Author Topic: Concealed Weapon Permits Going Federal?  (Read 19744 times)

Hazcat

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10457
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Concealed Weapon Permits Going Federal?
« Reply #50 on: June 30, 2008, 02:59:22 PM »
Yes we would agree with those things.  What we are talking about is the WHO not the WHAT.
All tipoes and misspelings are copi-righted.  Pleeze do not reuse without ritten persimmons  :D

brosometal

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 741
  • Still a Grade A 1 smart donkey! DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Concealed Weapon Permits Going Federal?
« Reply #51 on: July 08, 2008, 09:20:18 PM »
its not the welfare cluase... its the general welfare cluase.

I think most of us would agree its in the best intrest of the country to have things like: safe drinking water, safe food, schools, mangment of natureal resources and etc.



I think I echo others here with the frustration on the interpretation:  Sometimes liberal sometimes conservative.  (I understand you aren't a "liberal")  The general welfare is a broad brush encompassing anything that needs to be for the "general good" in direct conflict with the singular interpretation on the 2nd (militia only not necessarily yours).  You have to pick one and stick with it.  As for the Constitution itself... Do you enjoy your right to vote?  Not in the document.  Here is a web site with several more (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#elec). 

Just for the record, on other threads the second amendment is referred to as the teeth for the rest.  That being the case.  How much teeth is it really in its present form?  Let's say there is a Civil War II. In homage to the '80's icon... "Where's the teeth?"  If you read it how the founders intended, there are several more unconstitutional laws that need to be overturned, and the whole donnybrook on "concealed means concealed" is the least of your worries.

I look forward to a convoluted response.
The person who has nothing for which his is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
- J.S. Mill

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Concealed Weapon Permits Going Federal?
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2008, 03:12:29 AM »
They are WRONG about "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" not being in the Constitution, I can't find my copy , but I THINK it's the 4rth or 14th amendment.

Solus

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Concealed Weapon Permits Going Federal?
« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2008, 12:04:06 PM »
They are WRONG about "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" not being in the Constitution, I can't find my copy , but I THINK it's the 4rth or 14th amendment.

It is in the Declaration of Independence.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
—Patrick Henry

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
— Daniel Webster

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Concealed Weapon Permits Going Federal?
« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2008, 02:47:46 AM »
 Found what I was looking for. the 14th amendment section 1  does NOT mention "pursuit of happiness" but DOES say,
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law
; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Concealed Weapon Permits Going Federal?
« Reply #55 on: Today at 04:56:07 AM »

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk