Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: FROM FOX NEWS-Cleveland Mayor Wants Law to Ban Anyone Under 21 From Possessing a Firearm

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    830

    Post imported post

    Cleveland Mayor Wants Law to Ban Anyone Under 21 From Possessing a Firearm
    Monday, September 10, 2007




    Story toolssponsored by[/i]

    CLEVELAND — Cleveland's mayor called on the state Monday to create a new law that would prohibit anyone under age 21 from possessing a firearm.[/b]

    Mayor Frank Jackson's proposal followed the shooting death last week of a 12-year-old girl who was hit by a stray bullet as she walked to a corner store. He noted that police statistics from 2004 to 2006 show 70 percent of those arrested for crimes involving firearms were under 28.

    Under Ohio law, no one under 18 is permitted to purchase a firearm. A person must be at least 21 to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    It's already enough of a violation of human rights to deny a law-abiding adult (meaning anyone over 18 years of age) the right to self-defense, as the federal government has so gloriously accomplished through banning adults aged 18-21 from buying handguns through FFLs.



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    534

    Post imported post

    The good people of Cleveland will, I hope, tell this posturing popinjay of a mayor to go pound sand! Try that crap here in Kentucky, and see what happens!

    Could it be that most of these shootings are done by the "gangsta ******"( their own words, not mine) with which this pest hole abounds? Just a theory of mine!

    TrueBrit.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Peoria, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post

    It is interesting to note that the two fellows in the shoot-out that allowed a stray bullet to kill the girl were Fellons so it was already illegal for them to even touch guns, much less own them. They probably just bought their guns on the black market or stole them. Banning guns from law abiding citizens under 21 (criminals are already banned) is completely idiotic. Way to go Mayor Jackson, you really ought to hire a 5th grader to help you make your policy proposals, as things would turn out much better that way. Mayor Jackson certainly is NOT smarter than a 5th grader.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NoVa by way of Chesapeake, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    TrueBrit wrote:
    The good people of Cleveland will, I hope, tell this posturing popinjay of a mayor to go pound sand! Try that crap here in Kentucky, and see what happens!

    Could it be that most of these shootings are done by the "gangsta ******"( their own words, not mine) with which this pest hole abounds? Just a theory of mine!

    TrueBrit.


    wow you transplant a brit to kentucky and they pick up the racism quite fast good job on learning one of americas worst pastimes, generalizing and profiling.....if you wanted to say you shouldve just said it dont hide behind some lame "their words not mine.....the internet provides heart for cowards

  6. #6
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    Easy there dkd.

    Just because someone quotes something that can be considered a racial slur, this does not make them a racist.

    And besides, "gangsta ******" is something a few misguided black people are quite proud to call themselves. :?

    Let me guess, you're elleventeen years old?
    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NoVa by way of Chesapeake, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    T-RaV wrote:
    Easy there dkd.

    Just because someone quotes something that can be considered a racial slur, this does not make them a racist.

    And besides, "gangsta ******" is something a few misguided black people are quite proud to call themselves. :?

    Let me guess, you're elleventeen years old?
    yea "elleventeen"(eleventeen) exactly, howd you know?.....still doesnt justify the use, and excuse of hiding behind someone else ignorance for using it....if he wanted to say it, which im sure he prob did, just have the courage to come out and say it dont use a proxy

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    dkd, I hate to feed a troll, but you joined today, have two (2) posts to your name, and both have been inflammatory as well as not related at all to firearms or open carry.

    As a matter of fact, I'm offended that you think so little of the main post topic that you diverted the thread to this asinine drivel. If you're black or another minority, get over your "victim" status and go do something to elevate your race's perceived status instead of posting irrelevant comments on a message board. If you're white, stop feeling guilty about what your ancestors did and also go do something productive instead of posting irrelevant comments on a message board. Maybe, if you're interested in guns, go shoot some. Or, if your location allows, buy some and open carry them. Then come back and post related comments.

    But, alas, as it stands now, there is no place for you here, so go.


    Anyhow... going back to article, it's interesting to look at the figure that 70% of those involved in firearms crimes are under 28 years old. Wouldn't a very real possibility be that when someone's in a gang or regular criminal activity, their lifespan isn't long anyway? If you're constantly shooting at other people, they're eventually going to shoot back. Perhaps the, oh, 12-28 population represents close to 70% of living gang members. Oh, statistics. :?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    899

    Post imported post

    BobCav/John/Mike.........where are you................this ones going downhill quick:shock::shock:

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NoVa by way of Chesapeake, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    dkd, I hate to feed a troll, but you joined today, have two (2) posts to your name, and both have been inflammatory as well as not related at all to firearms or open carry.

