# Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?



## Turn Right

I've heard a lot of simple minded liberals say that the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15s

To me that means that they must not have been very condenser about them.  In fact maybe they were sending us a message about everyone should own one.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

> Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?




No


----------



## harmonica

you don't have unlimited free speech rights
..you don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
you don't have unlimited rights
it's like the bible= can be interpreted many ways
it's like guidebooks=they can't write EVERYTHING in there=they are for GUIDance
written over 200 years ago !!! the world has CHANGED significantly
written by humans who are imperfect
written by males who believed slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote
etc etc


----------



## Blues Man

harmonica said:


> you don't have unlimited free speech rights
> ..you don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
> you don't have unlimited rights
> it's like the bible= can be interpreted many ways
> it's like guidebooks=they can't write EVERYTHING in there=they are for GUIDance
> written over 200 years ago !!! the world has CHANGED significantly
> written by humans who are imperfect
> written by males who believed slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote
> etc etc



and we have a built in process to change the Constitution to take into effect such changes.

And you'll notice that the second is the right to keep and bear arms not the right to fire those arms anywhere so technically anyone firing a gun is not exercising a right unless it can be justified by thr person who discharged the weapon


----------



## pismoe

of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .


----------



## Turn Right

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No
Click to expand...

If they're not in the 2nd amendment then they're unconstitutional.


----------



## pinqy

pismoe said:


> of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .


There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected.


----------



## pismoe

in the example that I mentioned you have Freedom to FREE SPEECH but if its not a real warning  and you cause a PANIC you might be arrested   Pinqy ,


----------



## harmonica

pismoe said:


> of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .


no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech 
lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
or your pay/income is effected
free
/frē/
Learn to pronounce
_adjective_

1.
not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
"I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
2.
not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
"the researchers set the birds free"
synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More
_adverb_

1.
* without cost or payment.*


----------



## the other mike

Turn Right said:


> I've heard a lot of simple minded liberals say that the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15s
> 
> To me that means that they must not have been very condenser about them.  In fact maybe they were sending us a message about everyone should own one.



Not being very condenser ?
Is that slang for cool ?


----------



## Blues Man

harmonica said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .
> 
> 
> 
> no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
> lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech
> lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
> or your pay/income is effected
> free
> /frē/
> Learn to pronounce
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
> "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
> 2.
> not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
> "the researchers set the birds free"
> synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More
> _adverb_
> 
> 1.
> * without cost or payment.*
Click to expand...


Your employer cannot violate your right to free speech.

The First Amendment only applies to the government not the general public

As in the words "Congress shall pass no law...."

It's the same thing for any social media platform.  Facebook etc has no obligation to provide you a venue to exercise your rights to free speech and cannot violate your right to free speech since you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Turn Right said:


> I've heard a lot of simple minded liberals say that the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15s
> 
> To me that means that they must not have been very condenser about them.  In fact maybe they were sending us a message about everyone should own one.



Gun control laws *ARE* unconstitutional.


----------



## justinacolmena

_"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"_

Do we even have free states as opposed to slave states, among the United States of America?

Or are only "the armed services" allowed to bear arms on our behalf?
_
"the right of the people" _= a universal human right

_"to keep and bear Arms_" = to possess and carry firearms

_"shall not be infringed" _= Don't even think of questioning or interfering with our gun rights in any way, shape, or form!

Those who impose arbitrary gun control on us in peacetime can fully expect to be treated by us as the armed & dangerous enemy combatants they are in wartime.


----------



## harmonica

Blues Man said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .
> 
> 
> 
> no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
> lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech
> lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
> or your pay/income is effected
> free
> /frē/
> Learn to pronounce
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
> "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
> 2.
> not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
> "the researchers set the birds free"
> synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More
> _adverb_
> 
> 1.
> * without cost or payment.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your employer cannot violate your right to free speech.
> 
> The First Amendment only applies to the government not the general public
> 
> As in the words "Congress shall pass no law...."
> 
> It's the same thing for any social media platform.  Facebook etc has no obligation to provide you a venue to exercise your rights to free speech and cannot violate your right to free speech since you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up.
Click to expand...

....please look at the definition again ..the employers can and DO tell you what you can say or not = NOT FREE
.....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
free speech IS limited


----------



## justinacolmena

harmonica said:


> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it



More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.

Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.

Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.

All the local cops are on their side, too.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

justinacolmena said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
Click to expand...


May I let you in on something?

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *unalienable* Right.  Under *constitutional law*, you cannot give away an unalienable Right; no government can impose on it.  I'm bolding words and concepts for a reason.

Although people "_do_" forfeit their Second Amendment Rights, they do so by way of ignorance, apathy, and sometime duress.  If you read the legal lingo, you can avoid this issue.  Let's look at this clearly:

The government issues a "firearms license (or permit.)  But what are these documents?

According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word* license *means:

"_In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort_."

According to the same source a *permit* is:

"_A written license or warrant, issued by a person in authority, empowering the grantee to do some act not forbidden by law, but not allowable without such authority_."

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *unalienable* Right.  That means it is above the reach of government.  You were born with that Right.  If you submit to a license / permit, you've forfeited the Right.  We cannot prevail on the subject of keeping and bearing Arms while carrying around a card giving us permission we had an *unalienable *Right to do in the first place.  So, if you have permission from the government to carry a firearm, they get to throw any rule at you they want.  If you carried without a permit / license, you would not be in any databanks (again provided you didn't forfeit your Rights by signing a Form 4473 and registering the weapon.)

Heed this warning: After Trump followed the BAD precedent set by the Executive department of government by ruling via Executive fiat that bump stocks are illegal, it followed the practice of declaring open bolt weapons and pre-1986 RDIAS parts to be machine guns and, consequently illegal:

ATF Confiscating Drop In Auto Sears

So you paid the big bucks for that AR 15 and think you're all legal like.  Then they tell you the pistol grip, flash suppressor, high capacity magazine, bayonet lug, barrel shroud, and vertical grip are illegal... Oh, let's not forget you used the M16 profile bolt because it worked better.  By Executive fiat, they will outlaw your weapons one part at a time. 

And you're helping it along by getting a permit / license to carry a weapon??? OR you registered it with a Form 4473???

Uh, no guys, the reason your Second Amendment Rights are limited is you agreed to it.  You really didn't have to.


----------



## Blues Man

harmonica said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .
> 
> 
> 
> no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
> lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech
> lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
> or your pay/income is effected
> free
> /frē/
> Learn to pronounce
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
> "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
> 2.
> not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
> "the researchers set the birds free"
> synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More
> _adverb_
> 
> 1.
> * without cost or payment.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your employer cannot violate your right to free speech.
> 
> The First Amendment only applies to the government not the general public
> 
> As in the words "Congress shall pass no law...."
> 
> It's the same thing for any social media platform.  Facebook etc has no obligation to provide you a venue to exercise your rights to free speech and cannot violate your right to free speech since you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....please look at the definition again ..the employers can and DO tell you what you can say or not = NOT FREE
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> free speech IS limited
Click to expand...


An employer cannot violate your first amendment rights.

You will never win a law suit if an employer fires you for saying stupid shit at work.

When you agreed to take a job you agreed to the terms of conduct the employer sets for his establishment

As I said the first amendment only applies to the government not any other private citizen.


----------



## Blues Man

justinacolmena said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
Click to expand...


No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.


----------



## harmonica

Blues Man said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .
> 
> 
> 
> no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
> lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech
> lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
> or your pay/income is effected
> free
> /frē/
> Learn to pronounce
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
> "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
> 2.
> not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
> "the researchers set the birds free"
> synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More
> _adverb_
> 
> 1.
> * without cost or payment.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your employer cannot violate your right to free speech.
> 
> The First Amendment only applies to the government not the general public
> 
> As in the words "Congress shall pass no law...."
> 
> It's the same thing for any social media platform.  Facebook etc has no obligation to provide you a venue to exercise your rights to free speech and cannot violate your right to free speech since you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....please look at the definition again ..the employers can and DO tell you what you can say or not = NOT FREE
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> free speech IS limited
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An employer cannot violate your first amendment rights.
> 
> You will never win a law suit if an employer fires you for saying stupid shit at work.
> 
> When you agreed to take a job you agreed to the terms of conduct the employer sets for his establishment
> 
> As I said the first amendment only applies to the government not any other private citizen.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY--NOT free----limited!!!!!!!!!!!!  thank you


> *only* applies to the government not any other private citizen.


ONLY ----understand now?

*ONLY *
....if it was unlimited, you could not get fired --this is very plain and simple--cannot be argued except by those with closed minds
that's nowhere near unlimited.....look at the definition 
: lacking any controls : UNRESTRICTEDunlimited access
2: BOUNDLESS, INFINITEunlimited possibilities
3: not bounded by exceptions : UNDEFINED

....yes--he can violate your free speech by firing you--what don't you understand about that??
.....it is a RIGHTS VIOLATION if they don't hire you OR *fire* you for terms listed below---free speech is not listed
if free speech is a *right*, they CAN'T fire you


> Title VII prohibits private and State and local government employers with 15 or more*employees* and *employment* agencies from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex (including pregnancy), religion or national origin in all aspects of an *employment*relationship, including *hiring*, discharge, compensation


hahahhahahahahahaha
they can FIRE you--what do you not understand about that?


----------



## Vastator

justinacolmena said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
Click to expand...

Links?


----------



## Vastator

harmonica said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .
> 
> 
> 
> no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
> lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech
> lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
> or your pay/income is effected
> free
> /frē/
> Learn to pronounce
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
> "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
> 2.
> not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
> "the researchers set the birds free"
> synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More
> _adverb_
> 
> 1.
> * without cost or payment.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your employer cannot violate your right to free speech.
> 
> The First Amendment only applies to the government not the general public
> 
> As in the words "Congress shall pass no law...."
> 
> It's the same thing for any social media platform.  Facebook etc has no obligation to provide you a venue to exercise your rights to free speech and cannot violate your right to free speech since you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....please look at the definition again ..the employers can and DO tell you what you can say or not = NOT FREE
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> free speech IS limited
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An employer cannot violate your first amendment rights.
> 
> You will never win a law suit if an employer fires you for saying stupid shit at work.
> 
> When you agreed to take a job you agreed to the terms of conduct the employer sets for his establishment
> 
> As I said the first amendment only applies to the government not any other private citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EXACTLY--NOT free----limited!!!!!!!!!!!!  thank you
> 
> 
> 
> *only* applies to the government not any other private citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ONLY ----understand now?
> 
> *ONLY *
> ....if it was unlimited, you could not get fired --this is very plain and simple--cannot be argued except by those with closed minds
> that's nowhere near unlimited.....look at the definition
> : lacking any controls : UNRESTRICTEDunlimited access
> 2: BOUNDLESS, INFINITEunlimited possibilities
> 3: not bounded by exceptions : UNDEFINED
> 
> ....yes--he can violate your free speech by firing you--what don't you understand about that??
> .....it is a RIGHTS VIOLATION if they don't hire you OR *fire* you for terms listed below---free speech is not listed
> if free speech is a *right*, they CAN'T fire you
> 
> 
> 
> Title VII prohibits private and State and local government employers with 15 or more*employees* and *employment* agencies from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex (including pregnancy), religion or national origin in all aspects of an *employment*relationship, including *hiring*, discharge, compensation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahahaha
> they can FIRE you--what do you not understand about that?
Click to expand...

Why not? Don’t you believe in freedom of association?


----------



## harmonica

Blues Man said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
Click to expand...

the employer can also limit your rights by having a gun free area


----------



## Vastator

harmonica said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the employer can also limit your rights by having a gun free area
Click to expand...

Your employment is voluntary. And the companies have property rights.


----------



## Blues Man

harmonica said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .
> 
> 
> 
> no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
> lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech
> lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
> or your pay/income is effected
> free
> /frē/
> Learn to pronounce
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
> "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
> 2.
> not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
> "the researchers set the birds free"
> synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More
> _adverb_
> 
> 1.
> * without cost or payment.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your employer cannot violate your right to free speech.
> 
> The First Amendment only applies to the government not the general public
> 
> As in the words "Congress shall pass no law...."
> 
> It's the same thing for any social media platform.  Facebook etc has no obligation to provide you a venue to exercise your rights to free speech and cannot violate your right to free speech since you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....please look at the definition again ..the employers can and DO tell you what you can say or not = NOT FREE
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> free speech IS limited
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An employer cannot violate your first amendment rights.
> 
> You will never win a law suit if an employer fires you for saying stupid shit at work.
> 
> When you agreed to take a job you agreed to the terms of conduct the employer sets for his establishment
> 
> As I said the first amendment only applies to the government not any other private citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EXACTLY--NOT free----limited!!!!!!!!!!!!  thank you
> 
> 
> 
> *only* applies to the government not any other private citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ONLY ----understand now?
> 
> *ONLY *
> ....if it was unlimited, you could not get fired --this is very plain and simple--cannot be argued except by those with closed minds
> that's nowhere near unlimited.....look at the definition
> : lacking any controls : UNRESTRICTEDunlimited access
> 2: BOUNDLESS, INFINITEunlimited possibilities
> 3: not bounded by exceptions : UNDEFINED
> 
> ....yes--he can violate your free speech by firing you--what don't you understand about that??
> .....it is a RIGHTS VIOLATION if they don't hire you OR *fire* you for terms listed below---free speech is not listed
> if free speech is a *right*, they CAN'T fire you
> 
> 
> 
> Title VII prohibits private and State and local government employers with 15 or more*employees* and *employment* agencies from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex (including pregnancy), religion or national origin in all aspects of an *employment*relationship, including *hiring*, discharge, compensation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahahaha
> they can FIRE you--what do you not understand about that?
Click to expand...


Your boss can fire you for anything he wants. 

If you don't like it then work for yourself

Only an idiot thinks he can say anything he wants while at a job with absolutely no consequences


----------



## Blues Man

harmonica said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the employer can also limit your rights by having a gun free area
Click to expand...


