Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
US Senator Coburn (R-OK) Introduces Gun Control of His Own (not kidding!!!)
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DFarcher" data-source="post: 2173937" data-attributes="member: 29504"><p>I understand. I just don't know why some insist on the rigid interpetation. All great documents that stand the test of time are "living documents" if you will. I believe that when the day comes that the government actually attempts to take a legally aquired firearms from law abiding citizens the end of our country as we know it is here, it will be time to start from scratch. I believe I have to right to own and carry firearms which I do. I will not NEVER give them up. But whats clear to me if you study the intent of those who wrote the document we are talking about and all of the case law since it was written is that this right is not absolute. If it were an abosolute right we would not have the right as a society to keep handguns from bank robbers or exposives from bombers or even a atomic bomb from some one who happen to have enough money to buy or build one. Is this how any of you actually feel? Firearm ownership is a right, also a resposibility. Why is it to much to ask that we take part in trying to keep firearms away from those who should not have them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DFarcher, post: 2173937, member: 29504"] I understand. I just don't know why some insist on the rigid interpetation. All great documents that stand the test of time are "living documents" if you will. I believe that when the day comes that the government actually attempts to take a legally aquired firearms from law abiding citizens the end of our country as we know it is here, it will be time to start from scratch. I believe I have to right to own and carry firearms which I do. I will not NEVER give them up. But whats clear to me if you study the intent of those who wrote the document we are talking about and all of the case law since it was written is that this right is not absolute. If it were an abosolute right we would not have the right as a society to keep handguns from bank robbers or exposives from bombers or even a atomic bomb from some one who happen to have enough money to buy or build one. Is this how any of you actually feel? Firearm ownership is a right, also a resposibility. Why is it to much to ask that we take part in trying to keep firearms away from those who should not have them. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
US Senator Coburn (R-OK) Introduces Gun Control of His Own (not kidding!!!)
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom