The 2nd Admendment

[Fulltimer]

Ye sit is a Constitutional right that can not be changed. If you would pay attention you would know that. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But you keep trying to make it a Liberal v Conservative issue.

There are Liberal gun owners and Conservative gun owners.

There are Liberals that proposed common sense laws regulating firearms and Conservatives have passed and signed into effect laws that regulate firearms and what kind can be allowed for civilian use.

A Conservative California governor signed into law that loaded firearms could not be carried in public. Was that legal under the 2nd Amendment?

A Conservative governor in Florida signed into law that a person must be 21 to Purchase a firearm, banned bump stocks, and broadened rules allowing police to seize weapons from those with mental conditions that could make them a danger to themselves or others. Was that a Conservative or Liberal action?



It is OK to vent about the Liberals or Conservatives but the scope of the 2nd Amendment and the limits placed on civilians is not a Liberal v Conservative question.

[TxMusky]

Then why are the liberals making it an issue at all? You keep throwing out "common sense" gun laws, MURDER is already against the law. All forms of murder are and have been illegal. The criminals are breaking that law, so what in tarnation is one more law going to stop? Making abortion illegal would prevent far more killings than taking away semi automatic weapons, but are you hearing any call for that?

I already said that I did not have a problem with the State setting a reasonable age for the sale of some guns. That also has it's dark side. If a person can not buy a firearm until they are 21 how many young girls are now going to be vulnerable to being attacked in their homes by robbers or rapists? What happened to all of the uproar about protecting women? Are women just pawns in a big game, where their lives only matter when it comes to getting a vote?

Don't think I have not noticed you and others loosely using the semi auto wording in your propaganda talks. Sometimes you say assault weapon and other times you just say semi auto. Most politicians and TV reporters and the pundits are ignorant, they honestly believe that an assault rifle will fire like a fully automatic weapon. They do not and those types of full auto weapons are already illegal and are not being used in any of these murders. The major fear is that the stupid politicians will use semi auto weapon instead of assault style in their wording and all hell will break loose.

If a person is mentally incompetent, no they should not be allowed to own a weapon or have unfettered access to them unsupervised. The Conservative Cali gov or any gov for that matter that signed into law that loaded firearms could not be carried is a fool. Especially with the illegals and the gang problems they have there, what good is that law doing to prevent shootings? That law only hurts the innocent responsible people that are not committing the problems.

SO you want to save lives do you? I look forward to seeing your posts about banning abortion.

[Fulltimer]

The Mulford Act was named after GOP Congressman Dale Mulford from Oakland, California and was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28, 1967.

The law banned the carrying of loaded weapons in public.

Governor Reagan commented about the law that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." He later said the law "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."

I will not express in this discussion my opinion of whether Ronald Reagan was a fool or not. That would be an altogether different topic of discussion.

On the age limit, if it a proper use of government regulation to set an age limit of 18 to purchase a firearm why would it be illegal to set the age at 21? They are both an arbitrary number just as the age limits set for alcohol and tobacco.

[TxMusky]

Big difference between 1967 and now. People are angrier, more apt to commit violence and just as likely to get away with it. If he signed it because he had other aspirations he was a fool.

SO you think it is okay for soldiers to be sent off to war or learn to use firearms and other more deadly weapons, yet they are not smart enough to use a gun responsibly at home? Yep, real smart about telling kids they can drink or smoke, and the let everybody smoke pot legally. Now that makes no sense to me. Typical political BS.

[Fulltimer]

Big difference between 1967 and now. People are angrier, more apt to commit violence and just as likely to get away with it. If he signed it because he had other aspirations he was a fool.

SO you think it is okay for soldiers to be sent off to war or learn to use firearms and other more deadly weapons, yet they are not smart enough to use a gun responsibly at home? Yep, real smart about telling kids they can drink or smoke, and the let everybody smoke pot legally. Now that makes no sense to me. Typical political BS.

Is it your contention that the Constitution is an evolving document and the 2nd Amendment does not today mean the same thing it did in 1967?

[Fulltimer]

While I am not a Betsy DeVoss fan, I think it is unfair to try to place on her shoulders the responsibility of solving the increasing numbers of murders in our schools.

She should focus on the education of our children and leave the arming and training of teachers to the local and state law enforcement.

Being forced to take the responsibility of chairing a commission on the subject is clearly outside her area of expertise. It is a law enforcement problem, not an educational problem.

[Wannabe]

Tx, like a good little democrat, did not answer your question about saving lives. Funny how that works.

[Fulltimer]

Tx, like a good little democrat, did not answer your question about saving lives. Funny how that works.

I think you may have phrased that wrong.

The only "Saving Lives" statement here was a deflection to abortion in this "gun thread". Needs its own topic.

[TxMusky]

Tx, like a good little democrat, did not answer your question about saving lives. Funny how that works.

Never a doubt in my mind that one would get passed over.

I too can set traps

No as far as the second goes it should remain as was intended, the intention was to make sure that the govt could not mow down Americas with unfair force like they did with the Indians who only used bows and arrows. Speaking of that, the govt prosecuted those who fairly traded with the Indians and gave them firearms. Still think the govt is looking after your good side? Actually, since the indians were here first, it could be said that they were more covered by the 2nd than we were. But then again, those who have the superior firepower against defenseless victims always win.

That in itself is a good reason not to let some motor mouth politician control one or either of the two biggest amendments, the freedom to speak and the freedom to defend oneself. Probably a damn good reason they were 1 and 2 on the wish list when they wrote it down.

Now it is also a law but it is a Commandment in the big 10, "Thou shalt not kill" . These scumbags do not care about laws or Commandments so what is writing one more going to do? It will punish those who follow the laws.

[Fulltimer]

Never a doubt in my mind that one would get passed over.

I too can set traps

No as far as the second goes it should remain as was intended, the intention was to make sure that the govt could not mow down Americas with unfair force like they did with the Indians who only used bows and arrows. Speaking of that, the govt prosecuted those who fairly traded with the Indians and gave them firearms. Still think the govt is looking after your good side? Actually, since the indians were here first, it could be said that they were more covered by the 2nd than we were. But then again, those who have the superior firepower against defenseless victims always win.

That in itself is a good reason not to let some motor mouth politician control one or either of the two biggest amendments, the freedom to speak and the freedom to defend oneself. Probably a damn good reason they were 1 and 2 on the wish list when they wrote it down.

Now it is also a law but it is a Commandment in the big 10, "Thou shalt not kill" . These scumbags do not care about laws or Commandments so what is writing one more going to do? It will punish those who follow the laws.

The "Big 10" is now the Big 9. The Fundamentalists just dropped the 7th.

[TxMusky]

Just about every politician has peed all over that one. Not to mention most of Hollywood and probably half of liberals in general, pointing out why they are so dead set on abortion.

Add to that, with the election of Bill Clinton and Obama, the left has shattered number 1 and 2. Number 5 has been slimed. Hilliary shafted Bernie with number 8. And last but not least both 9 and 10 have been stomped, peed, wiped and burnt by every politician ever run for office.

Maybe that is why they do not want God in schools. Removing him and the firearms they set those kids up for the slaughter. Remember Islam is accepted in schools and that bunch of coconuts preaches killing and beating.

[Fulltimer]

Just about every politician has peed all over that one. Not to mention most of Hollywood and probably half of liberals in general, pointing out why they are so deadset on abortion.

Perhaps, but the Fundamentalist's support of politicians such as Donald Trump and Roy Moore really takes away the credibility that they still support all 10 of those Commandments. Although, in their defense, there is no commandment that says "Thou Shalt not be a Pedophile"

[TxMusky]

First, IMHO Moore is a lunatic, just goes to prove that disease infiltrates equally on both sides. Roy does not scare me as much as the idiots that put him into that position. I have been to Alabama many times and there are good sane people there, I find it hard to believe that enough of them voted for him to begin with, when another guy like Strange was running as well.

As far a pedophile, if the accusations are indeed halfway true, he should have been brought to justice a long time ago. The part I find hard to believe is that all of those years that he has been a public figure in politics and not a single person ever brought it up? That makes me wonder why now?

Not saying he was right and they were wrong, just saying that either a boatload of Limburger cheese was plopped down, or the circus was in town and all of the elephants took a dump at the same time, something is smelling fishy about this one.

[Dork]

[Fulltimer]

How would you suggest Democrats be controlled?

Nerve Gas?

For the time being America still has free elections.