What part about the Bill of rights only pertaining to the government do you not understand?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
Click to expand...


This is not entirely true.  In some jurisdictions your firearm license is a matter of public record.


----------



## justinacolmena

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not entirely true.  In some jurisdictions your firearm license is a matter of public record.
Click to expand...


Amended Definition of “Adjudicated as a Mental Defective” and “Committed to a Mental Institution” (2010R-21P)


----------



## Porter Rockwell

justinacolmena said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not entirely true.  In some jurisdictions your firearm license is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amended Definition of “Adjudicated as a Mental Defective” and “Committed to a Mental Institution” (2010R-21P)
Click to expand...


I don't understand the significance of what you posted in relation to my post.  Those who are mentally defective, incompetent, etc. need to be in mental institutions or in protective custody of some sort.

If a person is crazy enough to shoot you, they would stab you, run over you with a car, burn you alive as you slept in your bed, hurl Molotov cocktails at you, feed you ethylene glycol in a drink, etc, etc.


----------



## justinacolmena

Porter Rockwell said:


> Those who are mentally defective, incompetent, etc. need to be in mental institutions or in protective custody of some sort.



There is no due process of law for that. One allegation or even a suggestion of mental illness is enough to destroy you life & career.

The cops simply put on white coats instead of blue uniforms, a stethoscope instead of a badge, and a needle & syringe instead of a gun.

There is a diagnosis instead of a criminal charge, and a prescription instead of a sentence; a mental institution instead of a prison.

It all has the force of law, but without the due process thereof, and no defense is admissible.


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not entirely true.  In some jurisdictions your firearm license is a matter of public record.
Click to expand...


I have a CC permit that might be public record but that is not proof that I own any firearms


----------



## Porter Rockwell

justinacolmena said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are mentally defective, incompetent, etc. need to be in mental institutions or in protective custody of some sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no due process of law for that. One allegation or even a suggestion of mental illness is enough to destroy you life & career.
> 
> The cops simply put on white coats instead of blue uniforms, a stethoscope instead of a badge, and a needle & syringe instead of a gun.
> 
> There is a diagnosis instead of a criminal charge, and a prescription instead of a sentence; a mental institution instead of a prison.
> 
> It all has the force of law, but without the due process thereof, and no defense is admissible.
Click to expand...


I agree with you wholeheartedly.  PART of the problem is that America is being controlled by at least two different governments.  The first is an illegal / unconstitutional  Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.  The other government is the jure / lawful / Republic controlled by the Constitution of the United States.

Through a combination of apathy, indifference, stupidity, and plain laziness most people have sat on their collective asses and allowed an illegal government to seize power in this country.  The more ignorant on the right feel that Donald Trump (the most anti - gun president in American history) can run this country via Executive fiat.  The left thinks you can vote for anything and over-rule both the Republican form of government guaranteed in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution along with screwing over the Second Amendment.

You know the score; I know the score.  We also know what Rights we are supposed to have.  So, you do not relinquish your Rights and you have to be willing to do more than bitch about the status quo.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not entirely true.  In some jurisdictions your firearm license is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a CC permit that might be public record but that is not proof that I own any firearms
Click to expand...


When companies find out, they can still discriminate against you.  The pro-gun organizations should be willing to fight like the people in the civil rights movement did to rectify the situation.  Society can't discriminate against gay people, black people, people of a religious sect, or political persuasion.  It doesn't make sense why people who avail themselves of an individual Right to keep and bear Arms should be treated any differently, but there are no specific laws protecting gun owners.  Why is that?


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not entirely true.  In some jurisdictions your firearm license is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a CC permit that might be public record but that is not proof that I own any firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When companies find out, they can still discriminate against you.  The pro-gun organizations should be willing to fight like the people in the civil rights movement did to rectify the situation.  Society can't discriminate against gay people, black people, people of a religious sect, or political persuasion.  It doesn't make sense why people who avail themselves of an individual Right to keep and bear Arms should be treated any differently, but there are no specific laws protecting gun owners.  Why is that?
Click to expand...


I have yet to see a background check on an employee that says whether or not they own guns.

And the firing of an individual for no other reason than he has a carry permit will not stand legal scrutiny.

There is legal precedent for any employer to prohibit firearms on their property so if your employer says no guns allowed on company property you can be fired if you do not comply


----------



## diver52

Turn Right said:


> I've heard a lot of simple minded liberals say that the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15s
> 
> To me that means that they must not have been very condenser about them.  In fact maybe they were sending us a message about everyone should own one.



The answer is obviously yes because SCOTUS has made it clear both the federal and state governments can do so. The Constitution places the power to make those determinations in the hands of SCOTUS and the federal judiciary.

What I find simple minded is the idea the 2nd amendment is about guns.  Guns are mentioned nowhere in the text.  It refers to "arms", which includes but is not limited to guns.  That word would include such things as biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.  Do you think a law which prohibits your neighbor from developing weapons grade anthrax in his garage should be unconstitutional?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not entirely true.  In some jurisdictions your firearm license is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a CC permit that might be public record but that is not proof that I own any firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When companies find out, they can still discriminate against you.  The pro-gun organizations should be willing to fight like the people in the civil rights movement did to rectify the situation.  Society can't discriminate against gay people, black people, people of a religious sect, or political persuasion.  It doesn't make sense why people who avail themselves of an individual Right to keep and bear Arms should be treated any differently, but there are no specific laws protecting gun owners.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a background check on an employee that says whether or not they own guns.
> 
> And the firing of an individual for no other reason than he has a carry permit will not stand legal scrutiny.
> 
> There is legal precedent for any employer to prohibit firearms on their property so if your employer says no guns allowed on company property you can be fired if you do not comply
Click to expand...


Every state has different laws.  Until a few years ago in Georgia if an employer said you could not carry a weapon, even in your car in the parking lot, then you absolutely could not do it.

Today, however, you *CAN* have your weapon in your car, regardless of whether or not an employer agrees.  The only exception is if the employer fences in the property and only allows employees access to a company parking lot.  As long as their parking lot is accessible to the public, you can have your weapon in the vehicle.

Here is a look at which states have public access laws to a ccw:

Chart: Gun permit data accessibility in all 50 states

If something is a matter of public record it is accessible to anyone doing a background check on you.  People can look and then refuse you employment, services, loans, etc. without stating that as a reason.


----------



## justinacolmena

Porter Rockwell said:


> People can look and then refuse you employment, services, loans, etc. without stating that as a reason.



Age discrimination is supposed to be illegal, but you have a date of birth with your I.D. on your job application. Go figure.

And "too old" is more often than not a proxy for some other reason to refuse to employ someone.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

justinacolmena said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can look and then refuse you employment, services, loans, etc. without stating that as a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Age discrimination is supposed to be illegal, but you have a date of birth with your I.D. on your job application. Go figure.
> 
> And "too old" is more often than not a proxy for some other reason to refuse to employ someone.
Click to expand...


There are any number of ways that corporations discriminate against you.  On your job applications / resumes, your address says a lot about you.  It tells the screener most likely your race, previous income, and lifestyle.  I noticed too that once I turned 40 I became "_overqualified_."

One time I applied an employment agency.  I walked in and they looked at me and one employee said, we don't have any jobs available at this time.  At about that same instant two ill dressed Jamaicans walked in and said they were looking for jobs.  Another employee handed them an application.  I looked at the lady that just turned me down and I said:  _"Nobody has a job available when I show up.  I'm too old and too white_."

So, we're back to square one.  If you have paperwork with the government, many times someone will find out you own firearms and then you are persona non-grata.  We need a gun owners law that protects gun owners and their privacy.


----------



## harmonica

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not entirely true.  In some jurisdictions your firearm license is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a CC permit that might be public record but that is not proof that I own any firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When companies find out, they can still discriminate against you.  The pro-gun organizations should be willing to fight like the people in the civil rights movement did to rectify the situation.  Society can't discriminate against gay people, black people, people of a religious sect, or political persuasion.  It doesn't make sense why people who avail themselves of an individual Right to keep and bear Arms should be treated any differently, but there are no specific laws protecting gun owners.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a background check on an employee that says whether or not they own guns.
> 
> And the firing of an individual for no other reason than he has a carry permit will not stand legal scrutiny.
> 
> There is legal precedent for any employer to prohibit firearms on their property so if your employer says no guns allowed on company property you can be fired if you do not comply
Click to expand...

...put another way--an employer can fire you for your speech--and the government can do nothing
..but if they fire you because of your race or religion, the government WILL get involved and kick the employer's a$$


----------



## harmonica

hahha


Blues Man said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
> lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech
> lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
> or your pay/income is effected
> free
> /frē/
> Learn to pronounce
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
> "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
> 2.
> not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
> "the researchers set the birds free"
> synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More
> _adverb_
> 
> 1.
> * without cost or payment.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your employer cannot violate your right to free speech.
> 
> The First Amendment only applies to the government not the general public
> 
> As in the words "Congress shall pass no law...."
> 
> It's the same thing for any social media platform.  Facebook etc has no obligation to provide you a venue to exercise your rights to free speech and cannot violate your right to free speech since you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....please look at the definition again ..the employers can and DO tell you what you can say or not = NOT FREE
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> free speech IS limited
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An employer cannot violate your first amendment rights.
> 
> You will never win a law suit if an employer fires you for saying stupid shit at work.
> 
> When you agreed to take a job you agreed to the terms of conduct the employer sets for his establishment
> 
> As I said the first amendment only applies to the government not any other private citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EXACTLY--NOT free----limited!!!!!!!!!!!!  thank you
> 
> 
> 
> *only* applies to the government not any other private citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ONLY ----understand now?
> 
> *ONLY *
> ....if it was unlimited, you could not get fired --this is very plain and simple--cannot be argued except by those with closed minds
> that's nowhere near unlimited.....look at the definition
> : lacking any controls : UNRESTRICTEDunlimited access
> 2: BOUNDLESS, INFINITEunlimited possibilities
> 3: not bounded by exceptions : UNDEFINED
> 
> ....yes--he can violate your free speech by firing you--what don't you understand about that??
> .....it is a RIGHTS VIOLATION if they don't hire you OR *fire* you for terms listed below---free speech is not listed
> if free speech is a *right*, they CAN'T fire you
> 
> 
> 
> Title VII prohibits private and State and local government employers with 15 or more*employees* and *employment* agencies from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex (including pregnancy), religion or national origin in all aspects of an *employment*relationship, including *hiring*, discharge, compensation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahahaha
> they can FIRE you--what do you not understand about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your boss can fire you for anything he wants.
> 
> If you don't like it then work for yourself
> 
> Only an idiot thinks he can say anything he wants while at a job with absolutely no consequences
Click to expand...

hahahahhah--I just pointed that out--you just fked up--you are wrong --and I posted this in a previous thread--you must not be paying attention and/or do not understand
...they CAN'T fire you for racial/etc purposes..if they do--they can get sued/etc
The Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 - A Summary - The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission


----------



## harmonica

Blues Man said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the employer can also limit your rights by having a gun free area
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part about the Bill of rights only pertaining to the government do you not understand?
Click to expand...

?what?
your employer can deny you the right to bring a gun to work---plain and simple
you DON'T have a right to bear arms in their area


----------



## Porter Rockwell

harmonica said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the employer can also limit your rights by having a gun free area
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part about the Bill of rights only pertaining to the government do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?what?
> your employer can deny you the right to bring a gun to work---plain and simple
> you DON'T have a right to bear arms in their area
Click to expand...


We covered that earlier.  An employer can prevent you from carrying a weapon on their private property.  In Georgia, the employer cannot keep you from having a weapon in your car* unless* the parking lot is fenced and the general public is not allowed access to it.


----------



## justinacolmena

harmonica said:


> ?what?
> your employer can deny you the right to bring a gun to work---plain and simple
> you DON'T have a right to bear arms in their area


That's an interesting one. Employers get corporate. Big time corporate when it comes to guns. They collaborate with local police to search your home while you are at work. If the bosses find your guns they are likely to order a hit on you and have you murdered if they can't frame you on some felony charge or another.


----------



## harmonica

Porter Rockwell said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the employer can also limit your rights by having a gun free area
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part about the Bill of rights only pertaining to the government do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?what?
> your employer can deny you the right to bring a gun to work---plain and simple
> you DON'T have a right to bear arms in their area
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We covered that earlier.  An employer can prevent you from carrying a weapon on their private property.  In Georgia, the employer cannot keep you from having a weapon in your car* unless* the parking lot is fenced and the general public is not allowed access to it.
Click to expand...

what's your point?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

harmonica said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> the employer can also limit your rights by having a gun free area
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part about the Bill of rights only pertaining to the government do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?what?
> your employer can deny you the right to bring a gun to work---plain and simple
> you DON'T have a right to bear arms in their area
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We covered that earlier.  An employer can prevent you from carrying a weapon on their private property.  In Georgia, the employer cannot keep you from having a weapon in your car* unless* the parking lot is fenced and the general public is not allowed access to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's your point?
Click to expand...


It refuted a point you made in error.  No offense intended.

The laws say one thing; the system employs them in a different way.  My biggest point is, if the laws protecting our Rights aren't being enforced, it's because we don't do anything besides bitch about the status quo.


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not entirely true.  In some jurisdictions your firearm license is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a CC permit that might be public record but that is not proof that I own any firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When companies find out, they can still discriminate against you.  The pro-gun organizations should be willing to fight like the people in the civil rights movement did to rectify the situation.  Society can't discriminate against gay people, black people, people of a religious sect, or political persuasion.  It doesn't make sense why people who avail themselves of an individual Right to keep and bear Arms should be treated any differently, but there are no specific laws protecting gun owners.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a background check on an employee that says whether or not they own guns.
> 
> And the firing of an individual for no other reason than he has a carry permit will not stand legal scrutiny.
> 
> There is legal precedent for any employer to prohibit firearms on their property so if your employer says no guns allowed on company property you can be fired if you do not comply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every state has different laws.  Until a few years ago in Georgia if an employer said you could not carry a weapon, even in your car in the parking lot, then you absolutely could not do it.
> 
> Today, however, you *CAN* have your weapon in your car, regardless of whether or not an employer agrees.  The only exception is if the employer fences in the property and only allows employees access to a company parking lot.  As long as their parking lot is accessible to the public, you can have your weapon in the vehicle.
> 
> Here is a look at which states have public access laws to a ccw:
> 
> Chart: Gun permit data accessibility in all 50 states
> 
> If something is a matter of public record it is accessible to anyone doing a background check on you.  People can look and then refuse you employment, services, loans, etc. without stating that as a reason.
Click to expand...


I've never been refused a loan or an apartment  because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have  CC permit.

I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks.  A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.

There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state and I doubt an employer is going to pay to have someone go to a state office and ask for gun permit records

How To Find Out If Someone Has A Gun Permit

_If your state does allow public access to gun permit records, it’s not a matter of simply looking up the information online. You must make a formal request, either via your county clerk or state justice department._


----------



## Blues Man

harmonica said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not entirely true.  In some jurisdictions your firearm license is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a CC permit that might be public record but that is not proof that I own any firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When companies find out, they can still discriminate against you.  The pro-gun organizations should be willing to fight like the people in the civil rights movement did to rectify the situation.  Society can't discriminate against gay people, black people, people of a religious sect, or political persuasion.  It doesn't make sense why people who avail themselves of an individual Right to keep and bear Arms should be treated any differently, but there are no specific laws protecting gun owners.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a background check on an employee that says whether or not they own guns.
> 
> And the firing of an individual for no other reason than he has a carry permit will not stand legal scrutiny.
> 
> There is legal precedent for any employer to prohibit firearms on their property so if your employer says no guns allowed on company property you can be fired if you do not comply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...put another way--an employer can fire you for your speech--and the government can do nothing
> ..but if they fire you because of your race or religion, the government WILL get involved and kick the employer's a$$
Click to expand...


That's because the first amendment only applies to the government not to an individual.

I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.


----------



## Blues Man

harmonica said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, employers are well aware of registered firearms when they do background checks, and most have an unwritten policy of refusing to hire gun owners or firing an employee who purchases a firearm.
> 
> Landlords refuse to rent to gun owners, and and evict renters who purchase firearms.
> 
> Banks refuse to lend to homebuyers who own guns, and foreclose on homeowners who purchase firearms.
> 
> All the local cops are on their side, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No employer or landlord  knows if you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the employer can also limit your rights by having a gun free area
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part about the Bill of rights only pertaining to the government do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?what?
> your employer can deny you the right to bring a gun to work---plain and simple
> you DON'T have a right to bear arms in their area
Click to expand...


Once again the Bill of Rights only applies to the government denying your rights not to an individual.

If a property owner tells you that you cannot carry guns on his property then you can't

This isn't rocket science


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not entirely true.  In some jurisdictions your firearm license is a matter of public record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a CC permit that might be public record but that is not proof that I own any firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When companies find out, they can still discriminate against you.  The pro-gun organizations should be willing to fight like the people in the civil rights movement did to rectify the situation.  Society can't discriminate against gay people, black people, people of a religious sect, or political persuasion.  It doesn't make sense why people who avail themselves of an individual Right to keep and bear Arms should be treated any differently, but there are no specific laws protecting gun owners.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a background check on an employee that says whether or not they own guns.
> 
> And the firing of an individual for no other reason than he has a carry permit will not stand legal scrutiny.
> 
> There is legal precedent for any employer to prohibit firearms on their property so if your employer says no guns allowed on company property you can be fired if you do not comply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every state has different laws.  Until a few years ago in Georgia if an employer said you could not carry a weapon, even in your car in the parking lot, then you absolutely could not do it.
> 
> Today, however, you *CAN* have your weapon in your car, regardless of whether or not an employer agrees.  The only exception is if the employer fences in the property and only allows employees access to a company parking lot.  As long as their parking lot is accessible to the public, you can have your weapon in the vehicle.
> 
> Here is a look at which states have public access laws to a ccw:
> 
> Chart: Gun permit data accessibility in all 50 states
> 
> If something is a matter of public record it is accessible to anyone doing a background check on you.  People can look and then refuse you employment, services, loans, etc. without stating that as a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never been refused a loan or an apartment  because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have  CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks.  A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state and I doubt an employer is going to pay to have someone go to a state office and ask for gun permit records
> 
> How To Find Out If Someone Has A Gun Permit
> 
> _If your state does allow public access to gun permit records, it’s not a matter of simply looking up the information online. You must make a formal request, either via your county clerk or state justice department._
Click to expand...


Just because a task isn't easy or it requires one to get off their butt and go to the courthouse does not mean it cannot be done* NOR* that it isn't being done.

In the days before the Internet my brother worked for a company called Circuit City.  They wanted to transfer him from sales to a warehouse management position for the same money.  He didn't want the extra responsibility.  Circuit City looked into his background and found that he had paid a fine for having thrown some firecrackers that were bound together (by their fuses) at a neighbor's dog.  The case was 17 years old!  My brother told me, _"that happened when I was 17.  I had forgotten about it until they brought it up_."

Just because YOU haven't witnessed this stuff doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  There is a man who spends his days documenting the political activities of those who do things like participate in marches - specifically, Charlottesville sticks out.  Armed with evidence of their _"racist_" activities, this guy brings it to the attention of employers, banks / lending institutions, and anyone else in the neighborhood.  

I've been asked the question of whether I own a firearm by potential employers and by doctors. Disbelieve all you want.  If / when it happens, check back in with us.


----------



## justinacolmena

Blues Man said:


> never been refused a loan or an apartment because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks. A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state



Bullshit. Realitors & gentlemen have behind-the-scenes access to much, much more than a basic landlord check. Every detail of our private lives is recorded for posterity & instantly accessible in full detail to all of you fuckers without any extra fees or charges.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Turn Right said:


> I've heard a lot of simple minded liberals say that the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15s
> 
> To me that means that they must not have been very condenser about them.  In fact maybe they were sending us a message about everyone should own one.



I think that you have a good point. Glock should start mailing catalogs to prison inmates right away.


----------



## justinacolmena

Vandalshandle said:


> Turn Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard a lot of simple minded liberals say that the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15s
> 
> To me that means that they must not have been very condenser about them.  In fact maybe they were sending us a message about everyone should own one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you have a good point. Glock should start mailing catalogs to prison inmates right away.
Click to expand...


For all I know, they do. A catalog is not a gun, and probably not considered contraband in prison.


----------



## Vandalshandle

justinacolmena said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard a lot of simple minded liberals say that the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15s
> 
> To me that means that they must not have been very condenser about them.  In fact maybe they were sending us a message about everyone should own one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you have a good point. Glock should start mailing catalogs to prison inmates right away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all I know, they do. A catalog is not a gun, and probably not considered contraband in prison.
Click to expand...


I think that you are missing the point.


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a CC permit that might be public record but that is not proof that I own any firearms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When companies find out, they can still discriminate against you.  The pro-gun organizations should be willing to fight like the people in the civil rights movement did to rectify the situation.  Society can't discriminate against gay people, black people, people of a religious sect, or political persuasion.  It doesn't make sense why people who avail themselves of an individual Right to keep and bear Arms should be treated any differently, but there are no specific laws protecting gun owners.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a background check on an employee that says whether or not they own guns.
> 
> And the firing of an individual for no other reason than he has a carry permit will not stand legal scrutiny.
> 
> There is legal precedent for any employer to prohibit firearms on their property so if your employer says no guns allowed on company property you can be fired if you do not comply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every state has different laws.  Until a few years ago in Georgia if an employer said you could not carry a weapon, even in your car in the parking lot, then you absolutely could not do it.
> 
> Today, however, you *CAN* have your weapon in your car, regardless of whether or not an employer agrees.  The only exception is if the employer fences in the property and only allows employees access to a company parking lot.  As long as their parking lot is accessible to the public, you can have your weapon in the vehicle.
> 
> Here is a look at which states have public access laws to a ccw:
> 
> Chart: Gun permit data accessibility in all 50 states
> 
> If something is a matter of public record it is accessible to anyone doing a background check on you.  People can look and then refuse you employment, services, loans, etc. without stating that as a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never been refused a loan or an apartment  because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have  CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks.  A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state and I doubt an employer is going to pay to have someone go to a state office and ask for gun permit records
> 
> How To Find Out If Someone Has A Gun Permit
> 
> _If your state does allow public access to gun permit records, it’s not a matter of simply looking up the information online. You must make a formal request, either via your county clerk or state justice department._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a task isn't easy or it requires one to get off their butt and go to the courthouse does not mean it cannot be done* NOR* that it isn't being done.
> 
> In the days before the Internet my brother worked for a company called Circuit City.  They wanted to transfer him from sales to a warehouse management position for the same money.  He didn't want the extra responsibility.  Circuit City looked into his background and found that he had paid a fine for having thrown some firecrackers that were bound together (by their fuses) at a neighbor's dog.  The case was 17 years old!  My brother told me, _"that happened when I was 17.  I had forgotten about it until they brought it up_."
> 
> Just because YOU haven't witnessed this stuff doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  There is a man who spends his days documenting the political activities of those who do things like participate in marches - specifically, Charlottesville sticks out.  Armed with evidence of their _"racist_" activities, this guy brings it to the attention of employers, banks / lending institutions, and anyone else in the neighborhood.
> 
> I've been asked the question of whether I own a firearm by potential employers and by doctors. Disbelieve all you want.  If / when it happens, check back in with us.
Click to expand...


How often is it being done?

Seriously how many times have you been denied a job because you own a gun and like I said all the info anyone can get from public records is whether or not you have some sort of permit there will be no info that proves you own any guns

And your brother had a CORI check done on him like millions of other people do so don't try to equate a criminal record check with your claims that you have been denied jobs because you own a gun


----------



## Blues Man

justinacolmena said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> never been refused a loan or an apartment because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks. A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Realitors & gentlemen have behind-the-scenes access to much, much more than a basic landlord check. Every detail of our private lives is recorded for posterity & instantly accessible in full detail to all of you fuckers without any extra fees or charges.
Click to expand...


Like what?

I've been a landlord for a long time so why don't you tell me how to get info on people for free.

I run credit checks, CORI checks and landlord checks and none of them have ever been free


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When companies find out, they can still discriminate against you.  The pro-gun organizations should be willing to fight like the people in the civil rights movement did to rectify the situation.  Society can't discriminate against gay people, black people, people of a religious sect, or political persuasion.  It doesn't make sense why people who avail themselves of an individual Right to keep and bear Arms should be treated any differently, but there are no specific laws protecting gun owners.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a background check on an employee that says whether or not they own guns.
> 
> And the firing of an individual for no other reason than he has a carry permit will not stand legal scrutiny.
> 
> There is legal precedent for any employer to prohibit firearms on their property so if your employer says no guns allowed on company property you can be fired if you do not comply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every state has different laws.  Until a few years ago in Georgia if an employer said you could not carry a weapon, even in your car in the parking lot, then you absolutely could not do it.
> 
> Today, however, you *CAN* have your weapon in your car, regardless of whether or not an employer agrees.  The only exception is if the employer fences in the property and only allows employees access to a company parking lot.  As long as their parking lot is accessible to the public, you can have your weapon in the vehicle.
> 
> Here is a look at which states have public access laws to a ccw:
> 
> Chart: Gun permit data accessibility in all 50 states
> 
> If something is a matter of public record it is accessible to anyone doing a background check on you.  People can look and then refuse you employment, services, loans, etc. without stating that as a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never been refused a loan or an apartment  because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have  CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks.  A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state and I doubt an employer is going to pay to have someone go to a state office and ask for gun permit records
> 
> How To Find Out If Someone Has A Gun Permit
> 
> _If your state does allow public access to gun permit records, it’s not a matter of simply looking up the information online. You must make a formal request, either via your county clerk or state justice department._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a task isn't easy or it requires one to get off their butt and go to the courthouse does not mean it cannot be done* NOR* that it isn't being done.
> 
> In the days before the Internet my brother worked for a company called Circuit City.  They wanted to transfer him from sales to a warehouse management position for the same money.  He didn't want the extra responsibility.  Circuit City looked into his background and found that he had paid a fine for having thrown some firecrackers that were bound together (by their fuses) at a neighbor's dog.  The case was 17 years old!  My brother told me, _"that happened when I was 17.  I had forgotten about it until they brought it up_."
> 
> Just because YOU haven't witnessed this stuff doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  There is a man who spends his days documenting the political activities of those who do things like participate in marches - specifically, Charlottesville sticks out.  Armed with evidence of their _"racist_" activities, this guy brings it to the attention of employers, banks / lending institutions, and anyone else in the neighborhood.
> 
> I've been asked the question of whether I own a firearm by potential employers and by doctors. Disbelieve all you want.  If / when it happens, check back in with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How often is it being done?
> 
> Seriously how many times have you been denied a job because you own a gun and like I said all the info anyone can get from public records is whether or not you have some sort of permit there will be no info that proves you own any guns
> 
> And your brother had a CORI check done on him like millions of other people do so don't try to equate a criminal record check with your claims that you have been denied jobs because you own a gun
Click to expand...


If I posted a hundred examples of people not getting a job because they own a firearm, you would *STILL* deny it.  Just to prove you're full of yourself, let's do one.  Can't wait for that snappy comeback instead of an apology admitting that it *does* happen.  How many times does it happen where an anti-gun fanatic finds out via government records and finds ANOTHER pretext to get rid of an employee on?  But then again (sarcasm intended), that would never happen.

Company Fires Employee For Having Gun...IN HIS OWN HOME - Bullets First


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> never been refused a loan or an apartment because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks. A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Realitors & gentlemen have behind-the-scenes access to much, much more than a basic landlord check. Every detail of our private lives is recorded for posterity & instantly accessible in full detail to all of you fuckers without any extra fees or charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> I've been a landlord for a long time so why don't you tell me how to get info on people for free.
> 
> I run credit checks, CORI checks and landlord checks and none of them have ever been free
Click to expand...


