National Carry Measure . . . Senate to vote . . . ' Road Runner ' homepage

Mr.Advocate · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

I Believe that our ccw permits should be honored in all of the 50 states. It's the U.S., so whats the big deal, I know that CC is a privilege and it should be a right to, but that wasn't ever added to the U.S. Constitution when it was written, so that's why people have to call it a privilege. But hey that's just my opinion

Deanimator · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

thx997303 wrote:

Who are they hurting stylez?

Hmm, good question.

Does bestiality actually hurt the animal?

Wow, how off topic can this general discussion forum get?

Click to expand...

Animals aren't adults, therefore you can do whatever you want to them, per the spanking thread logic used by your side.

Click to expand...

I support gay marriage, so could you stop talking about it? You just infect the discussion with the inherent stupidity of ALL of your "arguments". The next thing we know, you'll be claiming that gay marriage is "normal", but polygamy ISN'T... with of course no logical reason WHY. Nothing you ever say attains, much less surpasses, the intellectual level of Fred Phelps.

Children have a SUBSET of the rights of adult HUMANS.

Animals have NO rights.

Click to expand...

Hey captain strawman, where in my post did I mention gay marriage?

Where did I mention polygamy?

lulz now you're the master of what rights children do and don't have. They're almost real people. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

We know you're an AHSA troll. Apparently you're also a Family Research Council troll.

One would HOPE that you know that children don't have the "right" to have sex with adults, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

Il_Duce · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

Mr.Advocate wrote:

I know that CC is a privilege and it should be a right to, but that wasn't ever added to the U.S. Constitution when it was written, so that's why people have to call it a privilege. But hey that's just my opinion

It sure as **** isn't.

Bearing arms does not mean only openly.

wrightme · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

Il_Duce wrote:

Mr.Advocate wrote:

I know that CC is a privilege and it should be a right to, but that wasn't ever added to the U.S. Constitution when it was written, so that's why people have to call it a privilege. But hey that's just my opinion

Click to expand...

It sure as @#$% isn't.

Bearing arms does not mean only openly.

Correct. The 2nd Amendment does NOT enumerate a Right to only bear arms openly. It really does not specify. Such distinction is in the law and in the minds of people. It is a false distinction IMHO. The 2nd Amendment also did not create anything. It only lists it to assist "we, the People" in protecting it. Citing it to call CC a privilege is not logical.

AWDstylez · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

thx997303 wrote:

Who are they hurting stylez?

Hmm, good question.

Does bestiality actually hurt the animal?

Wow, how off topic can this general discussion forum get?

Click to expand...

Animals aren't adults, therefore you can do whatever you want to them, per the spanking thread logic used by your side.

Click to expand...

I support gay marriage, so could you stop talking about it? You just infect the discussion with the inherent stupidity of ALL of your "arguments". The next thing we know, you'll be claiming that gay marriage is "normal", but polygamy ISN'T... with of course no logical reason WHY. Nothing you ever say attains, much less surpasses, the intellectual level of Fred Phelps.

Children have a SUBSET of the rights of adult HUMANS.

Animals have NO rights.

Click to expand...

Hey captain strawman, where in my post did I mention gay marriage?

Where did I mention polygamy?

lulz now you're the master of what rights children do and don't have. They're almost real people. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Click to expand...

We know you're an AHSA troll. Apparently you're also a Family Research Council troll.

One would HOPE that you know that children don't have the "right" to have sex with adults, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

Waiting for response to previous questions, and also a response to this new one...

Strawman king, where did I mention anything about child/adult sex?

Alexcabbie · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

I wish I knew how such a simple system as the Republic given to us by the Founders turned into such a damned dog's breakfast. :banghead:

Doug Huffman · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

How? That all men are created equal has been extended to their stupid opinions. Two infants are equal and remain so through adolescence. Then they diverge as one pursues a life of bliss and the other stays in school. As adults the blissful one claims his First Amendment Right to opine AND that his opinion is equally as truthful as his learned and lettered compatriot.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed whee they will, with wits and guns and the truth. The Leviathan will not be sated until all are disarmed of wits and weapons.

FogRider · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

I wish I knew how such a simple system as the Republic given to us by the Founders turned into such a damned dog's breakfast. :banghead:

People. People ruin everything. It's an unfortunate fact of life.

Mr.Advocate · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

Il_Duce wrote:

Mr.Advocate wrote:

I know that CC is a privilege and it should be a right to, but that wasn't ever added to the U.S. Constitution when it was written, so that's why people have to call it a privilege. But hey that's just my opinion

Click to expand...

It sure as @#$% isn't.

Bearing arms does not mean only openly.

Thankyou I|_Duce for correcting me, I don't agree with CC being a privledge, so how exactly did it get to be this way. As it was explained to me, Duce, "the right to Bare Arms Shall Not Be Infringed" Bare-meaning, openly.:question:

MSC 45ACP · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

FogRider wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

I wish I knew how such a simple system as the Republic given to us by the Founders turned into such a damned dog's breakfast. :banghead:

Click to expand...

People. People ruin everything. It's an unfortunate fact of life.

Of course they do. That's why communism doesn't work: The Human Greed Factor. "True Communism" would be Utopia. It doesn't work becuase therewill always be some that are"More equal than everyone else" and that screws up the whole system.

