Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Insider's working to create chaos by manipulating the crowd's into frenzies are usually working for the powerful, for example: the Democrat party due an alledged stolen election being covered up (not sure what all was involved in that), Sorro's or BLM led by powerful entities etc, but the poor protestor's usually have been either lied too or maybe not lied too all depending, but the explosive results can be the same once it all gets started.Even more so when they trespassed on January 6.
A license to vote? Might not be a bad idea. Perhaps require a voter to pass a citizen test given to immigrants before they would be allowed to vote. However that’s not going to happen. The Voting Rights Act signed by President Johnson banned such tests and was upheld by the Supreme Court.You do love you some infringement, don't you? Do you also call for a license to vote or to speak out? Or government permission for a trial?
www.nbcnews.com
www.lawyers.com
I do love the idea of mandatory classes on the Constitution before voting, perhaps pretty much in the same way you seem to love the idea of mandatory training in order to get permission to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The problem is, for both of us, neither is constitutional.
We can't overlook the Constitution for the things we might wish for and then be upset when others overlook it for the things they wish for - like taking our guns. We need to always stand up for following the Constitution, otherwise we lose all moral right to insist on it when we need it.
Consider other ways to get what you want - people handling guns safely. Consider mandatory gun safety in the public schools. Mandatory militia training for all males from 16-60. Don't tie it to keeping and bearing arms, tie it to militia duty - and then require that every male 16-60 own an AR-15 (or even M-16/M-4).
There are 100 million gun owners today and roughly 500 accidental gun deaths. That's one death for each two-hundred thousand gun owners. If mandatory training would solve half of those, then that's 250 a year and a rate of one out of four-hundred thousand.
Either rate is higher than we wish it would be but 500 deaths is still a minuscule fraction of the total of two-hundred thousand accidental deaths each year.
Unfortunately, too many years of no consequences for crime, no guns in the homes, no teaching respect for the police and others, and no civics/Constitutioni, and early American history, have left us with a huge criminal debt that will have to be resolved. That means more prisons, more lawlessness, more danger in our streets, perhaps for generations, until morality, gun safety skills, intelligent voting, and many other needs will be met in our society. But if we want to restore a civil society we don't get it by creating unconstitutional, feel good, laws and regulations; we do it by going back to what our nation was intended by our Fore-fathers to be.
If you want training to save lives, start with training pool owners, including those who buy the 10 dollar plastic pools at Walmart every summer, and mandatory swimming classes for all children. You'd save far more lives and do it constitutionally - as long as it was done at the State level and not Federal.
Here's what I'm getting at:I don't know what you are getting at since we have tons of regulations on guns as it is. When you use a firearm to protect your home, if you don't know how to use it, you can only bring harm to yourself and occupants in the home. But when you use a gun in public, I want to make sure I'm safe from you by being tested on knowing what you're doing. A free press doesn't present any threat to me. A clown with a gun that thinks he can hit a target consistently at 25 feet away is a different story.
Good points Ray..I question if there would be anything unconstitutional with taking a test before being allowed to vote. I think it would solve a lot of our political problems. I would like to weed out people like the Obama Phone and Obama money ladies. Our founders never intended for people with no money being able to vote for reps that promised to take money from people that had it to give to them. Even our founders didn't think it was a good idea for everybody to vote as a right. That came later on.
How did we end up with a fool like Biden for President? People use the same criteria to elect representatives as they did their favorite American Idol contestant. They don't base it on what they've done in the past, it's a personality contest with them. Let's face it, Trump has an abrasive personality. A friend of mine recently passed away. She told me of when she went to a gas station and made a comment about the prices to the lady filling up next to her. The woman responded "I don't care if it's $10.00 a gallon, as long as Trump isn't President anymore!" Those are the people that shouldn't be voting.
I like to use this scenario I created: Let's say the MLB decided that managers or owners didn't pick the players anymore. They will let the people of their city pick the players instead. In your city, anybody can vote on players: their nationality, their race, how cute they are, just any reason they want. In my city, you had to demonstrate an acute knowledge of baseball to be able to vote on players. Which one of our teams will do the best that year?