Nothing in life is free.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pinqy said:


> [
> There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected.


There are laws against murder and assault


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No
Click to expand...




harmonica said:


> you don't have unlimited free speech rights
> ..you don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
> you don't have unlimited rights
> it's like the bible= can be interpreted many ways
> it's like guidebooks=they can't write EVERYTHING in there=they are for GUIDance
> written over 200 years ago !!! the world has CHANGED significantly
> written by humans who are imperfect
> written by males who believed slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote
> etc etc


Shall not be infringed


----------



## pinqy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected.
> 
> 
> 
> There are laws against murder and assault
Click to expand...

Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed
Click to expand...


Antonin Scalia disagreed


----------



## Pilot1

YES.  They are ALL un-Constitutional as they are clear INFRINGEMENTS.  My state's Constitution is even stricter, and says "The right to keep an bear arms shall NOT BE QUESTIONED".  Yet we still have illegal gun laws.

The CORRUPT, statist courts uphold these illegal laws.  It is a NATURAL RIGHT the Constitution guarantees.  Government does NOT grant rights, nor can it take away Natural Rights.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Turn Right said:


> I've heard a lot of simple minded liberals say that the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15s
> 
> To me that means that they must not have been very condenser about them.  In fact maybe they were sending us a message about e veryone should own one.



dont tell em about our 50's they'll stroke out in their safe spaces


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Antonin Scalia disagreed
Click to expand...

shrugs does it mean something else?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pinqy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected.
> 
> 
> 
> There are laws against murder and assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.
Click to expand...

laws are laws  does one murder trump another murder?


----------



## pinqy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected.
> 
> 
> 
> There are laws against murder and assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> laws are laws  does one murder trump another murder?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pinqy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected.
> 
> 
> 
> There are laws against murder and assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> laws are laws  does one murder trump another murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.
Click to expand...

I was not doing what you suggested 
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons 
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.


----------



## pinqy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected.
> 
> 
> 
> There are laws against murder and assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> laws are laws  does one murder trump another murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
Click to expand...

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited. 
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.

For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pinqy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are laws against murder and assault
> 
> 
> 
> Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> laws are laws  does one murder trump another murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
Click to expand...

What does shall not be infringed mean?


----------



## pinqy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.
> 
> 
> 
> laws are laws  does one murder trump another murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
Click to expand...

I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?

Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?

F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pinqy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> laws are laws  does one murder trump another murder?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?
> 
> F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.
Click to expand...

Due process takes care of your concern.


----------



## pinqy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.
> 
> 
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?
> 
> F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due process takes care of your concern.
Click to expand...

All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.

And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.

Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.


----------



## Slyhunter

Turn Right said:


> I've heard a lot of simple minded liberals say that the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15s
> 
> To me that means that they must not have been very condenser about them.  In fact maybe they were sending us a message about everyone should own one.


All Federal anti-gun laws are anti-constitutional. States have been permitted to make laws that don't abide by the constitution in the past, so meh.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pinqy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are laws against murder and assault
> 
> 
> 
> Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> laws are laws  does one murder trump another murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> 
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
Click to expand...



You are wrong on so many levels.  The worst one is thinking that a background check does not infringe on your Rights.  I'd reread the Bill of Rights if I were you and then think about the way that precedent could be expanded - besides if you can't be trusted to own a firearm, what in the Hell are you doing running around loose???


----------



## pinqy

Porter Rockwell said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.
> 
> 
> 
> laws are laws  does one murder trump another murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> 
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong on so many levels.  The worst one is thinking that a background check does not infringe on your Rights.  I'd reread the Bill of Rights if I were you and then think about the way that precedent could be expanded - besides if you can't be trusted to own a firearm, what in the Hell are you doing running around loose???
Click to expand...

How am I less able to keep and bear arms by having a basic criminal record check?


----------



## Slyhunter

pinqy said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> laws are laws  does one murder trump another murder?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> 
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong on so many levels.  The worst one is thinking that a background check does not infringe on your Rights.  I'd reread the Bill of Rights if I were you and then think about the way that precedent could be expanded - besides if you can't be trusted to own a firearm, what in the Hell are you doing running around loose???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I less able to keep and bear arms by having a basic criminal record check?
Click to expand...

What is the point of a basic criminal record check unless you intend to infringe on their right to bear arms if they are ex-cons?


----------



## pinqy

Slyhunter said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.
> 
> 
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> 
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong on so many levels.  The worst one is thinking that a background check does not infringe on your Rights.  I'd reread the Bill of Rights if I were you and then think about the way that precedent could be expanded - besides if you can't be trusted to own a firearm, what in the Hell are you doing running around loose???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I less able to keep and bear arms by having a basic criminal record check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the point of a basic criminal record check unless you intend to infringe on their right to bear arms if they are ex-cons?
Click to expand...

Do ex-cons maintain that right, or did they cede it by committing a crime?


----------



## Slyhunter

pinqy said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> 
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong on so many levels.  The worst one is thinking that a background check does not infringe on your Rights.  I'd reread the Bill of Rights if I were you and then think about the way that precedent could be expanded - besides if you can't be trusted to own a firearm, what in the Hell are you doing running around loose???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I less able to keep and bear arms by having a basic criminal record check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the point of a basic criminal record check unless you intend to infringe on their right to bear arms if they are ex-cons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do ex-cons maintain that right, or did they cede it by committing a crime?
Click to expand...

Show me in the Constitution where it has the exception.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pinqy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?
> 
> F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due process takes care of your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.
> 
> And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.
> 
> Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.
Click to expand...

I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
If you are in prison you give your rights up


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pinqy said:


> Do ex-cons maintain that right, or did they cede it by committing a crime?


Ex-cons mean they are out of prison and have paid their debt to society and should retain their rights.


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a background check on an employee that says whether or not they own guns.
> 
> And the firing of an individual for no other reason than he has a carry permit will not stand legal scrutiny.
> 
> There is legal precedent for any employer to prohibit firearms on their property so if your employer says no guns allowed on company property you can be fired if you do not comply
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state has different laws.  Until a few years ago in Georgia if an employer said you could not carry a weapon, even in your car in the parking lot, then you absolutely could not do it.
> 
> Today, however, you *CAN* have your weapon in your car, regardless of whether or not an employer agrees.  The only exception is if the employer fences in the property and only allows employees access to a company parking lot.  As long as their parking lot is accessible to the public, you can have your weapon in the vehicle.
> 
> Here is a look at which states have public access laws to a ccw:
> 
> Chart: Gun permit data accessibility in all 50 states
> 
> If something is a matter of public record it is accessible to anyone doing a background check on you.  People can look and then refuse you employment, services, loans, etc. without stating that as a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never been refused a loan or an apartment  because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have  CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks.  A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state and I doubt an employer is going to pay to have someone go to a state office and ask for gun permit records
> 
> How To Find Out If Someone Has A Gun Permit
> 
> _If your state does allow public access to gun permit records, it’s not a matter of simply looking up the information online. You must make a formal request, either via your county clerk or state justice department._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a task isn't easy or it requires one to get off their butt and go to the courthouse does not mean it cannot be done* NOR* that it isn't being done.
> 
> In the days before the Internet my brother worked for a company called Circuit City.  They wanted to transfer him from sales to a warehouse management position for the same money.  He didn't want the extra responsibility.  Circuit City looked into his background and found that he had paid a fine for having thrown some firecrackers that were bound together (by their fuses) at a neighbor's dog.  The case was 17 years old!  My brother told me, _"that happened when I was 17.  I had forgotten about it until they brought it up_."
> 
> Just because YOU haven't witnessed this stuff doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  There is a man who spends his days documenting the political activities of those who do things like participate in marches - specifically, Charlottesville sticks out.  Armed with evidence of their _"racist_" activities, this guy brings it to the attention of employers, banks / lending institutions, and anyone else in the neighborhood.
> 
> I've been asked the question of whether I own a firearm by potential employers and by doctors. Disbelieve all you want.  If / when it happens, check back in with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How often is it being done?
> 
> Seriously how many times have you been denied a job because you own a gun and like I said all the info anyone can get from public records is whether or not you have some sort of permit there will be no info that proves you own any guns
> 
> And your brother had a CORI check done on him like millions of other people do so don't try to equate a criminal record check with your claims that you have been denied jobs because you own a gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I posted a hundred examples of people not getting a job because they own a firearm, you would *STILL* deny it.  Just to prove you're full of yourself, let's do one.  Can't wait for that snappy comeback instead of an apology admitting that it *does* happen.  How many times does it happen where an anti-gun fanatic finds out via government records and finds ANOTHER pretext to get rid of an employee on?  But then again (sarcasm intended), that would never happen.
> 
> Company Fires Employee For Having Gun...IN HIS OWN HOME - Bullets First
Click to expand...


So you got one huh?  And FYI the guy wasn't fired because someone did a background check.


Tell me did this guy take his employer to court for firing him without cause?


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> never been refused a loan or an apartment because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks. A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Realitors & gentlemen have behind-the-scenes access to much, much more than a basic landlord check. Every detail of our private lives is recorded for posterity & instantly accessible in full detail to all of you fuckers without any extra fees or charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> I've been a landlord for a long time so why don't you tell me how to get info on people for free.
> 
> I run credit checks, CORI checks and landlord checks and none of them have ever been free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in life is free.
Click to expand...


No shit , Sherlock tell that to the idiot who said it was


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Anyone know the history of the carbine rifle?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pinqy said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> laws are laws  does one murder trump another murder?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not doing what you suggested
> Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
> "There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
> As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> 
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong on so many levels.  The worst one is thinking that a background check does not infringe on your Rights.  I'd reread the Bill of Rights if I were you and then think about the way that precedent could be expanded - besides if you can't be trusted to own a firearm, what in the Hell are you doing running around loose???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I less able to keep and bear arms by having a basic criminal record check?
Click to expand...



Irrelevant.  Where was the probable cause to dig into your background?  You submitted to a background check in order to exercise a constitutional right?  What's wrong with you?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every state has different laws.  Until a few years ago in Georgia if an employer said you could not carry a weapon, even in your car in the parking lot, then you absolutely could not do it.
> 
> Today, however, you *CAN* have your weapon in your car, regardless of whether or not an employer agrees.  The only exception is if the employer fences in the property and only allows employees access to a company parking lot.  As long as their parking lot is accessible to the public, you can have your weapon in the vehicle.
> 
> Here is a look at which states have public access laws to a ccw:
> 
> Chart: Gun permit data accessibility in all 50 states
> 
> If something is a matter of public record it is accessible to anyone doing a background check on you.  People can look and then refuse you employment, services, loans, etc. without stating that as a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been refused a loan or an apartment  because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have  CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks.  A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state and I doubt an employer is going to pay to have someone go to a state office and ask for gun permit records
> 
> How To Find Out If Someone Has A Gun Permit
> 
> _If your state does allow public access to gun permit records, it’s not a matter of simply looking up the information online. You must make a formal request, either via your county clerk or state justice department._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a task isn't easy or it requires one to get off their butt and go to the courthouse does not mean it cannot be done* NOR* that it isn't being done.
> 
> In the days before the Internet my brother worked for a company called Circuit City.  They wanted to transfer him from sales to a warehouse management position for the same money.  He didn't want the extra responsibility.  Circuit City looked into his background and found that he had paid a fine for having thrown some firecrackers that were bound together (by their fuses) at a neighbor's dog.  The case was 17 years old!  My brother told me, _"that happened when I was 17.  I had forgotten about it until they brought it up_."
> 
> Just because YOU haven't witnessed this stuff doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  There is a man who spends his days documenting the political activities of those who do things like participate in marches - specifically, Charlottesville sticks out.  Armed with evidence of their _"racist_" activities, this guy brings it to the attention of employers, banks / lending institutions, and anyone else in the neighborhood.
> 
> I've been asked the question of whether I own a firearm by potential employers and by doctors. Disbelieve all you want.  If / when it happens, check back in with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How often is it being done?
> 
> Seriously how many times have you been denied a job because you own a gun and like I said all the info anyone can get from public records is whether or not you have some sort of permit there will be no info that proves you own any guns
> 
> And your brother had a CORI check done on him like millions of other people do so don't try to equate a criminal record check with your claims that you have been denied jobs because you own a gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I posted a hundred examples of people not getting a job because they own a firearm, you would *STILL* deny it.  Just to prove you're full of yourself, let's do one.  Can't wait for that snappy comeback instead of an apology admitting that it *does* happen.  How many times does it happen where an anti-gun fanatic finds out via government records and finds ANOTHER pretext to get rid of an employee on?  But then again (sarcasm intended), that would never happen.
> 
> Company Fires Employee For Having Gun...IN HIS OWN HOME - Bullets First
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you got one huh?  And FYI the guy wasn't fired because someone did a background check.
> 
> 
> Tell me did this guy take his employer to court for firing him without cause?
Click to expand...


You know what I know about that case.  And I told you even if we could show that people were being fired for being gun owners, you'd be denying it.  It has already been shown that with minimal effort, you can use public records to access a person's ccw information.  Can you prove that the government is keeping up with WHO accesses your information and for what purpose?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> never been refused a loan or an apartment because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks. A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Realitors & gentlemen have behind-the-scenes access to much, much more than a basic landlord check. Every detail of our private lives is recorded for posterity & instantly accessible in full detail to all of you fuckers without any extra fees or charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> I've been a landlord for a long time so why don't you tell me how to get info on people for free.
> 
> I run credit checks, CORI checks and landlord checks and none of them have ever been free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in life is free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit , Sherlock tell that to the idiot who said it was
Click to expand...


Dude, the argument from your side of this issue was that you couldn't access a person's records online.  Yeah, it takes a little effort.  The stuff about CORI records was simply a deflection.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bigrebnc1775 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do ex-cons maintain that right, or did they cede it by committing a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-cons mean they are out of prison and have paid their debt to society and should retain their rights.
Click to expand...


For this reason, gun owners should be more activist in their lobbying to force the government to require rehabilitation before someone gets out of prison.

If the government allows people to get out of prison and that individual is still committing crimes, then the government isn't doing their job.  If a man pays his debt to society then when he comes home, he still has a duty to protect and defend himself and his family.  It is immoral and unconscionable to think a man could not protect his wife and children over an infraction of the law he paid for - sometimes decades ago.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pinqy said:


> How am I less able to keep and bear arms by having a basic criminal record check?


You have said guns have no place in the political process. to show you how wrong you are have you ever heard of the battle of Athens Tenn.? It took place in 1946


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been refused a loan or an apartment  because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have  CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks.  A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state and I doubt an employer is going to pay to have someone go to a state office and ask for gun permit records
> 
> How To Find Out If Someone Has A Gun Permit
> 
> _If your state does allow public access to gun permit records, it’s not a matter of simply looking up the information online. You must make a formal request, either via your county clerk or state justice department._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because a task isn't easy or it requires one to get off their butt and go to the courthouse does not mean it cannot be done* NOR* that it isn't being done.
> 
> In the days before the Internet my brother worked for a company called Circuit City.  They wanted to transfer him from sales to a warehouse management position for the same money.  He didn't want the extra responsibility.  Circuit City looked into his background and found that he had paid a fine for having thrown some firecrackers that were bound together (by their fuses) at a neighbor's dog.  The case was 17 years old!  My brother told me, _"that happened when I was 17.  I had forgotten about it until they brought it up_."
> 
> Just because YOU haven't witnessed this stuff doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  There is a man who spends his days documenting the political activities of those who do things like participate in marches - specifically, Charlottesville sticks out.  Armed with evidence of their _"racist_" activities, this guy brings it to the attention of employers, banks / lending institutions, and anyone else in the neighborhood.
> 
> I've been asked the question of whether I own a firearm by potential employers and by doctors. Disbelieve all you want.  If / when it happens, check back in with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How often is it being done?
> 
> Seriously how many times have you been denied a job because you own a gun and like I said all the info anyone can get from public records is whether or not you have some sort of permit there will be no info that proves you own any guns
> 
> And your brother had a CORI check done on him like millions of other people do so don't try to equate a criminal record check with your claims that you have been denied jobs because you own a gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I posted a hundred examples of people not getting a job because they own a firearm, you would *STILL* deny it.  Just to prove you're full of yourself, let's do one.  Can't wait for that snappy comeback instead of an apology admitting that it *does* happen.  How many times does it happen where an anti-gun fanatic finds out via government records and finds ANOTHER pretext to get rid of an employee on?  But then again (sarcasm intended), that would never happen.
> 
> Company Fires Employee For Having Gun...IN HIS OWN HOME - Bullets First
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you got one huh?  And FYI the guy wasn't fired because someone did a background check.
> 
> 
> Tell me did this guy take his employer to court for firing him without cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what I know about that case.  And I told you even if we could show that people were being fired for being gun owners, you'd be denying it.  It has already been shown that with minimal effort, you can use public records to access a person's ccw information.  Can you prove that the government is keeping up with WHO accesses your information and for what purpose?
Click to expand...

So some anecdote and nothing more

Lots of things are public record always have been always will be.

And like I said all anyone can get is confirmation that I have  a CC permit.  They can't get the application data or any data on any guns I may own.

If someone fires you for that then you have a law suit that you will win.


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> never been refused a loan or an apartment because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have CC permit.
> 
> I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks. A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.
> 
> There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Realitors & gentlemen have behind-the-scenes access to much, much more than a basic landlord check. Every detail of our private lives is recorded for posterity & instantly accessible in full detail to all of you fuckers without any extra fees or charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> I've been a landlord for a long time so why don't you tell me how to get info on people for free.
> 
> I run credit checks, CORI checks and landlord checks and none of them have ever been free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in life is free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit , Sherlock tell that to the idiot who said it was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, the argument from your side of this issue was that you couldn't access a person's records online.  Yeah, it takes a little effort.  The stuff about CORI records was simply a deflection.
Click to expand...


You can't get the info on line.

I already told you that you have to make the request in person at a state office and you still won't get any info on whether or not anyone owns any guns.

Do you really think a person is going to do that every time someone  applies for a job or wants to rent an apartment?

IF it happens it doesn't happen often enough to merit your outrage


----------



## justinacolmena

Blues Man said:


> If someone fires you for that then you have a law suit that you will win.



You're full of shit. That kind don't play fair. They strike below the belt. They spike your coffee or dope your lunch, there's a lady pressing charges against you for some kind of alleged vaguely sex-related offense. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a gun lawsuit in court with a bunch of liberal gun-banning lawyers & judges + a city hall picked jury.


----------



## Blues Man

justinacolmena said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone fires you for that then you have a law suit that you will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit. That kind don't play fair. They strike below the belt. They spike your coffee or dope your lunch, there's a lady pressing charges against you for some kind of alleged vaguely sex-related offense. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a gun lawsuit in court with a bunch of liberal gun-banning lawyers & judges + a city hall picked jury.
Click to expand...


Look up unhinged in the dictionary and you'll see your picture


----------



## Bob Blaylock

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ex-cons mean they are out of prison and have paid their debt to society and should retain their rights.



  I agree, but would point out what I think is an important point.

  There was a time when someone convicted of a serious enough crime to merit concern about whether he should retain his right to keep and bear arms, served his sentence at the end of a rope.  Now, after completing such a sentence, I still have no problem with that criminal retaining his Second Amendment rights, other than that I think it would be a waste to bury valuable and useful property with the executed body the owner thereof, when that property could instead be used for the benefit of those still living.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because a task isn't easy or it requires one to get off their butt and go to the courthouse does not mean it cannot be done* NOR* that it isn't being done.
> 
> In the days before the Internet my brother worked for a company called Circuit City.  They wanted to transfer him from sales to a warehouse management position for the same money.  He didn't want the extra responsibility.  Circuit City looked into his background and found that he had paid a fine for having thrown some firecrackers that were bound together (by their fuses) at a neighbor's dog.  The case was 17 years old!  My brother told me, _"that happened when I was 17.  I had forgotten about it until they brought it up_."
> 
> Just because YOU haven't witnessed this stuff doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  There is a man who spends his days documenting the political activities of those who do things like participate in marches - specifically, Charlottesville sticks out.  Armed with evidence of their _"racist_" activities, this guy brings it to the attention of employers, banks / lending institutions, and anyone else in the neighborhood.
> 
> I've been asked the question of whether I own a firearm by potential employers and by doctors. Disbelieve all you want.  If / when it happens, check back in with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How often is it being done?
> 
> Seriously how many times have you been denied a job because you own a gun and like I said all the info anyone can get from public records is whether or not you have some sort of permit there will be no info that proves you own any guns
> 
> And your brother had a CORI check done on him like millions of other people do so don't try to equate a criminal record check with your claims that you have been denied jobs because you own a gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I posted a hundred examples of people not getting a job because they own a firearm, you would *STILL* deny it.  Just to prove you're full of yourself, let's do one.  Can't wait for that snappy comeback instead of an apology admitting that it *does* happen.  How many times does it happen where an anti-gun fanatic finds out via government records and finds ANOTHER pretext to get rid of an employee on?  But then again (sarcasm intended), that would never happen.
> 
> Company Fires Employee For Having Gun...IN HIS OWN HOME - Bullets First
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you got one huh?  And FYI the guy wasn't fired because someone did a background check.
> 
> 
> Tell me did this guy take his employer to court for firing him without cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what I know about that case.  And I told you even if we could show that people were being fired for being gun owners, you'd be denying it.  It has already been shown that with minimal effort, you can use public records to access a person's ccw information.  Can you prove that the government is keeping up with WHO accesses your information and for what purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So some anecdote and nothing more
> 
> Lots of things are public record always have been always will be.
> 
> And like I said all anyone can get is confirmation that I have  a CC permit.  They can't get the application data or any data on any guns I may own.
> 
> If someone fires you for that then you have a law suit that you will win.
Click to expand...


You have no idea how hard it would be to find a lawyer - even in the NRA for that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Realitors & gentlemen have behind-the-scenes access to much, much more than a basic landlord check. Every detail of our private lives is recorded for posterity & instantly accessible in full detail to all of you fuckers without any extra fees or charges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> I've been a landlord for a long time so why don't you tell me how to get info on people for free.
> 
> I run credit checks, CORI checks and landlord checks and none of them have ever been free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in life is free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit , Sherlock tell that to the idiot who said it was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, the argument from your side of this issue was that you couldn't access a person's records online.  Yeah, it takes a little effort.  The stuff about CORI records was simply a deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't get the info on line.
> 
> I already told you that you have to make the request in person at a state office and you still won't get any info on whether or not anyone owns any guns.
> 
> Do you really think a person is going to do that every time someone  applies for a job or wants to rent an apartment?
> 
> IF it happens it doesn't happen often enough to merit your outrage
Click to expand...


Do you really think you're telling me I haven't already stated as fact in this thread?  Did you forget post # 48 that fast?  

My experience is that if someone can get something by digging for it, somebody out there is making it easier to get for a price.  If people want rid of you, they will find a reason.  So, BFD, people have to work in order to invade your privacy.  How long before someone is doing this for a profit and it is commonplace?  SURPRISE!!!  *It is being done.*  What makes you think that high dollar rollers don't already do this stuff? 

I'm not going to try and convince you.  Little infringements become larger ones as they become more and more profitable.   If you choose to wallow in ignorance, you have every legal Right to do so, but it still won't make you right.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

justinacolmena said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone fires you for that then you have a law suit that you will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit. That kind don't play fair. They strike below the belt. They spike your coffee or dope your lunch, there's a lady pressing charges against you for some kind of alleged vaguely sex-related offense. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a gun lawsuit in court with a bunch of liberal gun-banning lawyers & judges + a city hall picked jury.
Click to expand...


Even when you have a president that advocates _"take the guns - Due Process later_" It becomes impossible to make some people think.  I had a boss that used to tell his employees: "_any man that don't use his head may as well have been born with two assholes_."

The intent of the founders and framers AND the earliest court rulings (including the United States Supreme Court)   acknowledged that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, irrevocable *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right that existed before the Constitution was written and the Right is above the reach of government.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Porter Rockwell said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone fires you for that then you have a law suit that you will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit. That kind don't play fair. They strike below the belt. They spike your coffee or dope your lunch, there's a lady pressing charges against you for some kind of alleged vaguely sex-related offense. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a gun lawsuit in court with a bunch of liberal gun-banning lawyers & judges + a city hall picked jury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even when you have a president that advocates _"take the guns - Due Process later_" It becomes impossible to make some people think.  I had a boss that used to tell his employees: "_any man that don't use his head may as well have been born with two assholes_."
> 
> The intent of the founders and framers AND the earliest court rulings (including the United States Supreme Court)   acknowledged that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, irrevocable *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right that existed before the Constitution was written and the Right is above the reach of government.
Click to expand...

This is why I say leftist and antitrumpers are stupid. They are going after Trump the wrong way. Making up crap that never happened. but when it comes to guns trump is his own worse enemy


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> How often is it being done?
> 
> Seriously how many times have you been denied a job because you own a gun and like I said all the info anyone can get from public records is whether or not you have some sort of permit there will be no info that proves you own any guns
> 
> And your brother had a CORI check done on him like millions of other people do so don't try to equate a criminal record check with your claims that you have been denied jobs because you own a gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I posted a hundred examples of people not getting a job because they own a firearm, you would *STILL* deny it.  Just to prove you're full of yourself, let's do one.  Can't wait for that snappy comeback instead of an apology admitting that it *does* happen.  How many times does it happen where an anti-gun fanatic finds out via government records and finds ANOTHER pretext to get rid of an employee on?  But then again (sarcasm intended), that would never happen.
> 
> Company Fires Employee For Having Gun...IN HIS OWN HOME - Bullets First
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you got one huh?  And FYI the guy wasn't fired because someone did a background check.
> 
> 
> Tell me did this guy take his employer to court for firing him without cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what I know about that case.  And I told you even if we could show that people were being fired for being gun owners, you'd be denying it.  It has already been shown that with minimal effort, you can use public records to access a person's ccw information.  Can you prove that the government is keeping up with WHO accesses your information and for what purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So some anecdote and nothing more
> 
> Lots of things are public record always have been always will be.
> 
> And like I said all anyone can get is confirmation that I have  a CC permit.  They can't get the application data or any data on any guns I may own.
> 
> If someone fires you for that then you have a law suit that you will win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea how hard it would be to find a lawyer - even in the NRA for that.
Click to expand...


I can find a listing of hundreds of lawyers in .2 Google seconds


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> I've been a landlord for a long time so why don't you tell me how to get info on people for free.
> 
> I run credit checks, CORI checks and landlord checks and none of them have ever been free
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in life is free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit , Sherlock tell that to the idiot who said it was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, the argument from your side of this issue was that you couldn't access a person's records online.  Yeah, it takes a little effort.  The stuff about CORI records was simply a deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't get the info on line.
> 
> I already told you that you have to make the request in person at a state office and you still won't get any info on whether or not anyone owns any guns.
> 
> Do you really think a person is going to do that every time someone  applies for a job or wants to rent an apartment?
> 
> IF it happens it doesn't happen often enough to merit your outrage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think you're telling me I haven't already stated as fact in this thread?  Did you forget post # 48 that fast?
> 
> My experience is that if someone can get something by digging for it, somebody out there is making it easier to get for a price.  If people want rid of you, they will find a reason.  So, BFD, people have to work in order to invade your privacy.  How long before someone is doing this for a profit and it is commonplace?  SURPRISE!!!  *It is being done.*  What makes you think that high dollar rollers don't already do this stuff?
> 
> I'm not going to try and convince you.  Little infringements become larger ones as they become more and more profitable.   If you choose to wallow in ignorance, you have every legal Right to do so, but it still won't make you right.
Click to expand...


I know what's public record and what isn't and I know that someone finding out I have a CC permit is no big deal.

If they want to waste their time and money to find out I have a CC permit IDGAF because it is nothing that can be used against me.


----------



## sparky

The _intent _of the 2nd was to _empower_ the citizen populace ability to _confront _a rouge governance via armed militia(s)

This is so over the top _broken_ , it's a _joke_ beyond words  

Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools 

~S~


----------



## Blues Man

sparky said:


> The _intent _of the 2nd was to _empower_ the citizen populace ability to _confront _a rouge governance via armed militia(s)
> 
> This is so over the top _broken_ , it's a _joke_ beyond words
> 
> Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools
> 
> ~S~



That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in life is free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit , Sherlock tell that to the idiot who said it was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, the argument from your side of this issue was that you couldn't access a person's records online.  Yeah, it takes a little effort.  The stuff about CORI records was simply a deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't get the info on line.
> 
> I already told you that you have to make the request in person at a state office and you still won't get any info on whether or not anyone owns any guns.
> 
> Do you really think a person is going to do that every time someone  applies for a job or wants to rent an apartment?
> 
> IF it happens it doesn't happen often enough to merit your outrage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think you're telling me I haven't already stated as fact in this thread?  Did you forget post # 48 that fast?
> 
> My experience is that if someone can get something by digging for it, somebody out there is making it easier to get for a price.  If people want rid of you, they will find a reason.  So, BFD, people have to work in order to invade your privacy.  How long before someone is doing this for a profit and it is commonplace?  SURPRISE!!!  *It is being done.*  What makes you think that high dollar rollers don't already do this stuff?
> 
> I'm not going to try and convince you.  Little infringements become larger ones as they become more and more profitable.   If you choose to wallow in ignorance, you have every legal Right to do so, but it still won't make you right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what's public record and what isn't and I know that someone finding out I have a CC permit is no big deal.
> 
> If they want to waste their time and money to find out I have a CC permit IDGAF because it is nothing that can be used against me.
Click to expand...


Your replies are really immature.  As I write this, both the left and the right are busy trying to pass Red Flag Laws across this country.  If your neighbor, boss, relative, etc. know you have a firearm, all they have to do under these Red Flag Laws is call the police and say that you are acting crazy and may pose a danger.

When the general public has access to your private information and when they want to do something against you... be it get you fired from a job, run out of a neighborhood, etc. they will do it.  An IRS agent may get whizzed that you hired an attorney he didn't like to represent you at an audit.  Then, without even a warrant *ANYONE* can find out if you have a weapon.  

You may not "GAF," but some people do.  And if you think that just because there are a lot of attorneys out there you can get one to take your case, you have left the world of reality.  Fact is, I have a medical malpractice case in front of me right now.  The case is solid and any medical malpractice attorney could win it.  They won't take it.  I am going to have to do it - and I've never done medical malpractice.  The reason: it's over a relatively small amount of money where legal jockeying is concerned.  You get fired from your job over owning a firearm.  If you aren't black, Jewish, Muslim, handicapped or some other protected class, where is your case?  Gun owners are not a protected class of people.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _intent _of the 2nd was to _empower_ the citizen populace ability to _confront _a rouge governance via armed militia(s)
> 
> This is so over the top _broken_ , it's a _joke_ beyond words
> 
> Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government
Click to expand...


The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons.


----------



## pinqy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
> Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.
> 
> The point is that no rights are unlimited.
> Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?
> 
> Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.
> 
> 
> 
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?
> 
> F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due process takes care of your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.
> 
> And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.
> 
> Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
> If you are in prison you give your rights up
Click to expand...

Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _intent _of the 2nd was to _empower_ the citizen populace ability to _confront _a rouge governance via armed militia(s)
> 
> This is so over the top _broken_ , it's a _joke_ beyond words
> 
> Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons.
Click to expand...

Excuse me but what is the purpose of the second Amendment?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pinqy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?
> 
> F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due process takes care of your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.
> 
> And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.
> 
> Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
> If you are in prison you give your rights up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.
Click to expand...

If you knew what due process meant you would understand my response.


----------



## pinqy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?
> 
> F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Due process takes care of your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.
> 
> And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.
> 
> Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
> If you are in prison you give your rights up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you knew what due process meant you would understand my response.
Click to expand...

Nope. Because you are misusing it. My understanding is correct, yours is off.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pinqy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due process takes care of your concern.
> 
> 
> 
> All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.
> 
> And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.
> 
> Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
> If you are in prison you give your rights up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you knew what due process meant you would understand my response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Because you are misusing it. My understanding is correct, yours is off.
Click to expand...

No I'm not misusing it.
The only way that anyone can loose their rights is by due process


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pinqy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does shall not be infringed mean?
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?
> 
> F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due process takes care of your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.
> 
> And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.
> 
> Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
> If you are in prison you give your rights up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.
Click to expand...



What???


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _intent _of the 2nd was to _empower_ the citizen populace ability to _confront _a rouge governance via armed militia(s)
> 
> This is so over the top _broken_ , it's a _joke_ beyond words
> 
> Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me but what is the purpose of the second Amendment?
Click to expand...


The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."

_*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:

“_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?


----------



## pinqy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.
> 
> And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.
> 
> Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
> If you are in prison you give your rights up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you knew what due process meant you would understand my response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Because you are misusing it. My understanding is correct, yours is off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I'm not misusing it.
> The only way that anyone can loose their rights is by due process
Click to expand...

Which is how felons and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence lose their right. But a ban on weapons in a courthouse is not anyone losing their rights and does not involve due process. General restrictions for specific situations does not cause anyone to lose their rights.

Nor do general procedures such as background checks or even waiting periods (which I strongly oppose).


----------



## pinqy

Porter Rockwell said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _intent _of the 2nd was to _empower_ the citizen populace ability to _confront _a rouge governance via armed militia(s)
> 
> This is so over the top _broken_ , it's a _joke_ beyond words
> 
> Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me but what is the purpose of the second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?
Click to expand...

None of that means that there can be no restrictions or limitations. And there were many gun laws in the early days of this country, proving that the understanding at the time the 2nd amendment was written was not no restrictions at all.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pinqy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
> If you are in prison you give your rights up
> 
> 
> 
> Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you knew what due process meant you would understand my response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Because you are misusing it. My understanding is correct, yours is off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I'm not misusing it.
> The only way that anyone can loose their rights is by due process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is how felons and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence lose their right. But a ban on weapons in a courthouse is not anyone losing their rights and does not involve due process. General restrictions for specific situations does not cause anyone to lose their rights.
> 
> Nor do general procedures such as background checks or even waiting periods (which I strongly oppose).
Click to expand...


You need to read the Bill of Rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pinqy said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _intent _of the 2nd was to _empower_ the citizen populace ability to _confront _a rouge governance via armed militia(s)
> 
> This is so over the top _broken_ , it's a _joke_ beyond words
> 
> Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me but what is the purpose of the second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that means that there can be no restrictions or limitations. And there were many gun laws in the early days of this country, proving that the understanding at the time the 2nd amendment was written was not no restrictions at all.
Click to expand...

What does shall not be infringe mean?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Porter Rockwell said:


> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?


You did say
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons."
That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms. 
Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided 
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pinqy said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _intent _of the 2nd was to _empower_ the citizen populace ability to _confront _a rouge governance via armed militia(s)
> 
> This is so over the top _broken_ , it's a _joke_ beyond words
> 
> Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me but what is the purpose of the second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that means that there can be no restrictions or limitations. And there were many gun laws in the early days of this country, proving that the understanding at the time the 2nd amendment was written was not no restrictions at all.
Click to expand...


Okay, let us take what we already know about *unalienable */ absolute Rights and make it mean something specific. 

The first case involving the Right to keep and bear Arms came from the state of Kentucky.  It involved a man using a sword disguised as a cane and he was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.The Kentucky state constitution read:

, "_that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned._"

  Here is how the court ruled:

 "_the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire_, ..."  Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. 12 Littell 90 Ky. 1822. 

That case set the precedent that owning firearms is an *absolute* Right.   Now, let us keep going:

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." Th*e right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree;* and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. *Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right*, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_”  Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Again the Right to keep and bear Arms was understood to be above government control.  Let's keep moving forward:

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"_The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute. He does not derive it from the State government.*  It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_*."*

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“_*The Government of the United States*, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, *can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction.* All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States._

_..T*he right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_.   United States v. Cruikshank  92 US 542 (1875)

Can you see those bolded portions?

Justice Joseph Story of the United States Supreme Court wrote:

“_One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms_.”

Justice Story was nominated by James Madison, who is not only considered the Father of the Constitution, but he is also the primary author of the Bill of Rights.  That's pretty definitive.  Shall we consult the author of the Declaration of Independence to give us even more insight?

"_On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning 
may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform 
to the probable one in which it was passed_." --Thomas Jefferson
to William Johnson, 1823

Okay, let's go back to the time of the debates as Jefferson suggests.  Let's ask the people who founded this Republic.

"_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. *The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun*_*.*”

– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“_For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion_.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“[_I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist._”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“_To preserve liberty, it is essential that the *whole body of the people *always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them_.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“A_nd that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience;* or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms*; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; *or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions*_*.”   *-George Washington, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788

“_To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
-Zachariah Johnson, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 25, 1788

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;"  Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens,* the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms*.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Is that sufficient enough to meet Jefferson's admonition?  Let me answer your next objection since today's laws are 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But *let there be no change by usurpation*; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good,* it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed**." * George Washington  FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES  1791

If  you let that sink in, you might think about the fact that even as we debate this, the President and the United States Supreme Court are having a power struggle, each thinking they have a superior right to legislate new laws.  Both are wrong.  And, while there are gun control laws on the books, most ARE constitutional.  The Constitution only gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to interpret the law.  Once it's settled, they don't get to come back (IF we lived in a de jure Republic) and decide screw it, let's change the law... that ain't their job.  It is the job of the Legislative branch of government.  Consequently, we live in a legal clusterphuck with the masses thinking they can take away *unalienable* Rights with a majority vote.  You can't._


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?
> 
> 
> 
> You did say
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons."
> That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
> Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> United States v. Miller
Click to expand...


How do you figure I contradicted myself?  I stand by my statement.  The government does not "_allow_" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms.  They have no such authority.

Put another way:  If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it?  I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me.  The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created.  All the government can do is *guarantee* it.  I was born with the Right - the government can't _allow_ me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it.  The Right is above the law.


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit , Sherlock tell that to the idiot who said it was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, the argument from your side of this issue was that you couldn't access a person's records online.  Yeah, it takes a little effort.  The stuff about CORI records was simply a deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't get the info on line.
> 
> I already told you that you have to make the request in person at a state office and you still won't get any info on whether or not anyone owns any guns.
> 
> Do you really think a person is going to do that every time someone  applies for a job or wants to rent an apartment?
> 
> IF it happens it doesn't happen often enough to merit your outrage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think you're telling me I haven't already stated as fact in this thread?  Did you forget post # 48 that fast?
> 
> My experience is that if someone can get something by digging for it, somebody out there is making it easier to get for a price.  If people want rid of you, they will find a reason.  So, BFD, people have to work in order to invade your privacy.  How long before someone is doing this for a profit and it is commonplace?  SURPRISE!!!  *It is being done.*  What makes you think that high dollar rollers don't already do this stuff?
> 
> I'm not going to try and convince you.  Little infringements become larger ones as they become more and more profitable.   If you choose to wallow in ignorance, you have every legal Right to do so, but it still won't make you right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what's public record and what isn't and I know that someone finding out I have a CC permit is no big deal.
> 
> If they want to waste their time and money to find out I have a CC permit IDGAF because it is nothing that can be used against me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your replies are really immature.  As I write this, both the left and the right are busy trying to pass Red Flag Laws across this country.  If your neighbor, boss, relative, etc. know you have a firearm, all they have to do under these Red Flag Laws is call the police and say that you are acting crazy and may pose a danger.
> 
> When the general public has access to your private information and when they want to do something against you... be it get you fired from a job, run out of a neighborhood, etc. they will do it.  An IRS agent may get whizzed that you hired an attorney he didn't like to represent you at an audit.  Then, without even a warrant *ANYONE* can find out if you have a weapon.
> 
> You may not "GAF," but some people do.  And if you think that just because there are a lot of attorneys out there you can get one to take your case, you have left the world of reality.  Fact is, I have a medical malpractice case in front of me right now.  The case is solid and any medical malpractice attorney could win it.  They won't take it.  I am going to have to do it - and I've never done medical malpractice.  The reason: it's over a relatively small amount of money where legal jockeying is concerned.  You get fired from your job over owning a firearm.  If you aren't black, Jewish, Muslim, handicapped or some other protected class, where is your case?  Gun owners are not a protected class of people.
Click to expand...


A rad flag law has nothing to do with whether or not your CC permit is public record.

And FYI I do not support red flag laws because they circumvent due process

And FYI gun owners aren't a class of people at all. 

There is no way anyone will know if I own a weapon unless there is a legal search warrant executed at my home.  And since there will never be cause for a search warrant of my home I have nothing to worry about.

And an IRS agent doesn't give a shit if you hire a tax attorney to represent you in fact I bet they would expect you to do that very thing.

I'm as private a person as anyone but I'm not pathologically paranoid.


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _intent _of the 2nd was to _empower_ the citizen populace ability to _confront _a rouge governance via armed militia(s)
> 
> This is so over the top _broken_ , it's a _joke_ beyond words
> 
> Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons.
Click to expand...


You do know that any right ALLOWS you to do something don't you?

If you have the right to keep and bear arms then by definition you are ALLOWED to keep and bear arms


----------



## diver52

Porter Rockwell said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?
> 
> 
> 
> You did say
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons."
> That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
> Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> United States v. Miller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure I contradicted myself?  I stand by my statement.  The government does not "_allow_" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms.  They have no such authority.
> 
> Put another way:  If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it?  I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me.  The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created.  All the government can do is *guarantee* it.  I was born with the Right - the government can't _allow_ me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it.  The Right is above the law.
Click to expand...


Let us say you were born in North Korea.  Would you still have been born with that right?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Porter Rockwell said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?
> 
> 
> 
> You did say
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons."
> That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
> Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> United States v. Miller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure I contradicted myself?  I stand by my statement.  The government does not "_allow_" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms.  They have no such authority.
> 
> Put another way:  If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it?  I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me.  The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created.  All the government can do is *guarantee* it.  I was born with the Right - the government can't _allow_ me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it.  The Right is above the law.
Click to expand...

You wrote this which is why I found confusing
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, *does not "allow"* the private ownership of weapons."
The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, the argument from your side of this issue was that you couldn't access a person's records online.  Yeah, it takes a little effort.  The stuff about CORI records was simply a deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't get the info on line.
> 
> I already told you that you have to make the request in person at a state office and you still won't get any info on whether or not anyone owns any guns.
> 
> Do you really think a person is going to do that every time someone  applies for a job or wants to rent an apartment?
> 
> IF it happens it doesn't happen often enough to merit your outrage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think you're telling me I haven't already stated as fact in this thread?  Did you forget post # 48 that fast?
> 
> My experience is that if someone can get something by digging for it, somebody out there is making it easier to get for a price.  If people want rid of you, they will find a reason.  So, BFD, people have to work in order to invade your privacy.  How long before someone is doing this for a profit and it is commonplace?  SURPRISE!!!  *It is being done.*  What makes you think that high dollar rollers don't already do this stuff?
> 
> I'm not going to try and convince you.  Little infringements become larger ones as they become more and more profitable.   If you choose to wallow in ignorance, you have every legal Right to do so, but it still won't make you right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what's public record and what isn't and I know that someone finding out I have a CC permit is no big deal.
> 
> If they want to waste their time and money to find out I have a CC permit IDGAF because it is nothing that can be used against me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your replies are really immature.  As I write this, both the left and the right are busy trying to pass Red Flag Laws across this country.  If your neighbor, boss, relative, etc. know you have a firearm, all they have to do under these Red Flag Laws is call the police and say that you are acting crazy and may pose a danger.
> 
> When the general public has access to your private information and when they want to do something against you... be it get you fired from a job, run out of a neighborhood, etc. they will do it.  An IRS agent may get whizzed that you hired an attorney he didn't like to represent you at an audit.  Then, without even a warrant *ANYONE* can find out if you have a weapon.
> 
> You may not "GAF," but some people do.  And if you think that just because there are a lot of attorneys out there you can get one to take your case, you have left the world of reality.  Fact is, I have a medical malpractice case in front of me right now.  The case is solid and any medical malpractice attorney could win it.  They won't take it.  I am going to have to do it - and I've never done medical malpractice.  The reason: it's over a relatively small amount of money where legal jockeying is concerned.  You get fired from your job over owning a firearm.  If you aren't black, Jewish, Muslim, handicapped or some other protected class, where is your case?  Gun owners are not a protected class of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rad flag law has nothing to do with whether or not your CC permit is public record.
> 
> And FYI I do not support red flag laws because they circumvent due process
> 
> And FYI gun owners aren't a class of people at all.
> 
> There is no way anyone will know if I own a weapon unless there is a legal search warrant executed at my home.  And since there will never be cause for a search warrant of my home I have nothing to worry about.
> 
> And an IRS agent doesn't give a shit if you hire a tax attorney to represent you in fact I bet they would expect you to do that very thing.
> 
> I'm as private a person as anyone but I'm not pathologically paranoid.
Click to expand...


Dude, you're the king of silliness and repetitive dumbassery.  I tell you something and you *repeat it as if you're telling ME something?*  WTH?  

I grew up in the era when Congressman George Hanson wrote the book  To Harass Our People: The IRS and Government Abuse of Power.  So, excuse the Hell out of me.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  You think you're smarter than those who have information you don't, so you know what...

If you're happy with the society that is all about the pee test, blood test, hair sample, DNA sample, criminal background check, credit check, Interpol background check, ccw, occupation license, hunting license, National ID / REAL ID - E Verify, Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "_Social Security Number,_"  fishing license, proof of insurance, 24 7 / 365 womb to the tomb surveillance, then you and I have little else to discuss.  

Either your reading skills are so minimal that you cannot participate in a civil and understandable conversation or you are a fucking idiot.  My training is not in psychiatry, so you're SOL.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _intent _of the 2nd was to _empower_ the citizen populace ability to _confront _a rouge governance via armed militia(s)
> 
> This is so over the top _broken_ , it's a _joke_ beyond words
> 
> Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that any right ALLOWS you to do something don't you?
> 
> If you have the right to keep and bear arms then by definition you are ALLOWED to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...


Refuted earlier for those with an IQ above their shoe size.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

diver52 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?
> 
> 
> 
> You did say
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons."
> That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
> Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> United States v. Miller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure I contradicted myself?  I stand by my statement.  The government does not "_allow_" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms.  They have no such authority.
> 
> Put another way:  If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it?  I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me.  The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created.  All the government can do is *guarantee* it.  I was born with the Right - the government can't _allow_ me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it.  The Right is above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us say you were born in North Korea.  Would you still have been born with that right?
Click to expand...


*EVERY* human being is born with *unalienable* Rights - or so says the Declaratory Charter of the United States, according to Thomas Jefferson.

*HAVING* *unalienable* Rights does not mean there are not people that will infringe on them.  And so the United States has sent more soldiers onto foreign soil in the name of Freedom and Liberty than any country on this planet.  We've never occupied countries as a political participant in exchange.  We've not taken an acre of the land for our sacrifices.  

We are a country built on foundational principles that when we organized our government and ratified a Constitution, we *presupposed* these things and that is why we have been a beacon to every nation living under tyrants.  

A good analogy is that you have a Right to the car you bought.  That does not guarantee that you car is incapable of being stolen.  Some days I don't know when some of you guys are bullshitting me OR you really don't understand the foundational principles.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?
> 
> 
> 
> You did say
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons."
> That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
> Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> United States v. Miller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure I contradicted myself?  I stand by my statement.  The government does not "_allow_" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms.  They have no such authority.
> 
> Put another way:  If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it?  I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me.  The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created.  All the government can do is *guarantee* it.  I was born with the Right - the government can't _allow_ me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it.  The Right is above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wrote this which is why I found confusing
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, *does not "allow"* the private ownership of weapons."
> The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
> What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.
Click to expand...



And your point?  Do you have kids?  If so, if you require them to be home by a certain time, you are "_allowing_" them to stay out until a certain time.  As minors they are not afforded the same Rights as adults.

Do you not understand that if you say the government "_allows_" you to own a firearm, you could* never, ever, under any circumstances *argue an *unalienable* Right to keep and bear Arms?  By saying that you are agreeing that your Rights are given to you by government.  THAT contradicts the foundational principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that "*all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*"

Did the government create you?  If so, maybe you're a robot and the government does tell you every move you can make.  If not, you have *unalienable* Rights that are *above the Constitution. *

I know that one post I did is long, but you should take the time to read it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Porter Rockwell said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?
> 
> 
> 
> You did say
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons."
> That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
> Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> United States v. Miller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure I contradicted myself?  I stand by my statement.  The government does not "_allow_" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms.  They have no such authority.
> 
> Put another way:  If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it?  I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me.  The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created.  All the government can do is *guarantee* it.  I was born with the Right - the government can't _allow_ me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it.  The Right is above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wrote this which is why I found confusing
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, *does not "allow"* the private ownership of weapons."
> The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
> What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your point?  Do you have kids?  If so, if you require them to be home by a certain time, you are "_allowing_" them to stay out until a certain time.  As minors they are not afforded the same Rights as adults.
> 
> Do you not understand that if you say the government "_allows_" you to own a firearm, you could* never, ever, under any circumstances *argue an *unalienable* Right to keep and bear Arms?  By saying that you are agreeing that your Rights are given to you by government.  THAT contradicts the foundational principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that "*all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*"
> 
> Did the government create you?  If so, maybe you're a robot and the government does tell you every move you can make.  If not, you have *unalienable* Rights that are *above the Constitution. *
> 
> I know that one post I did is long, but you should take the time to read it.
Click to expand...

I believe we are both on the same side of second amendment right. I was just trying to get a clarification on why you thought the courts rules the second amendment does not allow for private ownership? The bill of rights were created separately that reminds the federal government citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## diver52

Porter Rockwell said:


> diver52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?
> 
> 
> 
> You did say
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons."
> That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
> Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> United States v. Miller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure I contradicted myself?  I stand by my statement.  The government does not "_allow_" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms.  They have no such authority.
> 
> Put another way:  If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it?  I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me.  The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created.  All the government can do is *guarantee* it.  I was born with the Right - the government can't _allow_ me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it.  The Right is above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us say you were born in North Korea.  Would you still have been born with that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *EVERY* human being is born with *unalienable* Rights - or so says the Declaratory Charter of the United States, according to Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> *HAVING* *unalienable* Rights does not mean there are not people that will infringe on them.  And so the United States has sent more soldiers onto foreign soil in the name of Freedom and Liberty than any country on this planet.  We've never occupied countries as a political participant in exchange.  We've not taken an acre of the land for our sacrifices.
> 
> We are a country built on foundational principles that when we organized our government and ratified a Constitution, we *presupposed* these things and that is why we have been a beacon to every nation living under tyrants.
> 
> A good analogy is that you have a Right to the car you bought.  That does not guarantee that you car is incapable of being stolen.  Some days I don't know when some of you guys are bullshitting me OR you really don't understand the foundational principles.
Click to expand...


I assume you meant the Declaration of Independence.

I was just curious.  I personally don't see how rights which have existed only recently and only in select locations can be called unalienable.  Jefferson wrote that we were born with the inalienable rights of life and liberty, while simultaneously owning human beings.  It's a pleasant enough phrase, but really has no meaning unless the society you live in is willing to allow you those rights.


----------



## toobfreak

harmonica said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .
> 
> 
> 
> no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
> lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech
> lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
> or your pay/income is effected
> free
> /frē/
> Learn to pronounce
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
> "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
> 2.
> not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
> "the researchers set the birds free"
> synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More
> _adverb_
> 
> 1.
> * without cost or payment.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your employer cannot violate your right to free speech.
> 
> The First Amendment only applies to the government not the general public
> 
> As in the words "Congress shall pass no law...."
> 
> It's the same thing for any social media platform.  Facebook etc has no obligation to provide you a venue to exercise your rights to free speech and cannot violate your right to free speech since you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....please look at the definition again ..the employers can and DO tell you what you can say or not = NOT FREE
> .....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
> free speech IS limited
Click to expand...

Case in point.  Even the police can't say what they think in their free time:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-25-officers-posted-shared-offensive-material


----------



## sparky

Blues Man said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _intent _of the 2nd was to _empower_ the citizen populace ability to _confront _a rouge governance via armed militia(s)
> 
> This is so over the top _broken_ , it's a _joke_ beyond words
> 
> Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government
Click to expand...



Unless you've a F16 with a suitcae nuke parked in your dooryard, an *armed *populace can't confront a rouge government Bluesdude  ~S~


----------



## Dick Foster

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No
Click to expand...

*YES! *


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and *guarantee *your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.
> 
> The government does not _"allow_" me to own a firearm.  I already had that Right before the government came into being.  As the United States Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists.  They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.  Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our *unalienable* Rights:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. *The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.* These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> Does that answer your question sufficiently?
> 
> 
> 
> You did say
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons."
> That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
> Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> United States v. Miller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure I contradicted myself?  I stand by my statement.  The government does not "_allow_" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms.  They have no such authority.
> 
> Put another way:  If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it?  I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me.  The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created.  All the government can do is *guarantee* it.  I was born with the Right - the government can't _allow_ me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it.  The Right is above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wrote this which is why I found confusing
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, *does not "allow"* the private ownership of weapons."
> The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
> What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your point?  Do you have kids?  If so, if you require them to be home by a certain time, you are "_allowing_" them to stay out until a certain time.  As minors they are not afforded the same Rights as adults.
> 
> Do you not understand that if you say the government "_allows_" you to own a firearm, you could* never, ever, under any circumstances *argue an *unalienable* Right to keep and bear Arms?  By saying that you are agreeing that your Rights are given to you by government.  THAT contradicts the foundational principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that "*all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*"
> 
> Did the government create you?  If so, maybe you're a robot and the government does tell you every move you can make.  If not, you have *unalienable* Rights that are *above the Constitution. *
> 
> I know that one post I did is long, but you should take the time to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we are both on the same side of second amendment right. I was just trying to get a clarification on why you thought the courts rules the second amendment does not allow for private ownership? The bill of rights were created separately that reminds the federal government citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...



We are on the same side of the Second Amendment for the most part.

I part company with a lot of people on the issue because after about 1875 (IIRC) the United States Supreme Court began issuing rulings that contradict other PREVIOUS rulings.  My understanding was that America has three branches of government:

Legislative
Executive
Judicial

The United States Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the laws, but nothing in the Constitution gives them the authority to revisit their own rulings and then change them.  As a result, the high Court has made a tremendous clusterphuck out of gun laws in general.

Add to that Trump and the United States Supreme Court are having a dick measuring contest now over who has the authority to ask if you're a citizen on the Census.  The real answer:  That was a job for the legislature.  We cannot keep being ruled by changing court rulings and Executive Orders.  So, as in my long winded post, I go back to the FIRST court rulings and that, in my mind, legitimately conveys what the law is and it is consistent with the other documentation I posted.  It is consistent with the words of the founders / framers.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

bigrebnc1775 said:


> What does shall not be infringe mean?



_“Infringe”_ is related to the word _“fringe”_, referring to the barest edges of something, or in more modern usage, to a form of decoration applied to the edge of something.

  As used in the Second Amendment, _…shall not be infringed”_ means that government is forbidden from even touching the barest edge of the right disussed therein.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> United States v. Miller



  It's worth pointing out that Jack Miller had died before his case reached the Supreme Court, and nobody appeared to argue for his side.  The court heard only one side of the argument, and not the other.  If someone had been there to present Mr. Miller's case, there's a good chance he would have persuaded the court away from the restriction that the Second Amendment only applied to weapons that were suitable for military use.  Certainly a competent advocate would have pointed out that short-barrelled shotguns were, in fact, a standard military issue item at that time, and with that bit of knowledge that the court did not receive, they would have had, by the logic that they used, to have ruled that the Second Amendment did indeed protect Mr. Miller's right to possess such a weapon.

  It's interesting that today, our government absolutely refuses to allow us citizens to own modern military-grade arms,the standard-issue rifle now being a select-fire rifle capable of both semi automatic operation and either fully-automatic or burst-fire operation; and the weapons that are now being most strongly targeted by attempts to ban or restrict them are weapons being singled out because of a superficial cosmetic resemblance to military-grade weapons.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Porter Rockwell said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did say
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does *not* "_allow_" the private ownership of weapons."
> That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
> Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> United States v. Miller
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure I contradicted myself?  I stand by my statement.  The government does not "_allow_" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms.  They have no such authority.
> 
> Put another way:  If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it?  I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me.  The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created.  All the government can do is *guarantee* it.  I was born with the Right - the government can't _allow_ me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it.  The Right is above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wrote this which is why I found confusing
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, *does not "allow"* the private ownership of weapons."
> The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
> What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your point?  Do you have kids?  If so, if you require them to be home by a certain time, you are "_allowing_" them to stay out until a certain time.  As minors they are not afforded the same Rights as adults.
> 
> Do you not understand that if you say the government "_allows_" you to own a firearm, you could* never, ever, under any circumstances *argue an *unalienable* Right to keep and bear Arms?  By saying that you are agreeing that your Rights are given to you by government.  THAT contradicts the foundational principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that "*all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*"
> 
> Did the government create you?  If so, maybe you're a robot and the government does tell you every move you can make.  If not, you have *unalienable* Rights that are *above the Constitution. *
> 
> I know that one post I did is long, but you should take the time to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we are both on the same side of second amendment right. I was just trying to get a clarification on why you thought the courts rules the second amendment does not allow for private ownership? The bill of rights were created separately that reminds the federal government citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are on the same side of the Second Amendment for the most part.
> 
> I part company with a lot of people on the issue because after about 1875 (IIRC) the United States Supreme Court began issuing rulings that contradict other PREVIOUS rulings.  My understanding was that America has three branches of government:
> 
> Legislative
> Executive
> Judicial
> 
> The United States Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the laws, but nothing in the Constitution gives them the authority to revisit their own rulings and then change them.  As a result, the high Court has made a tremendous clusterphuck out of gun laws in general.
> 
> Add to that Trump and the United States Supreme Court are having a dick measuring contest now over who has the authority to ask if you're a citizen on the Census.  The real answer:  That was a job for the legislature.  We cannot keep being ruled by changing court rulings and Executive Orders.  So, as in my long winded post, I go back to the FIRST court rulings and that, in my mind, legitimately conveys what the law is and it is consistent with the other documentation I posted.  It is consistent with the words of the founders / framers.
Click to expand...

My point is and forever will be that the bill of rights the first 10 are a directive to the federal government what it must do and forbids it from creating arbitrary laws restricting those rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Bob Blaylock said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does shall not be infringe mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _“Infringe”_ is related to the word _“fringe”_, referring to the barest edges of something, or in more modern usage, to a form of decoration applied to the edge of something.
> 
> As used in the Second Amendment, _…shall not be infringed”_ means that government is forbidden from even touching the barest edge of the right disussed therein.
Click to expand...

I understand what it means but I doubt some others don't.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure I contradicted myself?  I stand by my statement.  The government does not "_allow_" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms.  They have no such authority.
> 
> Put another way:  If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it?  I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me.  The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created.  All the government can do is *guarantee* it.  I was born with the Right - the government can't _allow_ me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it.  The Right is above the law.
> 
> 
> 
> You wrote this which is why I found confusing
> "The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, *does not "allow"* the private ownership of weapons."
> The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
> What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your point?  Do you have kids?  If so, if you require them to be home by a certain time, you are "_allowing_" them to stay out until a certain time.  As minors they are not afforded the same Rights as adults.
> 
> Do you not understand that if you say the government "_allows_" you to own a firearm, you could* never, ever, under any circumstances *argue an *unalienable* Right to keep and bear Arms?  By saying that you are agreeing that your Rights are given to you by government.  THAT contradicts the foundational principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that "*all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*"
> 
> Did the government create you?  If so, maybe you're a robot and the government does tell you every move you can make.  If not, you have *unalienable* Rights that are *above the Constitution. *
> 
> I know that one post I did is long, but you should take the time to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we are both on the same side of second amendment right. I was just trying to get a clarification on why you thought the courts rules the second amendment does not allow for private ownership? The bill of rights were created separately that reminds the federal government citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are on the same side of the Second Amendment for the most part.
> 
> I part company with a lot of people on the issue because after about 1875 (IIRC) the United States Supreme Court began issuing rulings that contradict other PREVIOUS rulings.  My understanding was that America has three branches of government:
> 
> Legislative
> Executive
> Judicial
> 
> The United States Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the laws, but nothing in the Constitution gives them the authority to revisit their own rulings and then change them.  As a result, the high Court has made a tremendous clusterphuck out of gun laws in general.
> 
> Add to that Trump and the United States Supreme Court are having a dick measuring contest now over who has the authority to ask if you're a citizen on the Census.  The real answer:  That was a job for the legislature.  We cannot keep being ruled by changing court rulings and Executive Orders.  So, as in my long winded post, I go back to the FIRST court rulings and that, in my mind, legitimately conveys what the law is and it is consistent with the other documentation I posted.  It is consistent with the words of the founders / framers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point is and forever will be that the bill of rights the first 10 are a directive to the federal government what it must do and forbids it from creating arbitrary laws restricting those rights.
Click to expand...



We're saying the same, exact thing, but you just need to look up the word allow.  It is antithetical to the point you're making.  The Second Amendment is a limitation on government.  It's how far we allow the government to go, not vice versa.  Thanks.


----------



## M14 Shooter

harmonica said:


> You don't have unlimited free speech rights
> You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
> You don't have unlimited rights


In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.

How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## harmonica

M14 Shooter said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have unlimited free speech rights
> You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
> You don't have unlimited rights
> 
> 
> 
> In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.
> 
> How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...

????!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahahhaahahahhahaha
I don't see '''free speech'' on the list below

MURDER


----------



## harmonica

M14 Shooter said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have unlimited free speech rights
> You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
> You don't have unlimited rights
> 
> 
> 
> In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.
> 
> How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...

I don't see cars on the list either


----------



## M14 Shooter

harmonica said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have unlimited free speech rights
> You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
> You don't have unlimited rights
> 
> 
> 
> In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.
> 
> How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ????!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahahhaahahahhahaha
> I don't see '''free speech'' on the list below
Click to expand...

Ah.  You do not have the capacity to meaningfully address the issue put to you.
Thanks.


----------



## harmonica

M14 Shooter said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have unlimited free speech rights
> You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
> You don't have unlimited rights
> 
> 
> 
> In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.
> 
> How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ????!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahahhaahahahhahaha
> I don't see '''free speech'' on the list below
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.  You do not have the capacity to meaningfully address the issue put to you.
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

you use the coward's way out--Mr Tough Guy 
afraid to even discuss the issue--hahahahahahhahaha
and I guess you're ready to quick draw on some badass criminal
hahahahhahahaha
you'd pee in your pants


----------



## M14 Shooter

harmonica said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have unlimited free speech rights
> You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
> You don't have unlimited rights
> 
> 
> 
> In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.
> 
> How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ????!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahahhaahahahhahaha
> I don't see '''free speech'' on the list below
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.  You do not have the capacity to meaningfully address the issue put to you.
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you use the coward's way out--Mr Tough Guy
> afraid to even discuss the issue--hahahahahahhahaha
Click to expand...

Says he who did not even try to address anything I said.
Ha.  Ha.  Ha.  Ha.  Ha.


----------



## harmonica

M14 Shooter said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have unlimited free speech rights
> You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
> You don't have unlimited rights
> 
> 
> 
> In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.
> 
> How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ????!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahahhaahahahhahaha
> I don't see '''free speech'' on the list below
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.  You do not have the capacity to meaningfully address the issue put to you.
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you use the coward's way out--Mr Tough Guy
> afraid to even discuss the issue--hahahahahahhahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says he who did not even try to address anything I said.
> Ha.  Ha.  Ha.  Ha.  Ha.
Click to expand...

run away coward 
big tough guy M14 shooter


----------



## M14 Shooter

harmonica said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.
> 
> How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> 
> 
> ????!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahahhaahahahhahaha
> I don't see '''free speech'' on the list below
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.  You do not have the capacity to meaningfully address the issue put to you.
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you use the coward's way out--Mr Tough Guy
> afraid to even discuss the issue--hahahahahahhahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says he who did not even try to address anything I said.
> Ha.  Ha.  Ha.  Ha.  Ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> run away coward
> big tough guy M14 shooter
Click to expand...

I accept your concession of the point.
Ha.  Ha.  Ha.  Ha.  Ha.


----------



## justinacolmena

bigrebnc1775 said:


> My point is and forever will be that the bill of rights the first 10 are a directive to the federal government what it must do and forbids it from creating arbitrary laws restricting those rights.



My point is that the Bill of Rights is binding on all state & local government as well as federal. The Constitution does not allow that loophole for the Democratic Socialists' precious Town Hall to infringe our rights.

There is something very unsavory & anti-constitutional going on, called the City Hall Biometric Launch. It's a grand unified gun control database.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

harmonica said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have unlimited free speech rights
> You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
> You don't have unlimited rights
> 
> 
> 
> In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.
> 
> How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ????!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahahhaahahahhahaha
> I don't see '''free speech'' on the list below
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.  You do not have the capacity to meaningfully address the issue put to you.
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you use the coward's way out--Mr Tough Guy
> afraid to even discuss the issue--hahahahahahhahaha
> and I guess you're ready to quick draw on some badass criminal
> hahahahhahahaha
> you'd pee in your pants
Click to expand...


As an outsider to this pissing match, I'm quite put off by it.  But, I've been drawn into a few of them myself.  What I'd like to know is if any of those of you who make posts like that have ever taken the challenge to PM and asked the guy you're arguing with to name the time and place?  

The pissing matches are not informative, entertaining, or conducive to any kind of productive civil discourse.  Honestly, there are people on these boards that I'd give my front seat in Hell if they would PM me and say name the time and place.  

Unless you're going to do that, this Internet jockeying is a waste of time.  A suggestion would be, rather than begin putting words into each other's mouths, you start out with a question:  Did you mean to say...?  That would make more people read the posts.  But, really, some posts go for hundreds - sometimes thousands with the same points being made and people implying they'd like to take each other on.  Hell, a face to face would resolve a lot; the meeting could be put on YouTube and it might be entertaining.  It's just a thought.


----------



## Slashsnake

Blues Man said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .
> 
> 
> 
> no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
> lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech
> lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
> or your pay/income is effected
> free
> /frē/
> Learn to pronounce
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
> "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
> 2.
> not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
> "the researchers set the birds free"
> synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More
> _adverb_
> 
> 1.
> * without cost or payment.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your employer cannot violate your right to free speech.
> 
> The First Amendment only applies to the government not the general public
> 
> As in the words "Congress shall pass no law...."
> 
> It's the same thing for any social media platform.  Facebook etc has no obligation to provide you a venue to exercise your rights to free speech and cannot violate your right to free speech since you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up.
Click to expand...


My problem with the government and courts is that they get to pick and choose which constitutional rights apply in the workplace. You either apply all or none... I vote for none. If you don't have a right to have a gun or free speech in the work place, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the workplace either (such as sexual harassment laws, discrimination, etc.). 

The Bill of Rights and U.S Constitution don't apply to private citizens and businesses, no exceptions. A workplace is free to apply their own sexual harassment and discrimination policies.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

> *Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?*


At the founding, all federal gun laws were unconstitutional.

Because the 14th Amendment is so broadly and clumsily written, now ALL gun laws are unconstitutional (or they should be, by any reasonable interpretation of the 14th).


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slashsnake said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .
> 
> 
> 
> no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
> lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech
> lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
> or your pay/income is effected
> free
> /frē/
> Learn to pronounce
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
> "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
> 2.
> not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
> "the researchers set the birds free"
> synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More
> _adverb_
> 
> 1.
> * without cost or payment.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your employer cannot violate your right to free speech.
> 
> The First Amendment only applies to the government not the general public
> 
> As in the words "Congress shall pass no law...."
> 
> It's the same thing for any social media platform.  Facebook etc has no obligation to provide you a venue to exercise your rights to free speech and cannot violate your right to free speech since you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My problem with the government and courts is that they get to pick and choose which constitutional rights apply in the workplace. You either apply all or none... I vote for none. If you don't have a right to have a gun or free speech in the work place, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the workplace either (such as sexual harassment laws, discrimination, etc.).
> 
> The Bill of Rights and U.S Constitution don't apply to private citizens and businesses, no exceptions. A workplace is free to apply their own sexual harassment and discrimination policies.
Click to expand...



If only that were true.  Bot sides of the political aisle try to tell employers who they can and cannot hire.


----------



## elektra

Arms, Armaments. Arms, weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies.

We have a right by our creator, a right that government can not infringe, to own cannons and artillery. 

Some idiot said that was written by imperfect humans, males (cause he knows perfect) that believed slavery was okay. Uh, History lesson needed!

The USA's creation by males, wrote a Declaration of Independence and Constitution that resulted in Slavery ending, largely, worldwide! Despite Democrats fighting a civil war to keep slavery!

Yes, those imperfect males ended slavery, I bet there are no African Americans willing to give their guns to the DemoRATs, who were the KKK and who opposed the Civil Rights Act of the 1960's!


----------