Demoncraps are like that, too. Socialism works great as long as you have someone else's money to spend for your programs. FACT: There are more rich democrats than there are republicans. Congress-critters are like that, too... They want us to accept Social Security and Medicare and the rest of their government programs, but do they want them for themselves? OF COURSE NOT! They are TOO GOOD to pay into social security... they have a better retirement system! They want to cram "Universal Healthcare" down our throats, but do THEY want it for themselves? Heck no!

We need to fire the whole lot of them and start over. They're so deeply entrenched, they've come to believe they truly are above the law and above us commoners. Will they EVER vote for term limits? NO WAY! Why jump off their gravy train?

marshaul · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

Animals have NO rights.

This is inconsistent with the self-evident nature of animals. An animal is alive, therefore it possesses a default right to be alive. Whence do you suppose are derived our Natural Rights?

On the other hand, predation is equally self-evidently a natural right for carnivorous animals.

So, one could extrapolate that animals have a self-evident right to be alive, until some carnivore catches them for food.

Therefore, one could argue that one has a right to eat animals or kill them to prevent destruction of property (humans have a self-evident right to property, as we are evolved with a conception of it, something animals appear to lack), but that an act equivalent to "murder" of an animal is inconsistent with the nature of human beings and animals.

marshaul · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Demoncraps are like that, too. Socialism works great as long as you have someone else's money to spend for your programs. FACT: There are more rich democrats than there are republicans. Congress-critters are like that, too...

Fail. Partisan tripe.

Take of the blinders, remove the partisan language, and try again.

Basically you've just argued that X is wealthier than X. Brilliant. :quirky

Further, even if we accept the self-declaration of a partisan "difference" by the referenced individuals, where is the proof of this assertion?

Deanimator · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

Animals have NO rights.

Click to expand...

This is inconsistent with the self-evident nature of animals.

In no conceivable way.

When a coyote eats a rabbit, does it violate its "rights"?

No.

Rights are purely human constructs, applicable only to humans.

Any claim to the contrary is crypto-religious hooey.

AWDstylez · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

In no conceivable way.

When a coyote eats a rabbit, does it violate its "rights"?

No.

You have the reading comprehesion of a three-year-old. He just explained this.

Deanimator wrote:

Rights are purely human constructs, applicable only to humans.

Any claim to the contrary is crypto-religious hooey.

Oh, this is new. So humans created rights? Then humans can take rights away. That means our "rights" are only as good as the paper they're written on. The government can change and/or ignore that paper at its wish and whim. After all, it's just paper... ask Bush. Looks like you just shot yourself in the foot.

GoldCoaster · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

Mr.Advocate wrote:

Il_Duce wrote:

Mr.Advocate wrote:

I know that CC is a privilege and it should be a right to, but that wasn't ever added to the U.S. Constitution when it was written, so that's why people have to call it a privilege. But hey that's just my opinion

Click to expand...

It sure as @#$% isn't.

Bearing arms does not mean only openly.

Click to expand...

Thankyou I|_Duce for correcting me, I don't agree with CC being a privledge, so how exactly did it get to be this way. As it was explained to me, Duce, "the right to Bare Arms Shall Not Be Infringed" Bare-meaning, openly.:question:

It's not keep and bare arms it's keep and BEAR arms.

Bare = naked/show/open
Bear = carry/hold/burden

So you can keep and bear arms - doesn't say at all about open or covered therefore it is as we the people decide to carry them.

R a Z o R · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

GoldCoaster wrote:

It's not keep and bare arms it's keep and BEAR arms.

Bare = naked/show/open
Bear = carry/hold/burden

So you can keep and bear arms - doesn't say at all about open or covered therefore it is as we the people decide to carry them.

:what:Well doggie , if that don't put the cork back in the bottle .

marshaul · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

In no conceivable way.

When a coyote eats a rabbit, does it violate its "rights"?

No.

Click to expand...

You have the reading comprehesion of a three-year-old. He just explained this.

Evidently he responded to my person, rather than my post or argument.

Generally, one is expected to read before he responds. But then again, this is the internet.

Deanimator wrote:

Any claim to the contrary is crypto-religious hooey.

Strange, considering "atheist" is a tame description of my views.

Mr.Advocate · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

Well then, it looks like we need to take the whole CC to the supreme court and get rid of this whole thing that CC is a privledge, when really it's a right also. Time for us to go to Supreme Court and take this stigma down, so where do we start.

Washintonian_For_Liberty · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Does anyone see the flip-side of this issue? If that bill passed, you're then putting the licensing of carrying into the lap of the fed. You're giving the fed the power to tell states what they have to accept, even though it has nothing to do with inter-state commerce.

To support this bill, simply because it's in your favor, is a bit hypocritical. I want my permit to be honored in all states just as much as the next guy, but this is not how I want it to happen.

Um, I think we're putting it into the lap of the Constitution. Its not about interstate commerce... it's about the 2nd Amendment.

The Bill of Rights were supposed to apply to all government. What's more, an Amendment makes all States subject to it, and allStates must abide by it. They cannot just pick and choose which Amendments they will or will not uphold... or slavery would not have ended with the end of the Civil War.After all that, all other laws of the land are up to the States or the people.

Mr.Advocate · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

Very true Washintonian_For_Libertyvery true, the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights is what we need to go back to, and should have never left it in the first place. Most people think change stuff,means our history also, not so when it comes to our rights, we must appreciate and be thankful for what our forefathers bestowed upon us, our great rights.

National Carry Measure . . . Senate to vote . . . ' Road Runner ' homepage

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran