About FBI CONFIRMS IT: CRIMINALS IGNORE GUN LAWS Page 4
|April 9th, 2007||#31|
| || |
Here are some links you can use to voice your frustration with the US Federal Government on the matter....
★INITIAL SUCCESS✫or✫TOTAL FAILURE★
|April 9th, 2007||#33|
| || |
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
|April 10th, 2007||#34|
| || |
It's your property, infringement has nothing to do with that. It's your frakking property.
You can make a rule that would not allow folks to wear pants on your property if you want. Property rights and 2nd amendment rights are two seperate issues.
Nice try in playing the game.
|April 10th, 2007||#35|
| || |
Not sure you can make that rule as public nudity and indecency laws would probably override it.
As far as playing games go I don't see the game you and others have claimed that your 2nd amendment rights cannot be infringed and I have just given you an example of how at least part of it can be done legally and thus indicating that it is not carved in stone.
Lets face it the literal interpretation of that right would allow you to bear arms anywhere you liked any time you liked as anything else would be infringing on your right.
|April 10th, 2007||#36|
| || |
Here, allow me to play along.
The Right is there not so one must allow me to enter their home with my Weapon in the United States of America, but rather there so one cannot complain that I have a Weapon in my home, a Weapon that they would like to see removed, and then have the Government act as an agent in the removal of such, likewise the Federal Government cannot act alone and just get tired of people having Firearms, and decide to have them all removed from Private Ownership.
The Amendment is a restriction on the Federal Government infringing on the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, not a Law requiring that someone like Firearms and or own Firearms if one does not wish to in the first place.
Although, there are places the Federal Government, along with State Governments, in which a private Citizen cannot keep nor bear Arms, like a Courthouse for instance, along with many other State and Federal Buildings. Aircraft also come to mind as a place where one cannot keep nor bear Arms if they are a Private Citizen, but the Right is still there, it is pretty much a choice to fly in an Aircraft after all, and as far as a Courthouse and other Federal Buildings, well if one is ordered there, then I guess one would just have to suck it up for the short time one would be inside, there are Armed Guards at many of the State and Federal Buildings, so, even if the Nation falls under attack when one was inside, inside and far away from their Firearm, well the Armed Guards could perhaps offer covering fire, so one may be able to make it back to their Vehicle and be with their gun.
Employment is also not a Right in the United States of America, so, one does not just walk into a company and sit down and claim "here I am, I work here now, and I'm keeping my Gun on my person, as it is my right"
Like the Freedom of Speech, there is only the Right to speak, there is no such Right in Federal Law that one must be heard, or that one is agreed with, but still, the Right to Speak it is there.
That means that one does not have to listen to things that they may disagree with, but one cannot stop someone else from having the Right to Speak freely, even if someone does not like what others have to say.
One does not however have to allow the person into their home to say what is on their mind, as there is no such right in law for that action to take place.
It is a protection Citizens enjoy, a protection from the Government, either acting alone, or acting as an agent against other Citizens exercising a Right, a Right guaranteed by the Government.
There is no Federal Law that a person is required by Law to own a Firearm, although there was at one time in America for most of the General Population, so I really do not see what all the fuss is about with some groups in America. The Federal Government is saying that while one does not by Law need to keep a Firearm, however those wishing and able will be allowed by Law to own a Firearm.
Last edited by Gator; April 10th, 2007 at 06:54..
|April 10th, 2007||#37|
| || |
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
|April 10th, 2007||#39|
| || |
"Shall not be infringed"
it does not say "may not be infringed" or "should not be infringed", that my friend is a huge difference.
"shall' implies a mandatory statement, the word "should" implies an advisory statement, and the word "may" implies the right to use discretion.
The person is not infringing your right to bear arms they are telling you if you want to have a weapon you must leave for then you are no longer welcome, they are not taking your gun away. Their personal property is their personal property they own it they can do whatever they want on it. If they don't like what you are saying they can ask you to leave.
|April 18th, 2007||#40|
| || |
"criminals ignore gun laws," I personally don't believe it. They are just nice men with a bad name. lolol.
I laughed my head off when I read the beginning part of that. A five year study to figure that out huh? Wow, I feel safe being protected by an FBI that doesn't have the common sense to figure that out without having the numbers "for sure" posted.
"Our politicians do not serve us; they serve the multinational corporations that pay them. It's time to change that. Let's end the corporate takeover of our government." — Cenk Uygur
|40 Reasons to Support Gun Control|
|Gun Control Statistics to Remember|
|Press Ignores FBI Study Saying Gun Laws Ignored by Cop Killers|
|FBI admits breaching privacy laws in security cases (AFP)|
|Subject: GUN CONTROL|