    As a matter of fact, I'm offended that you think so little of the main post topic that you diverted the thread to this asinine drivel. If you're black or another minority, get over your "victim" status and go do something to elevate your race's perceived status instead of posting irrelevant comments on a message board. If you're white, stop feeling guilty about what your ancestors did and also go do something productive instead of posting irrelevant comments on a message board. Maybe, if you're interested in guns, go shoot some. Or, if your location allows, buy some and open carry them. Then come back and post related comments.

    But, alas, as it stands now, there is no place for you here, so go.


    Anyhow... going back to article, it's interesting to look at the figure that 70% of those involved in firearms crimes are under 28 years old. Wouldn't a very real possibility be that when someone's in a gang or regular criminal activity, their lifespan isn't long anyway? If you're constantly shooting at other people, they're eventually going to shoot back. Perhaps the, oh, 12-28 population represents close to 70% of living gang members. Oh, statistics. :?
    it doesnt matter if i am black white or latino you dont know who to vent your anger at, so just pull out the full auto and hit everybody..so if im black i need to get it together and help fix my races image instead of being on the internet...if im white stop the self hatred/guilt and get off the internet...right?....lol...fact of the matter is i do open carry and usually like coming to this board and just reading through posts while at work for info and entertainment

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    KC,MO, ,
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    I don't read the "People" in the constitution as The right of the (people over 21) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    So my question,you have to be 21 to hunt anything? Plus you don't deserve to protect yourself. It is bad most places will not allow handguns to under 21 but allfirearms??????????



    Why 21? Why not 41 or 10 ???? If you can enter the military at 18 and shoot and kill jihadis why can you not own a firearm?

    (does talking aboutjihadisthat make me racist or religiousbigot?because if it does):celebrate

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    My main argument is that since people become legal adults at age 18, and are no longer guarded (so to speak) by their parents, it is their legal and human right to be able to defend themselves with a handgun. And that involves being able to carry one. If it were up to me, the age would be even lower, probably around 14 or 15, as that's when most children are going to be spending periods of time away from family where there will be no other parental supervision/defense. However, since everything else seems to classify people as "adults" at age 18, I'll aim for that, and then shoot for a lower limit if the age to be associated with a handgun ever drops to 18.

    But, then again, that would involve understanding the concept that there is a fundamental human right to self defense, which many people, pro-gun and anti-gun alike, fail to understand.


    Another thought that just popped into my head: aren't handguns really more defensive guns than offensive guns? While it is indeed easier to conceal handguns, if someone is planning to commit a crime, rifles and especially shotguns make much better weapons than handguns, which are typically less powerful and less accurate. And, as planning would be involved, it would be relatively easy to find a way to get said long-barrel rifles to the scene of the crimes. If I had to pick how I'd get shot, I'd rather get shot at 20 yards by someone with a 9mm handgun than with a 12-gauge firing 000. At any rate, though, logically handguns are defensive weapons while shotguns and rifles are offensive... really, the age to purchase and possess handguns should be lower than that for rifles and shotguns, if there are going to be age limits.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Oh, I'm here....reading...watching silently fromthe shadows.....

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    534

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    Oh, I'm here....reading...watching silently fromthe shadows.....
    Bob, good to have you back, Sir!

    If I have inadvertantly caused a tempest in a teacup here, then YOU,as moderator,of course have my abject apologies!

    As for our new poster who seems to have gotten his panties in a bunch,consider this:

    If I were truly a racist, I would hardly be posting in support of our comrades Danbus and 100%, who are both gentlemen of colour, elswhere on this forum.

    The "outlaw groups of melanistically pigmented gentlemen" DO in fact refer to themselves as described above, as our comradeT-RaV states, as you well know, and I hide behind nothing.

    I do not believe that the Girl Scouts are doing the shootings in Cleveland!

    Nonetheless, Mr. Moderator, do as you wish, Sir, and I will naturally abide by any decisions that you make concerning my posts, no worries!

    TrueBrit.

  15. #15
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Maybe the Mayor needs to read this:

    By Chad D. Baus

    Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Philip Morris is
    reporting that State Rep. Michael DeBose, a Cleveland Democrat who has a solid history of anti-gun votes in the Ohio legislature, has changed his mind in the wake of a violent robbery attempt near his home.

    The op-ed begins with this:


    1. It's funny how a gun can in stantly change your perspective on things, make you wish you could rewrite history.

      State Rep. Michael DeBose, a southside Cleveland Democrat, discovered this lesson the night of May 1, when he thought he was going to die. That's the night he wished he had that gun vote back.

    While I am more than encouraged by Rep. DeBose's change in perspective, there is a question that must be asked.

    Why? Why, with all of the mountains of testimony legislators heard, and presentations of evidence legislators received about the urgent need to restore the right to bear arms for self-defense, did it take a violent attack on his own person before Rep. DeBose could see the light? How many thousands of other people were made victims because of anti-gunners in the decade of debate over concealed carry in the Buckeye State?

    Before anyone decides I'm being too hard on our new friend Rep. DeBose, let me offer full disclosure. Before an armed carjacker attacked my wife's father - a concealed handgun permit-holder from Tennessee - I was of the same mind DeBose was - well, sort of.

    No, I was never, ever anti-gun. But I was also by no means an advocate for the right to carry, nor had I taken any steps to protect myself or my loved ones from a potential attack. Not until my father-in-law was forced to defend himself from a teenager armed with a stolen firearm, and wanted for homicide, was I forced to confront the fact that had it happened to me, I would have been killed, or would have been unable to protect my wife.

    Whether quirk of human nature or a product of American culture, we are all to quick to convince ourselves that "it will never happen to me". But as Rep. DeBose found out the hard way on May 1, it can:


    1. It was late, but DeBose, 51, was restless. The ordained Baptist minister knew his Lee-Harvard neighborhood was changing, but he wasn't scared. The idle, young men who sometimes hang out on his and adjacent streets didn't threaten him.

      He is a big man and, besides, he had run the same streets before he found Jesus - and a wife. That night, he just needed a walk.

      The loud muffler on a car that slowly passed as he was finishing the walk caught his attention, though. When the car stopped directly in front of his house - three houses from where he stood - he knew there was going to be a problem.

      "There was a tall one and a short one," DeBose said, sipping on a McDonald's milkshake and recounting the experience Friday.

      "The tall one reached in his pocket and pulled out a silver gun. And they both started running towards me."

      "At first I just backed up, but then I turned around and started running and screaming."

    Morris goes on to recount how DeBose was chased by the armed "boy", who was eventually scared off when DeBose managed to draw the attention of neighbors by banging on a neighbor lady's door.

    1. The loud muffler sped off, and DeBose started rethinking his gun vote.

      DeBose twice voted against a measure to allow Ohioans to carry concealed weapons. It became law in 2004.

      DeBose voted his conscience. He feared that CCW permits would lead to a massive influx of new guns in the streets and a jump in gun violence. He feared that Cleveland would become the O.K. Corral, patrolled by legions of freshly minted permit holders.

      "I was wrong," he said Friday.

      "I'm going to get a permit and so is my wife.

      "I've changed my mind. You need a way to protect yourself and your family.

      "I don't want to hurt anyone. But I never again want to be in the position where I'm approached by someone with a gun and I don't have one."

    Many others, at the moment they are made victims of violence, have the same realization Rep. DeBose had. Tragically, however, they don't always live to get a second chance. Rep. DeBose has been blessed not only with the gift to keep on living, but with an opportunity to make up for his votes against the right to choose to bear arms for self-defense.

    And he's making up for lost time - echoing some of the exact same arguments I'm certain he's heard from constitients he formerly shunned:


    1. DeBose said he knows that a gun doesn't solve Cleveland's violence problem; it's merely a street equalizer.

      "There are too many people who are just evil and mean-spirited. They will hurt you for no reason. If more people were packing guns, it might serve as a deterrent.

      "But there obviously are far deeper problems that we need to address," he added...

    Columnist Philip Morris concludes with this:

    "They say the definition of a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. DeBose's CCW application will bear some witness to that notion."

    The volunteers at Buckeye Firearms Association look forward to working with Rep. DeBose, and with any other urban politicians who have, until now, taken the same "it won't happen to me" approach to gun rights as he and I once made the mistake of doing.

    Together, we can truly take steps to protect our most vulnerable citizens.


    Isn't it amazing what a real life experience such as this will do to an anti-gun person?




  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Re: the article dngreer posted

    I'm not entirely sure that people assume it won't happen to them. I'm sure that many of them honestly believe that if they just give their assailants what they want, said assailants will leave them alone. They honestly believe that if you tell a violent criminal that you'd rather not be tortured, or you really wish they didn't kill your children, or that you would prefer they not rape your wife/girlfriend, that said violent criminal will just say, "oh, ok, I'll stop living a life of crime and go knit a sweater instead."

