Obama on NPR: I, I, I ... uh uh uh ... support the concealed weapon ban (gun, pay)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not being arguementative, but where is it stated I have the right to carry concealed weapon?
Serious question, not meant to be a jab.
Someone already responded clearly, I will just continue a bit with that. It may not say it, but a clever person can twist and squeeze something until even though they are given the right to it, it would be practically impossible to do it due to all of the "regulations".
They can't strike the law from the books. That I promise you would bring all out war. I for one, and I am a very reasonable and law biding citizen would take the government getting rid of the second amendment as an act of war and would continue in kind.
Because of this, they create laws that don't counter, but "hinder" so to speak. They then use a simple issue as you have mentioned "where does it say that" and then slowly build on what is not said to eventually counter what is said.
The hope is that if they approach it this way, it goes slow enough where people get fooled into thinking they have not had their rights removed, yet in actuality, they have removed it completely in its practical sense.
They can't strike the law from the books. That I promise you would bring all out war. I for one, and I am a very reasonable and law biding citizen would take the government getting rid of the second amendment as an act of war and would continue in kind.
High ranking MT officials earlier this year told the feds if the SCOTUS ruled against the Second Amendment, they'd consider secession. Obama et. al better seriously consider if they want to go down this path.
Careful, or I am going to start thinking you understand my sarcastic points.
Is your point that since it can be done, then there is no need for it? Look, Im the first to believe in the principal that if people are willing, clever, and persistent, that any foe can be overcome, but why should we handicap ourselves this way? What purpose does it serve other than giving more power to the government over us? Remember, they should be afraid of us, not us of them.
High ranking MT officials earlier this year told the feds if the SCOTUS ruled against the Second Amendment, they'd consider secession. Obama et. al better seriously consider if they want to go down this path.
You know, that wouldn't bother me. That would be clear and it would garner quite a bit of support to fight against it. What I am worried about is the slow decay that takes the complacent behavior of the people and feeds it slowly until they have achieved the same effect. That's hard to get support for because it isn't cut and clear and people can be mislead.
It really is hard to defend "we are taking away the second amendment or rewriting it", but if they take a slow approach through regulation and various "specific" bans and uses, then it is easier to sell it to the people. Heck, we have lost way too many rights as it is in this area. Imagine how the founders would have reacted to the many laws we have today. They would be gathering people to a cause for revolution due to all that we have lost, given up, or squandered.
You know, that wouldn't bother me. That would be clear and it would garner quite a bit of support to fight against it. What I am worried about is the slow decay that takes the complacent behavior of the people and feeds it slowly until they have achieved the same effect. That's hard to get support for because it isn't cut and clear and people can be mislead.
It really is hard to defend "we are taking away the second amendment or rewriting it", but if they take a slow approach through regulation and various "specific" bans and uses, then it is easier to sell it to the people. Heck, we have lost way too many rights as it is in this area. Imagine how the founders would have reacted to the many laws we have today. They would be gathering people to a cause for revolution due to all that we have lost, given up, or squandered.
I know. It bugs me. Incrementally we have lost a lot of freedom since FDR became president (he signed the NFA into law). It's like boiling a frog. Throw it in the boiling pot of water and it'll try to jump back out. Put it in a pot of cold water and slowly heat it up, it's too late by the time it notices.
You know, that wouldn't bother me. That would be clear and it would garner quite a bit of support to fight against it. What I am worried about is the slow decay that takes the complacent behavior of the people and feeds it slowly until they have achieved the same effect. That's hard to get support for because it isn't cut and clear and people can be mislead.
It really is hard to defend "we are taking away the second amendment or rewriting it", but if they take a slow approach through regulation and various "specific" bans and uses, then it is easier to sell it to the people. Heck, we have lost way too many rights as it is in this area. Imagine how the founders would have reacted to the many laws we have today. They would be gathering people to a cause for revolution due to all that we have lost, given up, or squandered.
Well, if Obama gets in, you can bet the house that another "assault" weapon ban will be at least introduced.
Well, if Obama gets in, you can bet the house that another "assault" weapon ban will be at least introduced.
WASR-10 (Romanian AK-47) prices have shot up about 100% in 3 years. I loaded up on a few to cash in on a ban. Figure that there'd be a grandfather clause considering all the blue dog Dems in Congress who'd be against outright and retroactive confiscation but grudgingly for a "assault weapon" ban on imports and production.
I think a Thompson submachinegun goes for about the price of a low end new car.
Well, if Obama gets in, you can bet the house that another "assault" weapon ban will be at least introduced.
Aye, while completely ignoring the fact that when it was in effect it had absolutely no effect on crime with them. Though I guess tapping the heels and "hoping" for results is what he seems to be selling.
WASR-10 (Romanian AK-47) prices have shot up about 100% in 3 years. I loaded up on a few to cash in on a ban. Figure that there'd be a grandfather clause considering all the blue dog Dems in Congress who'd be against outright and retroactive confiscation but grudgingly for a "assault weapon" ban on imports and production.
I think a Thompson submachinegun goes for about the price of a low end new car.
I went out and bought a Barrett.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
