RE: Another case of not right wing violence

RE: Another case of not right wing violence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 11:07:10 AM)
deny and restrict are different things. Regarding state and federal.... As a poor example, because I don't know if it is Federal (I am almost sure it is a state park that gets federal money) the City of Chicago has a no guns in the limits, and Washington Park is in the limits.....if it is federal land, since it resides in a state that has a more restrictive gun law, they couldn't carry there.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 11:25:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk No guns so when you get molared and fall down the fucking gun won't go off by accident and kill me. Simple enough? Yeah, no guns, so when I'm walking in the "hood" I don't get caught in a crossfire. Simple enough? Yeah no guns there either pops. I am glad you are agreeing that the 2nd Amendment has limitations.

popeye1250 -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 11:42:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail deny and restrict are different things. Regarding state and federal.... As a poor example, because I don't know if it is Federal (I am almost sure it is a state park that gets federal money) the City of Chicago has a no guns in the limits, and Washington Park is in the limits.....if it is federal land, since it resides in a state that has a more restrictive gun law, they couldn't carry there. Ron, why would the federal govt. or a state govt. want to be "more restrictive" with our rights? We either "have" rights or we don't correct? The founding fathers even said that "govt" cannot "grant" freemen their rights, correct? This being the case then wouldn't" rights" be "untouchable" by a govt. body?" What if Chicago decided to suspend Habeus Corpus? Or they decided not to obey the tenth amendment and told Illinois to go pound sand?

mnottertail -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 11:48:22 AM)
there aint no why. Look, the average number of laws passed each year is around 300 and has been since the 70's, and you can goddamn better believe they ain't being passed to accrue more rights to you. And no, not an either or correct. I am not interested in the what if and divorced from reality arguments, BTW.

DomKen -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 11:50:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail It is not a crime to carry a firearm into a FEDERAL (national) park where it is not otherwise forbidden by STATE law. One of the very first bills signed into law by President Obama (when he was taking your guns away, I guess). Hmm, how could a "state law" forbid you from carrying firearms into a federal park? I'm really surprised there hasn't been more lawsuits about this. If you asked the states collectively if they denied people their first amendment rights they'd of course say; "Oh NO! Never!" Many states forbid carrying weapons in wilderness areas not open to hunting or out of season. That's for safety and to stop poaching.

popeye1250 -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 2:43:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail It is not a crime to carry a firearm into a FEDERAL (national) park where it is not otherwise forbidden by STATE law. One of the very first bills signed into law by President Obama (when he was taking your guns away, I guess). Hmm, how could a "state law" forbid you from carrying firearms into a federal park? I'm really surprised there hasn't been more lawsuits about this. If you asked the states collectively if they denied people their first amendment rights they'd of course say; "Oh NO! Never!" Many states forbid carrying weapons in wilderness areas not open to hunting or out of season. That's for safety and to stop poaching. Ok, so "many states" decide to restrict the rights of U.S. Citizens and the left/ liberals "support" those states?

DomKen -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 2:48:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail It is not a crime to carry a firearm into a FEDERAL (national) park where it is not otherwise forbidden by STATE law. One of the very first bills signed into law by President Obama (when he was taking your guns away, I guess). Hmm, how could a "state law" forbid you from carrying firearms into a federal park? I'm really surprised there hasn't been more lawsuits about this. If you asked the states collectively if they denied people their first amendment rights they'd of course say; "Oh NO! Never!" Many states forbid carrying weapons in wilderness areas not open to hunting or out of season. That's for safety and to stop poaching. Ok, so "many states" decide to restrict the rights of U.S. Citizens and the left/ liberals "support" those states? I only carry a gun in the woods when I intend to hunt wild game in season on land I have permission to hunt on. I could care less what happens to people who hunt illegally.

popeye1250 -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 2:54:14 PM)
DomKen, nice swerve.

jlf1961 -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 2:55:52 PM)
Popeye, there are many states that put restrictions on where and how you can carry a firearm, for example Texas has an open carry law, how ever there are laws restricting where you can carry a firearm, INCLUDING state parks. That was signed by a true democrat, Governor George Bush.

popeye1250 -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 4:56:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail there aint no why. Look, the average number of laws passed each year is around 300 and has been since the 70's, and you can goddamn better believe they ain't being passed to accrue more rights to you. And no, not an either or correct. I am not interested in the what if and divorced from reality arguments, BTW. Agreed. But one thing the founding fathers always seemed to be telling us was to be very wary of "government."

TheHeretic -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 7:44:04 PM)
As with most gun laws, there are wide variances between the states. California has some mighty restrictive laws, but damn near all of them don't apply to people in campsites. When I'm out in the wilderness is about the only time I consistently carry. As for the 'hood, Popeye, that's the other time, and I take the dogs along, too. It's funny how many people who don't blink with a .45 in their face, wet themselves when a mid-sized mutt snarls a little.

popeye1250 -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/2/2011 11:01:59 PM)
Heretic, we're lucky here in Myrtle Beach, "the hood" usually means a trailer park.

tazzygirl -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/3/2011 6:40:54 AM)
Pft... I know places in MB far worse than the trailer park... and far more expensive to live in.

mnottertail -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/3/2011 6:55:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Ok, so "many states" decide to restrict the rights of U.S. Citizens and the left/ liberals "support" those states? As do the right/nutsuckers, since: A) a great many restrictions came about thru Brady laws, and the law Obama signed repealed some provisions championed by Reagan. B) In the times and places these more restrictive laws co-exist with republican control at state or federal levels, they did not, and do not loosen them, change them, or repeal them. So, the right is ok with it. In fact in your parlance, they support it. I think you would characterize it along these lines: I can just see the nutsuckers proclaiming on Faux News, and at Palin rallies. "Obama is trying to take your guns away" and in the back-room airport bathroom suckoffs, saying "Make sure those restrictive bills get passed Boinger, you're in charge of the house now, we dont want and democratic death panels killing us homosexual republicans".

Moonhead -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/3/2011 8:49:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail there aint no why. Look, the average number of laws passed each year is around 300 and has been since the 70's, and you can goddamn better believe they ain't being passed to accrue more rights to you. And no, not an either or correct. I am not interested in the what if and divorced from reality arguments, BTW. Agreed. But one thing the founding fathers always seemed to be telling us was to be very wary of "government." In fact, it was just King George they were wary of. They had no problem with the French government, or they'd have returned that big statue on Ellis Island. You know, the lady with the crown, the torch, the book and the nice arse?

TheHeretic -> RE: Another case of not right wing violence (2/3/2011 6:17:02 PM)
The Statue of Liberty is on Liberty Island, Moon (previously Bledsoe's Island). Ellis Island was an immigration intake center nearby. Google perhaps? Maybe a primer on US history?

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 8 [9]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125