Up Up Up Up Up Down Down Down Down and Done!
Get over there and vote up yours truly. And don't forget to vote down the anti's!
Up Up Up Up Up Down Down Down Down and Done!
Last edited by WOD; 04-25-2012 at 05:22 PM.
Be safe, be prepared, and carry on!
Alle Ihre Basisstation jetzt zu uns gehören
I think I have an aneurysm after reading the "no" arguments..ugh.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Once more into the fray.
Into the last good fight I'll ever know.
Live and die on this day.
Live and die on this day.
"I knew one thing: as soon as anyone said you didn't need a gun, you'd better take one along that worked."
Got mine in
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
Debate Topic: Should US News be allowed to publish? Open displays of stupidity are a threat to the public. Concealed stupidity is the only way to go.
I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves. Which is just another way of saying that when you obtain rights for the other guy, you win them for yourself, too.)
This made me repeatedly.
NO — "People who choose to live in peace have the right not to be exposed to weapons and violence."
CONSTANCE N. JOHNSON, Democratic State Senator in Oklahoma
But what about all those who have a "right" not to be exposed to violence? And why is that "righy" confined to the forced, unwanted viewing of handguns on the hips of anyone who is not The Police? Should that "right" extend to not having to view automobiles, which are responsible for car wrecks? And to airplanes, which are responsible for plane crashes? Or plain white cargo vans, which are responsible for both child abductions and molestations?
But most importantly, what is being done to protect and enforce my right to not be exposed to stupdity? Seriously, what this country needs is a law against stupidity - with only two levels of that crime: misdemeanor stupidity and capital stupidity.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
By the way, the above should mitigate any exposure to violence outside of your home. The above should mitigate any exposure to properly holstered firearms possessed by other citizens outside of your home. In fact, the above will pretty much prevent you from being exposed to just about any 'external' hazards.
Stay safe....in your home.
I'm not surprised by the fact we're winning. I'm surprised that we're winning by a massive landslide!
I think most people in our country are getting smarter about things...
I almost feel sorry for the ity bitty numbers for the NO folks. ALMOST
"The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
"Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.
Voted. Also left a comment telling them they lack any facts in their judgements. Though most people don't want to know the truth, it hurts too much.
The fact that there is yet another "vote" that doesnt matter irritates me.
I sat down with a close friend the other day to discuss things like this. He recently graduated law school, and is very vocal about the Constitution.
Since that conversation, I have decided to go about my activism in a different direction. For instances where I am approached by violence driven policy enforcers, I will no longer be quoting state laws that "allow" us to exercise our rights. Those laws a null and void, per the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All courts, judges, and officials employed by the government and charged with upholding it, must. The supreme court holds no authority to dictate, or define, what are rights include. They are written in ink and are not open to interpretation. Specifically, the 2nd Amendment states, in part, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It doesnt say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, may only be infringed if it satisfies the people." It also does not say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be allowed by the decision of the Supreme Court."
Needless to say, I am not shocked that there are still people out there trying to rid us of our rights. Pissed. Yes. Surprised. No. These people are ignorant, and they believe the government is here to protect us. Unfortunately for them, they will have to learn the hard way.
In reference to the March on DC.“I am not with you. If the particular way in which you choose to break the laws is to take up arms against the government, know that I will, at the moment, choose to stand on the government's side and take up arms against you."
The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.
how can you read the comments left on there?
Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
"guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." -Edward R. Murrow
Dave Workman and I don't always see eye to eye but I am agreement 100% on his quote at a OC meet here in Washington, when a couple from East Coast asked/told him 'they allow you to carry guns here?'
That statement to me is a strong reminder that as a free society and a liberated people we don't seek permission to exercise fundamental rights.They don't allow us to do anything.
Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 05-07-2012 at 08:40 AM.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
Allowed? 'Seems to me that was recognized and enumerated on 15 December, 1791 as not to be disallowed. That 'Shall not be infringed' part. The 2nd Amendment never addressed specific mode of carry because it was never a consideration. The traditional method of bearing arms in all cultures however has historically been openly.
The onerous practice of government contrivance of license/permit for a fee in the otherwise free exercise of an enumerated right is extortion. Rights cannot be sold, or purchased. Inasmuch as the Constitution is in effect as the Supreme Law of the land, denial of the right to bear arms constitutes tryanny.
The collectivists view of the people having rights but the individual doesn't is fuzzythink and always has been. In the Arizona Constitution Art 2 Sec 26: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves (individuals) and the state (collective) shall not be impaired... 'pretty much settles that.
It is because of this state constitution that Arizona no longer requires a permit to carry concealed weapons. No permit was required until 1994 and it was argued as unconstitutional at the time. The only reason to continue with the permit is for reciprocity to carry concealed in other states where the right remains restricted.
Open carry of weapons in Arizona has been recognized since Arizona came into being. A notable exception being the gun grabbing Earp brothers... but we know how that turned out eventually.
Seems like those who are in favor of OC are looking at that individual's right.
Seems like those against allow the 'other' person's feelings to dictate what OCers should do.
Seems like ignorance is bliss for these folks!
"I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
I'm inclined to think polls like this are floated after just about every widely-publicized shooting. At least the way U.S. News and World Report handles it, with equal voices from both sides of the issue, and a well-written overview, is spot-on.