit of course.

/——/ When it comes to idiotic Strawman arguments, yours are the wackiest. Keep up the good work.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That's the kind of either or mentality that has polarized the country. Every right in the Constitution has restrictions, gun rights are no different. Do you think anyone should be able to own a 50-cal machine gun?

What part of “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” is unclear to you?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Unalienable refers to the belief that rights are not granted by government but rather are imbued in each person.

You're certainly welcome to your beliefs. You're not welcome to rewrite the Constitution.

And you're not welcome to disregard what the Constitution clearly, explicitly states.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't want to live where anyone can legally walk into my school or office carrying a ma deuce. It would make me very unhappy (an inalienable right I have).

Then move to some tyrannical shithole country, where people are not allows such basic freedoms as our Constitution affirms, here in this country.

By the way, the “Ma Deuce”, in its lightest configuration, weighs over eighty pounds, and is mean to be fired from a mounted position. It probably has a lot more recoil than any man would be able to handle in a carried configuration. Nobody is going to be walking into your school or office with one, and shooting it up.

You're welcome to defend yourself, I just don't think I want you walking in my neighborhood packing a nuclear bomb. Unless you have a permit of course.

I wonder what the smallest extant nuclear bomb is, these days. I doubt that there are any small and light enough that anyone is going to be walking through your neighborhood carrying one, even if he can somehow get his hands on it.

The smallest we ever had was the W-54/W-72, which weighed about 50 pounds, and was very close to the practical minimum size for a fission device. The last of those were deactivated back in the early 1970s.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You're welcome to defend yourself, I just don't think I want you walking in my neighborhood packing a nuclear bomb. Unless you have a permit of course.

Do you imagine your position is any more valid, or any more reconcilable with the Constitution, than that of someone who doesn't want black people walking through his neighborhood?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

ok shall not be infringed

Except when your rights infringe on the rights of others.

There is no right that anyone has, that is being infringed or otherwise violated, by someone else being in possession of a weapon.

 

[Cellblock2429]

ok shall not be infringed

Except when your rights infringe on the rights of others.

/---/ What about your 1st Amendment infringing on my 2ndt Amendment? Should all grabbers be silenced so we're not offended?

 

[basquebromance]

i'd rather die than surrender my guns. stand your ground, my friends!

 

[Chuz Life]

Do yo need a tank in case the Russians invade?

As I wrote previously, even those unalienable rights are subject to limitations. Capital punishment, prison, and eminent domain come to mind.

If the Russians did invade, would you try to deprive me of my right to try to fight them back with a tank?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How about we just eliminate people who don't believe in unalienable rights.

Even unalienable rights are subject to limitations. We have freedom of speech but we also have libel and slander laws.

Speech is not an unalienable right. It is in the Constitution to prevent our government from making laws limiting speech.
In my world I can prevent anyone I want from speaking to me.

Guns are not an unalienable right.

So you think you have the right to life, liberty, and property, but not the right to protect your life, liberty, and property?

Do yo need a tank in case the Russians invade?

As I wrote previously, even those unalienable rights are subject to limitations. Capital punishment, prison, and eminent domain come to mind.

where is the U.S. military at while the Russians have invaded?
FYI why don't you ask the Russians how they feel about Afghanistan?
The private armed Republic is the last line of defense for your freedom

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do yo need a tank in case the Russians invade?

As I wrote previously, even those unalienable rights are subject to limitations. Capital punishment, prison, and eminent domain come to mind.

If the Russians did invade, would you try to deprive me of my right to try to fight them back with a tank?

more than likely he would try to deprive you of your right to fight them at all.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Do yo need a tank in case the Russians invade?

As I wrote previously, even those unalienable rights are subject to limitations. Capital punishment, prison, and eminent domain come to mind.

If the Russians did invade, would you try to deprive me of my right to try to fight them back with a tank?

/——/ Alang’s type would be helping the Russians invade.

 

[alang1216]

Unalienable refers to the belief that rights are not granted by government but rather are imbued in each person.

You're certainly welcome to your beliefs. You're not welcome to rewrite the Constitution.

And you're not welcome to disregard what the Constitution clearly, explicitly states.

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

 

[alang1216]

I don't want to live where anyone can legally walk into my school or office carrying a ma deuce. It would make me very unhappy (an inalienable right I have).

Then move to some tyrannical shithole country, where people are not allows such basic freedoms as our Constitution affirms, here in this country.

By the way, the “Ma Deuce”, in its lightest configuration, weighs over eighty pounds, and is mean to be fired from a mounted position. It probably has a lot more recoil than any man would be able to handle in a carried configuration. Nobody is going to be walking into your school or office with one, and shooting it up.

You're welcome to defend yourself, I just don't think I want you walking in my neighborhood packing a nuclear bomb. Unless you have a permit of course.

I wonder what the smallest extant nuclear bomb is, these days. I doubt that there are any small and light enough that anyone is going to be walking through your neighborhood carrying one, even if he can somehow get his hands on it.

The smallest we ever had was the W-54/W-72, which weighed about 50 pounds, and was very close to the practical minimum size for a fission device. The last of those were deactivated back in the early 1970s.

Thanks for the info. You imply that these weapons are impractical and I agree. Would you agree that they should be subject to stringent regulation so not just anyone can obtain one?

 

[alang1216]

You're welcome to defend yourself, I just don't think I want you walking in my neighborhood packing a nuclear bomb. Unless you have a permit of course.

Do you imagine your position is any more valid, or any more reconcilable with the Constitution, than that of someone who doesn't want black people walking through his neighborhood?

I think there is a fundamental difference between gov't regulations on what people do and on what people are.