He knows, and I know he knows. When you speak truth you don't have to worry about being caught in embarrassing situations like this.
Ok. Lets bargain. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. The SC has determined that means being able to carry arms with you in public. Since rights are already 'permitted', we cannot require a permit be obtained (or they are logically then NOT already permitted). So, if we require a permit for handguns, then long-guns must remain legal to carry in public without a permit, so 'the right to bear arms' will not be infringed. Deal? (im not asking you to agree with my logic on the issue, this is the position of enough of the gun lobby that your agreement with it or not is immaterial to a compromise. Im asking if you're willing to compromise and SUPPORT the institution of open carry (since concealing long guns is illegal) as a means to institute mandatory handgun permits with the understanding that handguns are used in the overwhelming majority of gun violence).
You do not permit back a right. There's your problem, right there. If you'd like mandatory training regimes, you can institute that through an alteration of the current militia act. You CAN demand voting citizens that are of sound mind and able body muster and train a bit each month. If you want registration of some kind, you can demand they muster with their own arms of a certain standard and make a note when someone does. Badda bing, got what you said you wanted. 10 bucks says you whinge and claim its not enough. Because what you want isn't training or registration, its total control.
The permit there is technically not for speech its for taking up the space and causing what is otherwise a public disturbance. The disturbance bit and use of the property over and above all others for a time not being allowed normally, you need a PERMIT for it.
Well , we already know your position on America and her constitution . No wonder you preach such BS. Carry on with your lifes quest of being the top poster on PF.
Yeah that's liberals in a nutshell. They can argue how the 2nd doesn't exist while at the same time saying that the Constitution clearly gives them the right to abortions and smoking dope.
The constitution clearly does recognize the right to abortions and smoking dope, amongst other things. Including the right to keep and bear arms. I won't be happy until gay married couples can defend their pot plants with crew served weapons.
sure they are they cost time and money. In NYC there are lawyers who do nothing more than help people get permits. Background checks are harassment to the thousands of people wrongly denied and who have to spend money to get their right to buy a gun restored.
Not until the united state supreme court states such in an outright manner. And no such ruling has ever been made.
I've been gone for six months and the usual suspect are still making those ridiculous claims as if they say it enough times it will become fact. Didn't Hitler articulate the big lie technique? Amazing how many gun banners have adopted that strategy.
background checks are not harrassment, but common sense. without them criminals and child molesters can buy guns at Walmart.
Yes, they spread their vile gun policy propaganda as thick as peanut butter on bread.... Yet any criminal gets guns.....
that's really silly Ron. Its illegal for criminals nd child molesters to possess firearms. Why does that crime require prior restraint to prevent while laws against murder and robbery only use the threat of punishment for that actual crime? Why did several studies conclude that background checks have not prevented criminals from getting guns? common sense is hardly sensible when gun restrictors ignore reality. And you ignored my point-background checks are certainly HARASSMENT when someone is WRONGLY DENIED
do criminals and child molesters walk around with a sign on their head saying "I AM A CRIMINAL"???????????????? no, they do not. thats why we use background checks.
yet those are worthless in preventing criminals from getting guns. its a placebo designed to placate slow witted voters who want something done and it allows politicians to pander to such people without having to do anything that really works. we know that the brady bill did not prevent felons from getting guns now tell me Ron-why do we have to spend so much effort trying to ineffectually prevent a "malum prohibitum crime" (felons buying guns) when we try to prevent malum per se" crimes (murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, arson, mayhem and felonious assault) only with a threat of punishment for those actual crimes? we have punishment for criminals being caught with guns so why does that "crime" require more than preventing murder or robbery?