That sounds like a reasonable test to me. I also agree that .38 rounds from a full sized revolver have light recoil and would make the test easier to pass for someone who was not a gun enthusiast.Ours was a piece of typing paper at about 18 feet, but you had to get at least 17 out of 20 shots in the paper. It was a private class. My friends son had a license to teach it who is now a police officer. Several of my friends and family couldn't do it, so I let them use my .357 stainless steel revolver with a 5" barrel, and brought .38's to use. When you have that heavy of a gun and shooting 38's out of it, it's like shooting a pellet gun. No kickback whatsoever. We all passed with flying colors.
Here's what I'm getting at:
Yes, there are tons of regulations as it is. Have any of them worked to reduce crime or danger from guns?
Even if they worked, they'd still be unconstitutional. What I can't understand is why so many who think they support the 2nd Amendment are passionately defending laws that don't work. In fact, they almost always, at some point or another, make that case that gun control laws don't work - and then go on defending the laws anyway.
I understand wanting people to not get hurt from guns. We all want that. Bloomberg wants that. The Brady's want that. Just don't give in to the temptation to appease Bloomberg and the Brady's by agreeing to their feel-good, "reasonable", totally ineffective and useless gun control measures.
Our country did just fine for over 200 years without the most intrusive of those laws, mandatory background checks, and over 170 years with most of the rest of them, and over 143 years without any Federal gun control law at all. The changes in law are not the cure and do not address the cause of crime.
Remember that the gun control laws don't work; you've said as much. You know that they don't work. Yes, Donald H and Smokin' OP are going to call you names and tell you how cruel you are but that's their problem; don't let it be yours.
A year should show if there are serious issues with Constitutional Carry.I'm going to give it about a year to see if any problems arise, then I'll be able to say it's okay or it's not. Again, my opinion is formed by what I witnessed at the shooting range.
The end result when you have an armed civilian. FYI the guy is wearing a mask and skinny jeans.Food Court... IMPD said there is no information yet on a motive for the shooting.
Police: Armed bystander shot and killed Greenwood Park Mall shooter in just 15 seconds
Those killed are 56-year-old Pedro Pineda, his wife 37-year-old Rosa Mirian Rivera de Pineda and 30-year-old Victor Gomez.www.wthr.com
When I was a kid toy guns looked like toy guns. This is what the officer seen when the 5"9" 190 lbs kid pulled the toy gun. It's a picture of the one he used and the real gun that it was replicated from.
View attachment 672624
When the kid got the gun there was a fluorescent orange tip on the end so that one could distinguish that from a real gun. He removed it so it did look like the real thing.
www.poynter.org
Like I have said; at least now you're openly admitting that you're a gun controller. At least you're being honest about it now.A license to vote? Might not be a bad idea. Perhaps require a voter to pass a citizen test given to immigrants before they would be allowed to vote. However that’s not going to happen. The Voting Rights Act signed by President Johnson banned such tests and was upheld by the Supreme Court.
I want to make sure that the right to carry a firearm in public is not repealed because people didn’t know the law in their state. A good concealed weapons class teaches students what is legal and what is not. For example some states are “Stand Your Ground” while other require you to first retreat.
One instructor in the Tamps Bay Area was a prosecutor who told his class he would teach them the law and if they broke it he would be more than happy to prosecute them. The students I talked with said he was a damn good instructor and they learned a lot about using lethal force In Florida.
You seem to want absolutely no regulations on the right to own and carry firearms. I understand your logic but I realize that most people want some regulations on firearm ownership and if you got your way you might find the Second Amendment repealed. Plus explain how you would be able to get the Supreme Court to agree with your interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Plus the Supreme Court has ruled that there can be restrictions on gun ownership. I don’t see that changing or reversed like Roe v Wade.
Supreme Court allows the carrying of firearms in public in major victory for gun rights groups
The ruling expands upon a 2008 decision that said the Second Amendment safeguards a person’s right to possess firearms at home for self-protection.
The Limitations of the 2nd Amendment
We as American citizens have 27 amendments to our Constitution that shape the foundation of our very nation. Some are longer than others, some apply to today’s world, others are moot points.weekly.blog.gustavus.edu
The Second Amendment: What Are the Limits on the Right to Own Guns?
Most U.S. citizens have a Second Amendment right to own and carry firearms, but courts have upheld some gun control, including restrictions on some gun owners, certain types of firearms, and carrying guns in certain public places.
***snip***
Some Gun Control Is Constitutional
The Supreme Court said that the law involved in Heller was unconstitutional because it essentially banned all handguns—the most popular type of gun Americans choose for “the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” It also kept people from using their guns to defend their families and property by requiring them to keep all firearms trigger-locked or dissembled, even in the home.
What about other kinds of guns and other reasons for having them? Like most constitutional rights, the Heller Court explained, “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” In the years since that decision, there’s been a flood of legal challenges to federal and state gun control laws. According to one study, in 94 percent of those cases, courts have found that reasonable gun regulations didn’t violate the Second Amendment. They’ve mostly relied on the Heller Court’s explanation that its ruling shouldn’t “cast doubt” on several longstanding gun restrictions, including bans on gun ownership by certain individuals (like felons), prohibitions on some types of “dangerous and unusual weapons,” limits on carrying firearms in certain public places, and requirements for gun sales. Although federal law covers some of these restrictions, most gun control is a patchwork of state and local laws and regulations. That means it can be wildly different from place to place.
Once again, you're not willing to answer which of the gun control laws that you support and defend actually prevent crime and make the world safer.Yeah.....well, 200 years ago if you murdered somebody, they had a public hanging right after the trial. Bring that back and I'll be glad to join your side.
Under your unregulated constitutional carry, you would have to allow violent ex-cons to be able to own and carry gun after they got out of prison. Would you be comfortable with that? I wouldn't. Or if a person was deemed to be mentally incompetent to use a firearm. Even people on the no fly list and illegals crossing our borders.
So there has to be gun regulations in order to protect the public. The question is to what extent.
There are no limits to the extent of gun control. You've given the government permission to operate outside of the Constitution. All that's left is for you to beg them to let you keep some of your guns. They won't, of course; in the end they'll take them all.So there has to be gun regulations in order to protect the public. The question is to what extent.
We already know from 143 years of constitutional carry before the first infringement. We also know from years of constitutional carry mostly restored in other states besides Indiana.A year should show if there are serious issues with Constitutional Carry.
Dude, that was caused by the powers that be, the rube's we're just manipulated or brainwashed, and it's still going on... Don't you know anything ? To busy trying to defend the indefensible eh ??
Isn’t Ahmaud Arbery an example of that?I have the same concern that without the class requirement to legally carry a firearm people will decide they are cops and attempt to enforce laws. However, I can’t find any data to show my concern is legitimate.
Don’t we have have mandatory classes on civics, the Constitution, early American history and our system of government as part of our school curriculum?I do love the idea of mandatory classes on the Constitution before voting, perhaps pretty much in the same way you seem to love the idea of mandatory training in order to get permission to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The problem is, for both of us, neither is constitutional.
We can't overlook the Constitution for the things we might wish for and then be upset when others overlook it for the things they wish for - like taking our guns. We need to always stand up for following the Constitution, otherwise we lose all moral right to insist on it when we need it.
Consider other ways to get what you want - people handling guns safely. Consider mandatory gun safety in the public schools. Mandatory militia training for all males from 16-60. Don't tie it to keeping and bearing arms, tie it to militia duty - and then require that every male 16-60 own an AR-15 (or even M-16/M-4).
There are 100 million gun owners today and roughly 500 accidental gun deaths. That's one death for each two-hundred thousand gun owners. If mandatory training would solve half of those, then that's 250 a year and a rate of one out of four-hundred thousand.
Either rate is higher than we wish it would be but 500 deaths is still a minuscule fraction of the total of two-hundred thousand accidental deaths each year.
Unfortunately, too many years of no consequences for crime, no guns in the homes, no teaching respect for the police and others, and no civics/Constitutioni, and early American history, have left us with a huge criminal debt that will have to be resolved. That means more prisons, more lawlessness, more danger in our streets, perhaps for generations, until morality, gun safety skills, intelligent voting, and many other needs will be met in our society. But if we want to restore a civil society we don't get it by creating unconstitutional, feel good, laws and regulations; we do it by going back to what our nation was intended by our Fore-fathers to be.
If you want training to save lives, start with training pool owners, including those who buy the 10 dollar plastic pools at Walmart every summer, and mandatory swimming classes for all children. You'd save far more lives and do it constitutionally - as long as it was done at the State level and not Federal.
Yes, but obviously 90% of students don't learn shit.Don’t we have have mandatory classes on civics, the Constitution, early American history and our system of government as part of our school curriculum?
The gunman was a mask wearing skinny jeans wearing brainwashed leftist.Isn’t Ahmaud Arbery an example of that?
What?The gunman was a mask wearing skinny jeans wearing brainwashed leftist.
