Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
NO TT Boot is into reality!
Mr. Hannabarger, I realize that man's law says these things. My question is, how did this all come about? (actually, I may have several questions for you) Our Bill of Rights are natural laws, or God given laws, and in my opinion, these are absolute. How can man remove something that God has provided?
Mr. Hannabarger, I realize that man's law says these things. My question is, how did this all come about? (actually, I may have several questions for you) Our Bill of Rights are natural laws, or God given laws, and in my opinion, these are absolute. How can man remove something that God has provided? I have my ideas about this subject, but I guess one must have absolute faith in the Lord and Savior Christ Jesus in order to know what has been provided and what must be done to retain the rights given.
Mr. Marcello, this is the last time I will address you. There are 2 realities on the face of this earth. Jesus Christ & satan. Choose wisely sir. I believe you are being seduced by something that will not by as first perceived.
TT get some help!
Oh and TT when you really begin to understand the constitution and the amendments etc. come back and post.
Until then you are really in the dark!
Texas thank you for being a voice of reason on this discussion. In the enumerated powers of the Constitution, no where does the federal government have the rauthority to regulate firearms.
This was, is and until an amendment passes to change it always be the prerogative of the states.
There are mindless buffoons that love government regulation that troll this site with nothing insightful to say so they call people names. They can not offer a rational argument so they attempt to assault the people who can. They use labels, and other smear tactics to defame people who hold the Constitution in high regard.
So BR you too are nutty enough to want to arm the insane? Honestly I thought more of you than that!
Does holding the constitution high mean you have no regard for human life?
Mike: I have had past experience with south-side Chicago bare-knuckles tactics, having been sucker-punched by a guy from the south-side. I think we need to lay down those tactics when we enter into discussions and try to help those seeking understanding of our positions and beliefs.
We are all here for the same reasons, mostly: to support and defend the United States and to return our country to the Founders' vision of the United States of America. Can we not take that as our common ground and then have a reasoned discussion based upon our understanding, helping those who seek knowledge and their efforts to grow their understanding?
I believe that TT is trying to have a reasoned discussion, based upon his beliefs. They are obviously different than yours. Does that make him wrong and you right, or vice versa? Or does it just make you both "different?" To site an old quote, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" comes to mind. Isn't that the essence of the First Amendment? Isn't that the beauty of our American system and the Constitution? Let us not forget that, less we become more like our liberal "friends" who speak tolerance, but then shun any who do not think like they do.
Why do you feel the need to CONSTANTLY misrepresent the positions of those you disagree with. No where did I ever suggest arming the insane. In fact nowhere did I ever suggest arming anyone or for that matter even mention either the insane or sane.
If you are going to continue your immature Piers Morgan style of rhetoric please cease from addressing me directly.
Look Charles I have had several real discussions with people who really want to do something but when you disagree with BR you are a big government loving progressive or worse.
And from TT "Texas Transplant Could you please point out where in the 2nd amendment that it states "a convicted criminal/crazy person shall not be allowed to possess a fire arm"?
You call that rational?
I kind of resent the Chicago anology as well!
"Texas Transplant Could you please point out where in the 2nd amendment that it states "a convicted criminal/crazy person shall not be allowed to possess a fire arm"?
What does that suggest to you BR!
Mike let me repeat my previous post because it appears to gone clear over your head.
"Why do you feel the need to CONSTANTLY misrepresent the positions of those you disagree with. No where did I ever suggest arming the insane. In fact nowhere did I ever suggest arming anyone or for that matter even mention either the insane or sane.
If you are going to continue your immature Piers Morgan style of rhetoric please cease from addressing me directly."
Mike, you are free to do as you wish, resent or not, it has no effect on me. I am stating a fact from my own past experience and very personal knowledge of south-side Chicago tactics. This is my experience - yours may be different, and I hope they are. However, your demeanor and approach in these discussions says otherwise, to me. Just my opinion, like it or not.
As for BR and others - if they start to engage in distasteful tactics, why would you then allow that to control you and cause you to then react in-kind? Does that not then make you what you seem to say you dislike? Take the road of reason and go from there, my friend.
Actually, in nearly every BR post, he does claim that the Constitution doesn't allow any restriction of rights for the felons and insane. Sorry BR, but claiming you didn't say it, won't make it unsaid.
Richard you appear to be confused.
Claiming the the Constitution does not grant the Federal government authority to restrict gun ownership and arming insane people are not the same thing. They are not even in the same sphere of reason.
So what are your guys thoughts on having a federal database on illness? Should the government keep physical and mental health records on individuals?
Charles I know how much you Texans love yout state, I lived there for a while.
Now while I suppose I could get down and dirty I will not but all Texans are decent people but a lot are same with Chicago.
I know if I made rude comments, as you did about where I grew up, ypu would not like it!
Sounds like splitting a wild hare to me BR. If one claims that there can be no like restriction among all states by the feral grovelment, it rather sounds like you would say State and Local grovelments can do nearly anything for or against putting guns into prisons and the hands of loons.
BR I think we may agree on somwthing. That being said if you are a threat to society that should be flagged.
In other words the mentally ill should not pass a background check for a weapon!
However with Obamacare that will be done so it is kind of a moot point!
Sadly, nearly all large cities in the US have chosen to restrict the rights of their sheeple, and I fail to understand how so many people can abide by that.
Richard, I am sorry that you can NOT tell the difference....
Do you believe the Federal government should set speed limits in your state?
If not, are you forcing crazy people drive 120 miles an hour at all times?
@ Mike there should be no federal background check for a firearm. If a state wants to regulate its citizens, that is fine. The federal government has no such powers.
If you wish to change that, start a movement to amend the Constitution
BR I really think you are losing it!
Mike, I do not think you have ever had it!
Mike: Full disclosure, here. I grew up near Detroit and Detroit as a whole is pretty much the same as South Chicago. My relatives come from Lyons.
That said, I do sincerely apologize - you didn't deserve that cheap shot and I see the hypocrisy in myself. I hope you can forgive my transgression.
Like you, I moved to a better place and we are neighbors. I do love the area and the people where we live. AR and TX are very much alike, in many important ways. I guess I just ask that we take a more tolerant and thoughtful approach here. I get so sick of the hateful back and forth that's typical on so many discussion forums on the Internet. We are all Americans and those on this forum, for the most part, are here for all the right reasons, though we may disagree on how we get there. We can have those civil discussions and, hopefully, get back to the America that was once the "shining beacon of freedom on the hill." God bless, Mike.
BR, the Feds did regulate speed limits nationwide for many years by illegally withholding funds that they should be required to pay without duress.
BR, the Feds did regulate speed limits nationwide for many years by illegally withholding funds that they should be required to pay without duress. Actually I do agree with you that there should be no Federal background check, but on the other hand, I do also think it reasonable to have a Federally enforceable nationwide law about felons and nut jobs, so they could take appropriate action if and when they catch one with a gun, as long as they also deport illegals they catch in that process of protecting the country, as they are charged with doing.
Charles of course your apology is accepted.
Like I said where there can be civil back and forth I am all for it but every time some meet disagreement you become an enemy of the constitution and the American way of life.
Well I still feel the love when BR and MM are posting!
Your support keeps freedom alive!