  17. #17
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    http://www.10tv.com/?sec=news&story=...715568026.html

    Bill To Keep Guns From Those Under 21 Not Likely

    Oct 17 2007 10:43PM



    COLUMBUS, Ohio - A proposal aimed at reducing gun crime would ban any person under 21 from having a firearm. But the piece of legislation, which is only in its initial stages, is already causing controversy and drawing fierce opposition.

    When a 12-year-old girl was fatally shot in a Cleveland street last month, the city's mayor vowed to make it a crime for anyone under 21 to posses a gun, 10TV's Kevin Landers reported.

    In Ohio it is already against the law to own a handgun if you are under 21, but a new piece of legislation would add the word possession to the books. Opponents argue that changing the vocabulary will ultimately change nothing about the law.

    Critics of the proposal argue that probable cause already allows police to stop people suspected of illegally carrying a gun.

    "The conduct they are talking about is already illegal under existing laws," said Ken Hanson with the Buckeye Firearms Association.

    What concerns gun supporters like Hanson the most is that the legislation could leave some responsible gun owners defenseless, Landers reported.

    Last year an 18-year-old clerk at a Columbus carryout shot and killed one of two people who tried to rob his family's store. Opponents claim that under the proposed bill, the clerk would have broken the law.

    Those in favor of the bill claim that loopholes in the current laws have been exposed and need fixed.

    "There is a loophole in the current law," said Rep. Michael DeBose, (D) 12th District. "That law says anyone who is over 18-years-old can carry a weapon."

    DeBose, who is co-sponsor of the proposed bill, was once an opponent of concealed carry.

    "I was robbed two months ago," he said.

    Since then DeBose admits he carries a gun, but said young people are using the concealed carry laws to carry guns without police questioning them, Landers reported.

    "This law would give police the legal authority to stop and question them," DeBose said, "to stop them from carrying a weapon openly."

    Backers of the proposed law admit it has less than a 50 percent chance of passing because of opposition, Landers reported.

    Stay with 10TV News and refresh 10TV.com for additional information.

    Unless I am missing something, DeBose has turned on us. This is insanity! If you live in Ohio, call your state reps. and tell them to vote no!

  18. #18
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Locate your legislator here; and the bill is in the house right now. This bill is to dangerous just to hope it doesn't pass.

    http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    First of all, this topic's description is misleading. This has nothing to do with what Ohio wants. As I pointed out in this thread:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/5233.html

    Mayor Jackson has been acting on his own Bloomberg style for some time now. In fact, his push against handgun ownership is NOT new. See the following:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum43/4704.html

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3957.html

    It's already illegal by federal regulations for anybody under 18 to possess a handgun. In Ohio, it's already illegal to purchase a handgun under the age of 21. All of these are already unConstitutional and has done nothing to stop the very events that has triggered him to pushing for more such nonsense.

  20. #20
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    "This law would give police the legal authority to stop and question them," DeBose said, "to stop them from carrying a weapon openly."


    That is the part I am really concerned about! If it starts there, where does it end? This is the kind of thing that must be stopped before it erodes away our rights.

  21. #21
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Well, having read it,I say it's crap. Bad idea. At least it's pretty unambiguous, which makes it an improvement in form at least over the bad laws that they usually pass.

    JMO - and this from a jaded old bastard who (allegedly) conceals weapons in plain view...

    -ljp

  23. #23
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Also, it says the minor has to be under the supervision of a responsible adult. What, are we going to let the government now tell us who is responsible or not? This is getting out of control. And apparently people over 18 but under 21 are not allowed to have a long gun in the house for self defense. I just hope DeBose has not realized what he is co-sponsoring. He is fairly new to guns, and I hope some education on the subject would straighten him out.

  24. #24
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article4024.html


    HB354: More Gun Control Addressing Non-Existent Problems


    7 weeks and counting: Public information requests for Mayor Jackson's "proof" of need for Bill go unanswered

    By Ken Hanson

    Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson is attempting to bring big-city, liberal gun control to a town near you. HB354, written by Mayor Jackson’s law department, was introduced October 16, 2007 by Rep. Williams and Rep. Boyd. Proponents of this Bill scream the typical “It is for the children!” mantra while hoping no one reads it.

