Acceptable registrations in the queue through June 3 at 5:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Gun rights rally, no violence
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
Re: Gun rights rally, no violence
I stand by my original statement.
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
Re: Gun rights rally, no violence
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
Re: Gun rights rally, no violence
Thousands of people with guns, no incidents.
The gooberner wanted to make it a “gun free” zone during the demonstration. They gave the goober a big F-U!!!! Nothing happened.
Meanwhile, in “gun free” Chicago, three people shot to death, 13 others injured by gun violence. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/3 ... o/2203780/
The gooberner wanted to make it a “gun free” zone during the demonstration. They gave the goober a big F-U!!!! Nothing happened.
Meanwhile, in “gun free” Chicago, three people shot to death, 13 others injured by gun violence. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/3 ... o/2203780/
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
Re: Gun rights rally, no violence
You would know. The men use you as a gauge.
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
Re: Gun rights rally, no violence
People are allowed to wear whatever they want. Sorry you don’t approve.Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:21 pmI need an explanation why so many of the folks who were passionate about gun rights showed up in "costume".
I'm not critiquing what they stand for.
But was the paratrooper, dressed to the hilt show really necessary?
Kind of takes the "take me seriously" off the table, if you ask me anyway.
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
Re: Gun rights rally, no violence
I hope so!Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:36 pmThose people are presumably ready to roll into battle at the drop of a hat if their rights are supposedly infringed...Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:21 pmI need an explanation why so many of the folks who were passionate about gun rights showed up in "costume".
I'm not critiquing what they stand for.
But was the paratrooper, dressed to the hilt show really necessary?
Kind of takes the "take me seriously" off the table, if you ask me anyway.
That’s literally what happened during the Revolutionary War.
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
Re: Gun rights rally, no violence
Any restriction on the second amendment is just as unconstitutional as any restriction on the first amendment.Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:41 pmThat would be grossly out of proportion with some benign rules... how do those rules even harm anyone?lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:09 pmI hope so!Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:36 pmThose people are presumably ready to roll into battle at the drop of a hat if their rights are supposedly infringed...Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:21 pmI need an explanation why so many of the folks who were passionate about gun rights showed up in "costume".
I'm not critiquing what they stand for.
But was the paratrooper, dressed to the hilt show really necessary?
Kind of takes the "take me seriously" off the table, if you ask me anyway.
That’s literally what happened during the Revolutionary War.
Your threshold for whether a law should be made is based on whether the rule “hurts” someone? Glad you weren’t at the constitutional convention. You would have sided with England.
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
Re: Gun rights rally, no violence
100% wrong.Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:55 pmInfringement of The right to bear arms is “you may not have guns, sorry”.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:10 pmAny restriction on the second amendment is just as unconstitutional as any restriction on the first amendment.Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:41 pmThat would be grossly out of proportion with some benign rules... how do those rules even harm anyone?lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:09 pmI hope so!Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:36 pmThose people are presumably ready to roll into battle at the drop of a hat if their rights are supposedly infringed...Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:21 pmI need an explanation why so many of the folks who were passionate about gun rights showed up in "costume".
I'm not critiquing what they stand for.
But was the paratrooper, dressed to the hilt show really necessary?
Kind of takes the "take me seriously" off the table, if you ask me anyway.
That’s literally what happened during the Revolutionary War.
Your threshold for whether a law should be made is based on whether the rule “hurts” someone? Glad you weren’t at the constitutional convention. You would have sided with England.
A law to limit the number purchased in a month or to take them away from those who may imminently use them to kill people don’t meet that threshold.
The constitution protects people’s right to bear arms from being “infringed.” Infringement is a much lesser threshold than “regulated, “limited,” or “banned.”
Infringement is NOT taking away all guns like you say. It’s any limit on the right to have any kind and as many as you decide.
Your logic would say that infringement on free speech would be “you can’t speak at all.” Rather, limiting any speech is a violation of the first amendment just like limiting any guns is a violation of the second amendment.
Just because you don’t like something or are scared of it doesn’t justify limiting or banning it for others.
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
Re: Gun rights rally, no violence
Any reason for capitalizing “Gun”?Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:44 amIf I remember right two courts (one might have been SCOTUS) upheld Virginia’s state capital grounds Gun ban before the rally so it’s not nearly as black and white as you want it to be.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 7:52 am100% wrong.Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:55 pmInfringement of The right to bear arms is “you may not have guns, sorry”.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:10 pmAny restriction on the second amendment is just as unconstitutional as any restriction on the first amendment.Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:41 pmThat would be grossly out of proportion with some benign rules... how do those rules even harm anyone?lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:09 pmI hope so!Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:36 pmThose people are presumably ready to roll into battle at the drop of a hat if their rights are supposedly infringed...Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:21 pmI need an explanation why so many of the folks who were passionate about gun rights showed up in "costume".
I'm not critiquing what they stand for.
But was the paratrooper, dressed to the hilt show really necessary?
Kind of takes the "take me seriously" off the table, if you ask me anyway.
That’s literally what happened during the Revolutionary War.
Your threshold for whether a law should be made is based on whether the rule “hurts” someone? Glad you weren’t at the constitutional convention. You would have sided with England.
A law to limit the number purchased in a month or to take them away from those who may imminently use them to kill people don’t meet that threshold.
The constitution protects people’s right to bear arms from being “infringed.” Infringement is a much lesser threshold than “regulated, “limited,” or “banned.”
Infringement is NOT taking away all guns like you say. It’s any limit on the right to have any kind and as many as you decide.
Your logic would say that infringement on free speech would be “you can’t speak at all.” Rather, limiting any speech is a violation of the first amendment just like limiting any guns is a violation of the second amendment.
Just because you don’t like something or are scared of it doesn’t justify limiting or banning it for others.
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
Re: Gun rights rally, no violence
Don’t worry. You’re only wrong about words, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and life. No big deal.Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:43 amSpell check is a funny thing... I probably tapped the capitalize and didn’t catch it... oh well.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:03 amAny reason for capitalizing “Gun”?Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:44 amIf I remember right two courts (one might have been SCOTUS) upheld Virginia’s state capital grounds Gun ban before the rally so it’s not nearly as black and white as you want it to be.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 7:52 am100% wrong.Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:55 pmInfringement of The right to bear arms is “you may not have guns, sorry”.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:10 pmAny restriction on the second amendment is just as unconstitutional as any restriction on the first amendment.Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:41 pmThat would be grossly out of proportion with some benign rules... how do those rules even harm anyone?lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:09 pmI hope so!Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:36 pmThose people are presumably ready to roll into battle at the drop of a hat if their rights are supposedly infringed...Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:21 pmI need an explanation why so many of the folks who were passionate about gun rights showed up in "costume".
I'm not critiquing what they stand for.
But was the paratrooper, dressed to the hilt show really necessary?
Kind of takes the "take me seriously" off the table, if you ask me anyway.
That’s literally what happened during the Revolutionary War.
Your threshold for whether a law should be made is based on whether the rule “hurts” someone? Glad you weren’t at the constitutional convention. You would have sided with England.
A law to limit the number purchased in a month or to take them away from those who may imminently use them to kill people don’t meet that threshold.
The constitution protects people’s right to bear arms from being “infringed.” Infringement is a much lesser threshold than “regulated, “limited,” or “banned.”
Infringement is NOT taking away all guns like you say. It’s any limit on the right to have any kind and as many as you decide.
Your logic would say that infringement on free speech would be “you can’t speak at all.” Rather, limiting any speech is a violation of the first amendment just like limiting any guns is a violation of the second amendment.
Just because you don’t like something or are scared of it doesn’t justify limiting or banning it for others.
-
- Posts: 6164
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am
Re: Gun rights rally, no violence
Nope!Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:56 amYou are deeply troubled.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:51 amDon’t worry. You’re only wrong about words, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and life. No big deal.Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:43 amSpell check is a funny thing... I probably tapped the capitalize and didn’t catch it... oh well.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:03 amAny reason for capitalizing “Gun”?Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:44 amIf I remember right two courts (one might have been SCOTUS) upheld Virginia’s state capital grounds Gun ban before the rally so it’s not nearly as black and white as you want it to be.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 7:52 am100% wrong.Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:55 pmInfringement of The right to bear arms is “you may not have guns, sorry”.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:10 pmAny restriction on the second amendment is just as unconstitutional as any restriction on the first amendment.Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:41 pmThat would be grossly out of proportion with some benign rules... how do those rules even harm anyone?lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:09 pmI hope so!Rate This wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:36 pmThose people are presumably ready to roll into battle at the drop of a hat if their rights are supposedly infringed...Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:21 pmI need an explanation why so many of the folks who were passionate about gun rights showed up in "costume".
I'm not critiquing what they stand for.
But was the paratrooper, dressed to the hilt show really necessary?
Kind of takes the "take me seriously" off the table, if you ask me anyway.
That’s literally what happened during the Revolutionary War.
Your threshold for whether a law should be made is based on whether the rule “hurts” someone? Glad you weren’t at the constitutional convention. You would have sided with England.
A law to limit the number purchased in a month or to take them away from those who may imminently use them to kill people don’t meet that threshold.
The constitution protects people’s right to bear arms from being “infringed.” Infringement is a much lesser threshold than “regulated, “limited,” or “banned.”
Infringement is NOT taking away all guns like you say. It’s any limit on the right to have any kind and as many as you decide.
Your logic would say that infringement on free speech would be “you can’t speak at all.” Rather, limiting any speech is a violation of the first amendment just like limiting any guns is a violation of the second amendment.
Just because you don’t like something or are scared of it doesn’t justify limiting or banning it for others.
You’re only 100% wrong about that too!!!