[Shootshellz]

More name calling. Ignore name callers. Typical lawyer trick; don't be fooled.

 

[SuperXOne]

There are some laws that now exist that limit an employer's right to fire gun owners for bringing their gun to work, so long as they leave the gun in the parking lot. There is no reason at all that laws cannot be passed that similarly forbid landlords from discriminating against gun owners, too.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2026750354

I have a vacancy in one of my rental homes at Humansville. I cannot forbid my new tenants from having black people on the premises, and I should not be able to forbid them from having legally owned firearms on my rental home.

If we don't pass laws that forbid landlords from forbidding guns, and employers from discriminating unreasonably against gun owners, and businesses from putting up NO GUNS signs, eventually liability concerns will turn the United States into a nation where you'll have the right to own and use a gun only in your own house, unless the mortgage holder forbids it, in which case you'll have to live in a paid for home and work for yourself and not take your gun out anywhere, lest some other man forbid you your constitutional rights.

The old Southerners that did up the Jim Crow laws would approve of the laxity that we gun owners have to not rise up and demand our rights. Until we get laws to protect us, it's best to not talk back, to know our place, and just be grateful that men of property indulge us our gun rights.

Gun owners must not always be afraid of the law and lawyers. We need the law, and lawyers, to advance our gun rights. I understand that property owners have legitimate concerns about being over regulated, but slave owners had exactly the same concerns, too.

Having the right to something so basic as to be armed is a right that no government and no man or corporation should unreasonably forbid us. There are limits, but there should also be basic protections of the right to keep and bear arms beyond which no man can ever step on another man's right to be armed.

 

[RandyWakeman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/congress-gun-control_n_4689909.html

It is shameful.

 

[duckqwacker]

I wish Reid would bring it up for a vote in the Senate. It would be the end of his "career".

 

[SuperXOne]

I would be the certain end of any Democrat Senator in places like Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, and North Carolina that voted "aye" for gun control.

There are still about 16 Democrats in the Senate that voted NO for the AWBII.

Which is a good thing. A lot of liberal Democrats are bad about wanting gun control and it's just the ruination of Democratic chances in tightly contested elections. Those liberal Dems in safe blue states are the problem with gun control anyway, not the pro gun Dems, and certainly not any Republicans.

I like the Republican positions better on gun control. Just say no.

 

[duckqwacker]

There are no pro-2A Democrats there are only fakers and liars to do so for the purposes of political expedience.

 

[SuperXOne]

I go to meeting regularly with lots of Democrats who carry guns, own guns, and don't want to lose those rights. Unfortunately, some of those Democrats are as lukewarm about gun rights as a lot of (but not all) Republicans are about voting rights. They get angry when when you point out that Democrats think it's terrible to require a government issued photo ID to vote but a lot of Democrats support even more controls on the right to buy a gun, such as background checks. What about background checks in order to be able to vote each time we vote?

That's different, they'll say,,,Democrats aren't out to outlaw guns, just make sure only the right people can buy them.

They sound just like a bunch of Republicans talking about "protecting us from voter fraud".

It's hard to be open minded. I'm so against steel shot I don't think I'd spend ten minutes outlawing it entirely and forever if somebody made me the king. But I don't always get my way, you know?

 

[duckqwacker]

The 2A clearly states "shall not be infringed". The power of the vote was never intended to be given to every illiterate f#cktard who could scratch an x on a piece of paper. The power of the vote should be reserved for those who pay taxes and understand the delicate balance between liberty and limited government.

 

[D Brown]

The 2A clearly states "shall not be infringed". The power of the vote was never intended to be given to every illiterate f#cktard who could scratch an x on a piece of paper. The power of the vote should be reserved for those who pay taxes and understand the delicate balance between liberty and limited government.

Dam, duckqwacker,

You DO realize that would eliminate most of the current lawyers in this country from the voter roles....??

 

[SuperXOne]

Actually, a clever lawyer might decide that citizens get a vote proportional to how many acres of inherited farm land they own and the amount of taxes and insurance they pay. That would be different, wouldn't it?

There are elections were only property owners who pay taxes vote. They are called water and sewer and levy districts.

But a long time ago, after we freed the slaves, we decided that all free citizens could vote for all representatives to the government in their district, unless they had been convicted of a felony. A half a century later we allowed women to vote and in another half century we allowed free blacks in the South to vote, too. The issue is long settled now, for about fifty years.

And the dad blasted public has been not voting to suit everybody ever since.

The people that say only those that should pay taxes should vote don't really mean it. I've heard that all my life, and they never stop to think that under that theory Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would be monarchs.

 

[D Brown]

This post was made by SuperXOne who is currently on your ignore list. Never display SuperXOne

 

[SuperXOne]

It's hard to discuss something if you ignore facts. The facts will still be waiting for you once you come back.

Fact is that judges get to decide what infringement of the Second Amendment is.

If they would let me decide it, it would be a lot better, I think.

But such is not to be.

 

[WingMaster]

The question has already been decide over 200 years ago. There is no infringement.

Slimy lawyers didn't even try to infringe on the federal level until 1934 and then again in 1968. Now it's a free for all.

 

[R. Toker]

Conservatives have been playing defense for so long that the idea using the Second Amendment as a sword instead of always as a shield just isn't in the conservative mind.

Say what you want about Democrats, but when they decide that being homosexual is a right they don't back away from making a full fledged right, the same as any other

Unless conservatives demand that gun rights be treated as a civil right it's going to stay that way, the Second Amendment being some kind of second class constitutional right.

Why do conservatives have to play defense on the 2A? Why don't Democrats consider the 2A a civil right like they do when Harry wants to marry Steve? Why is it only the conservatives who carry the burden in your small, liberal mind? You are a complete moron and you are no friend of the 2A I don't care if you are a triple endowment of the NRA.