    A reading of the Bill shows Mayor Jackson is up to his old gun-banning tricks. This Bill has nothing to do with addressing the non-existent problem of juveniles walking around with guns and everything to do with banning guns and holding gun owners liable for the criminal acts of third parties.

    Let’s start by examining what this Bill allegedly does. When first announced, Mayor Jackson lamented “We need action now and we are asking for swift enactment of this legislation so that we can begin to take guns out of the hands of our children and make our community safer.”

    Needless to say, we at Buckeye Firearms Association were shocked to find out that Cleveland apparently has a problem with “children” walking around with guns and the city is powerless to do anything about it. Confused, we immediately submitted the following Public Records Request:

    1. Copies of the research conducted by Mayor Jackson’s staff, as referred to in the press release.

    2. For 1/1/04-present, records of cases where persons under age 21 were caught “brandishing” firearms and were released without any criminal charges.

    3. For 1/1/04-present, records of cases where persons under age 21 were caught with firearms incident to arrest or other investigation and did not face any firearm charges.

    4. For 1/1/04-present, records of cases where persons under age 21 were caught with firearms incident to arrest or other investigation and did not face any criminal charges at all.

    5. For 1/1/04-present, records of all cases where someone was caught with a firearm incident to arrest or other investigation and were released without any criminal charges.

    To our surprise and dismay, 7 weeks later Cleveland still has not produced a single instance of a need to take a gun out of the hands of a “child” where they were powerless to do so.

    Examining the Press Release’s claims further, we note:

    1. The Mayor’s “research” includes “children” up to the age of 25.

    2. The Mayor’s “research” makes absolutely no distinction or categorization between guns lawfully acquired and guns unlawfully acquired.

    It might be an old-fashioned sentiment, but it seems hard to justify whether a law addresses a problem or not when Cleveland cannot even articulate what the problem is. As soon as Cleveland lays out the cases where “kids” got guns and the city was powerless to act, and as soon as Cleveland demonstrates that “kids” are somehow getting guns legally under current law, then, perhaps, it will be time to make the case for a new law.

    Beyond the complete lack of justification for this law (possessing firearms is a fundamental right under the Ohio Constitution, the burden is on the city to demonstrate why the infringement of this right is needed and how the infringement addresses a legitimate governmental interest,) there are hidden pitfalls in this Bill that no one is talking about.

    First, and most importantly, this Bill is a gun ban. Right now, under current law, someone 18 or older can possess a rifle or shotgun for home defense, with or without another adult present. HB354 completely bans these people, who may now lawfully own a gun, from buying/owning a gun, and these people may not possess a gun, even a long gun, unless under the direct supervision of an adult age 21 or over. Unless a 20 year old, who has their own apartment/house/job/baby/voting rights etc, is living with a 21 year old, they will be completely stripped of their right to even have a gun in their own home for defense. This clearly violates the Ohio Constitution.

    Perhaps the most insidious provision of HB354 is the “under the radar” attempt to impose a nebulous “secure storage” standard on all gun owners. As written, if you “negligently fail to take proper precautions” and a criminal obtains your firearm, you are criminally responsible and will be charged with a First Degree Misdemeanor. Anyone care to guess how “reasonable” the “proper precautions” will be in Toledo or Cleveland? This provision is an open end invitation to charge any gun owner at any place or time with a crime simply for exercising a right. This criminalization of self-defense is inexcusable.

    As with most gun control, the devil is in the details. In this case, Mayor Jackson has not made any justification of the need for this law, so that should be the death of the measure then and there. Beyond this, a review of the provisions show that this is a gun control measure, and like all gun control measures, will only impact the law-abiding. If this Bill gets more than sponsor testimony at a hearing in the House, the Ohio gun owner needs to be outraged.

    There is no reason nonsense like HB354 should see any daylight, ever, especially given that urgently needed laws, like a fix for our unloaded transportation woes, remain stymied after 3 years and counting.


  25. #25
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    hogleg wrote:
    I don't read the "People" in the constitution as The right of the (people over 21) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    So my question,you have to be 21 to hunt anything? Plus you don't deserve to protect yourself. It is bad most places will not allow handguns to under 21 but allfirearms??????????



    Why 21? Why not 41 or 10 ???? If you can enter the military at 18 and shoot and kill jihadis why can you not own a firearm?

    (does talking aboutjihadisthat make me racist or religiousbigot?because if it does):celebrate
    Hmmmm.... What of the unorganized militia???

    Chip, chip, chip. You know what that sound is right? Your 2A rights being eroded one little piece at a time.

    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •