Really, you think so? It would take a really seedy member to take that much time and effort to argue against somthing he loves.
[B said:
Hmmm I see a correlation..
Challenge Accepted. We need common sense and compromise on gun violence.
- Thread starter TimB
- Start Date
Hmmm I see a correlation..
Absolutely true. Now, the question is, is it a constitutionally allowed limited to the 2nd?
Not a limit on the second so much as a suspension of rights in general so long as said suspension is not "cruel and unusual" (8th). A prisoner is being punished and is no longer a free man. Once he has paid his debt to society and is freed, all of his rights should be restored.
Why is everyone arguing a moot point? There is no epidemic of gun violence in this country therefore there is no argument. I don't see why everyone falls into these liberal trappings. Wouldn't common sense legislation be directed at the roughly 95% of incidences rather than the 5%? Our second amendment right is under attack and needs to be vigorously defended. However, I am not sure how you are supposed to persuade someone that does not embrace or admit reality.
There is limited, unlimited and unlimited with some limits? That's an interesting argument. As you know people convicted of a felony are no longer eligible to own a firearm. But, they can, and often do, get the right restored. Can we say that their right was merely suspend? Would that pass constitutional muster with you? Also, how about a person that's been arrested, but not yet charged or convicted? When the police arrived at the Aurora theater and arrested James Holmes, did they have the constitutional right to disarm him? Seems that's a limit. Or does that fall into that gray unlimited but with a limit area? How about a person walking into your house or place of business, do you have a right to insist they be unarmed? Does their right to bare arms usurp your rights? It's either limited (which it is) or unlimited. There can not be a gray area.
Last edited:
Similar threads
