|
On February 20 2012 03:32 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote:
I guess in the end if people want to troll:
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing. What to do when you lose a debate in politics? Call the other person a troll, tell him to get the fuck out if you don't like how things are run. For a little icing on top of the cake, make sure to call him a socialist hippie who hates freedom too. Classic.
I guess that means I've won a bunch of debates here then, since I was called a troll in quite a few other threads.
|
On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote:
I guess in the end if people want to troll:
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing.
Can the strict interpretation view, it's useless, naive, and foolish.
It's a vague, arbitrary document that if followed exactly would be a joke. No law impeding the free exercise of religion? Really? No law? If NO LAW can be passed regarding exercise of religion, human sacrifice would have to be allowed. After all...no law can be passed impeding the exercise of religion. No exceptions. No. Law.
|
On February 20 2012 03:36 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote:
I guess in the end if people want to troll:
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing. Can the strict interpretation view, it's useless, naive, and foolish. It's a vague, arbitrary document that if followed exactly would be a joke. No law impeding the free exercise of religion? Really? No law? If NO LAW can be passed regarding exercise of religion, human sacrifice would have to be allowed. After all...no law can be passed impeding the exercise of religion. No exceptions. No. Law.
If you're going to try to quote the Constitution, at least quote it correctly instead of misquoting it by re-wording things to fit your agenda.
|
"prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
There can be no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. No law.
|
On February 20 2012 03:32 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote:
I guess in the end if people want to troll:
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing. What to do when you lose a debate in politics? Call the other person a troll, tell him to get the fuck out if you don't like how things are run. For a little icing on top of the cake, make sure to call him a socialist hippie who hates freedom too. Classic.
You're digging your own hole. You don't think I and others should have the right to defend ourselves. You believe that magically enough all evil-doers and would be evil-doers magically appear in the prisons and that for the rest of us everything is perfect. I exercise my rights, my country--more or less--will continue to always protect my rights, and if not Americans are willing to stand up should things change.
I'm not worried. You are afraid of a mechanical tool that goes bang because you treat it as an evil death ray instead of a tool that should be given proper respect. Its a shame. Thing is when I go somewhere I don't have a worry in the world because should things turn ugly, I have a viable means to protect myself.
I feel bad for people who face potential legal prosecution for protecting themselves in their own homes and vehicles, with people who face reprecussions for trying to save their own life. In the end my number one goal is to keep on living and therefore my political philosophy of such a view carries with me.
Its funny, just as you distort reality you also now distort my words. Perhaps you need to wake up to how the world is, the good and the bad, and you'd have a clearer understanding of even your own views.
|
Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
|
On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
|
On February 20 2012 03:40 Alizee- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:32 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote:
I guess in the end if people want to troll:
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing. What to do when you lose a debate in politics? Call the other person a troll, tell him to get the fuck out if you don't like how things are run. For a little icing on top of the cake, make sure to call him a socialist hippie who hates freedom too. Classic. You're digging your own hole. You don't think I and others should have the right to defend ourselves. You believe that magically enough all evil-doers and would be evil-doers magically appear in the prisons and that for the rest of us everything is perfect. I exercise my rights, my country--more or less--will continue to always protect my rights, and if not Americans are willing to stand up should things change. I'm not worried. You are afraid of a mechanical tool that goes bang because you treat it as an evil death ray instead of a tool that should be given proper respect. Its a shame. Thing is when I go somewhere I don't have a worry in the world because should things turn ugly, I have a viable means to protect myself. I feel bad for people who face potential legal prosecution for protecting themselves in their own homes and vehicles, with people who face reprecussions for trying to save their own life. In the end my number one goal is to keep on living and therefore my political philosophy of such a view carries with me. Its funny, just as you distort reality you also now distort my words. Perhaps you need to wake up to how the world is, the good and the bad, and you'd have a clearer understanding of even your own views.
Your entire post was a passive aggressive insult.
Good job.
|
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote:
Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
|
On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13115005534933840095
It's not some imaginary rules...
|
On February 20 2012 03:46 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote:
Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone. How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
|
On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters.
Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving?
|
in this thread, americans vs the world
awe america, you're at it again
so you call us freedom haters for not wanting to let every instable fat ass own assault weapons but you're always on the top when it comes to restrict any rights and privacy to anyone that stole chewing gums 10 years ago, just so that they really don't have even the slightest chance to live a straight life in the future
give guns to everyone, make sure the outlaws keep stealing, raping, killing
seems very logical if you want to cause chaos, might happen very quickly in a recessive economy
On February 20 2012 02:47 AllSalesFinal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 01:40 DOUDOU wrote:On February 20 2012 01:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others so what you are saying is, the carceral system doesn't work if ex convicts are forever doomed to a outlaw life, and don't have any rights, why not just directly hang them all? how about using them as slaves? there's no way an ex convict would try to make a life anyway Any convicts that were convicted of violent crimes should be directly hung, why not indeed. When you commit a crime you are saying you do not care about the laws of the land, so why SHOULD you have the same rights? I don't care if Joe Criminal committed a crime 10 years ago, 10 days ago or 10 minutes ago. He is a criminal, he gave up some of his rights the moment he committed the crime.
yeah! we should definitely kill killers, cause it's ok to kill when we decide so
On February 20 2012 02:24 Ravar wrote:
To all the people saying that no one should be allowed to carry a gun: Outlawing guns just takes them away from law-abiding citizens, criminals still get them because they don't care about the law.
imagining only criminals could obtain weapons if they really want to
how is that a problem? some americans really should stop dreaming about how owning a gun will magically provide security
just because you're watching movies where a single guy makes justice with his gun and a thousand bullets, judge, jury and executioner of the bad guys, doesn't mean you should do it
far west fantasy
On February 20 2012 02:18 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Not that it matters on way or another. It's incredibly easy to get your hands on a gun, legal or not. Do people really still think gun control actually works?
i think it helps
On February 20 2012 02:08 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 01:06 zeru wrote:
No one should be allowed to carry guns, except police and such You're joking, right? The right to carry is one of the fundamental civil rights of humanity. It's been considered a massive success by everyone.
quote of the day
|
On February 20 2012 03:51 Alizee- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns. It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters. Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving?
So far what I'm gathering from your posts is that anyone who disagrees with you is a brainwashed communistic authoritarian lefty hippie who hates freedom, smokes pot all day and does anything big brother wants for them.
Oh god this is great.
|
On February 20 2012 03:47 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns. ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored... http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13115005534933840095It's not some imaginary rules...
I've read your post, and my point is still correct. The right to bear arms is open to interpretation and because of that, it can't be followed strictly. A quote from the first link, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
|
umm how about
noone should really be carrying guns?
you do get that the reason why people need bigger guns is because everyone has smaller ones right?
|
On February 20 2012 03:48 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:46 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote:
Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone. How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place." It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
|
On February 20 2012 03:51 Alizee- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns. It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters. Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving?
What kind of arms am I allowed to own? Am I allowed to own missiles and tanks? If I'm not mistaken, those are arms. You see, not completely defined.
|
How about we get an actual system that rehabilities criminals and not just make them worse?
|
On February 20 2012 03:57 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:48 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:46 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote:
Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone. How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place." It's only absurd because it's unrealistic. And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
So we should continue the sale of armor piercing rounds and frag grenades to regular citizens in the name of "Freedom"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
