Official Gun Krew Thread be here
CBOTY 2010
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 34,786
Likes: 0
From: MI
second best one was:
everyone needs to quit bitching about gun rights until they actually pass a law limiting them. When they pass a law then bitch but until then quit with all the bullshit
That's a paraphrase but essentially this guy felt no one should complain until it's too late :rofl:
everyone needs to quit bitching about gun rights until they actually pass a law limiting them. When they pass a law then bitch but until then quit with all the bullshit
That's a paraphrase but essentially this guy felt no one should complain until it's too late :rofl:
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,320
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, AZ
CCW permit no longer needed in my state. I don't know how I feel about it, I kind of think everyone should take a class for some gun education. on the other end its going to make a lot of criminals think twice.
Nobama
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,961
Likes: 0
From: Sarasota, Florida
:dunno: Right to bear arms.
Mandating a class to exercise a constitutional right seems like having to pay a fee to speak your mind. As you have to pay for the class, and the permit.
So either mandate a class to exercise your freedom of speech, or open up CCW. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
I agree, everyone should have instruction if they are handling firearms. and in my opionion " a class" is nowhere near enough.
But should it be mandated? Absolutely not.
Last edited by BetterBob; Apr 15, 2010 at 09:13 PM.
CBOTY 2010
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 34,786
Likes: 0
From: MI
:dunno: Right to bear arms.
Mandating a class to exercise a constitutional right seems like having to pay a fee to speak your mind. As you have to pay for the class, and the permit.
So either mandate a class to exercise your freedom of speech, or open up CCW. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
I agree, everyone should have instruction if they are handling firearms. and in my opionion " a class" is nowhere near enough.
But should it be mandated? Absolutely not.
Mandating a class to exercise a constitutional right seems like having to pay a fee to speak your mind. As you have to pay for the class, and the permit.
So either mandate a class to exercise your freedom of speech, or open up CCW. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
I agree, everyone should have instruction if they are handling firearms. and in my opionion " a class" is nowhere near enough.
But should it be mandated? Absolutely not.
pursuit of happiness is a constitutional right ie you can aspire to have whatever job you want but just because its a constitutional right doesnt mean you don't have to prove you are qualified to be a doctor before you can be one ...
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,320
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, AZ
:dunno: Right to bear arms.
Mandating a class to exercise a constitutional right seems like having to pay a fee to speak your mind. As you have to pay for the class, and the permit.
So either mandate a class to exercise your freedom of speech, or open up CCW. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
I agree, everyone should have instruction if they are handling firearms. and in my opionion " a class" is nowhere near enough.
But should it be mandated? Absolutely not.
Mandating a class to exercise a constitutional right seems like having to pay a fee to speak your mind. As you have to pay for the class, and the permit.
So either mandate a class to exercise your freedom of speech, or open up CCW. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
I agree, everyone should have instruction if they are handling firearms. and in my opionion " a class" is nowhere near enough.
But should it be mandated? Absolutely not.
Nobama
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,961
Likes: 0
From: Sarasota, Florida
Not true, pursuit of happiness is not a right. It is in the preamble of the declaration of independence, and is merely to show general guidelines as to why the declaration was made the way it was.
The pursuit of happiness is not a right, as it is not in any of the actual articles or amendments of the constitution.
I'll make is easy for you.
Declaraion: August 2, 1776
Constitution: September 17, 1787
See the nine year gap?
The declaration is not law because it was never passed by both the house and the senate of the states. As they did not exist in that function at that time.
And therefore your argument is invalid.
Last edited by BetterBob; Apr 16, 2010 at 07:15 PM.
Live Free Or Die
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1
From: San Diego County
Not true, pursuit of happiness is not a right. It is in the preamble of the declaration of independence, and is merely to show general guidelines as to why the declaration was made the way it was.
The pursuit of happiness is not a right, as it is not in any of the actual articles or amendments of the constitution.
I'll make is easy for you.
Declaraion: August 2, 1776
Constitution: September 17, 1787
See the nine year gap?
The declaration is not law because it was never passed by both the house and the senate of the states. As they did not exist in that function at that time.
And therefore your argument is invalid.
The pursuit of happiness is not a right, as it is not in any of the actual articles or amendments of the constitution.
I'll make is easy for you.
Declaraion: August 2, 1776
Constitution: September 17, 1787
See the nine year gap?
The declaration is not law because it was never passed by both the house and the senate of the states. As they did not exist in that function at that time.
And therefore your argument is invalid.
Nobama
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,961
Likes: 0
From: Sarasota, Florida
As the founding fathers saw it, pursuit of happiness is a right granted by God. Therefore, there is no need to for it to be in the Constitution. Besides, the Constitution does not grant rights, it's purpose is to limit the government's power to infringe on the people's God-given rights.