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!
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"? I keep reading it and all I can see is "shall not be infringed."
I don't agree with either of these guys. I agree with our founding fathers.
So what you are thinking is that it is perfectly okay for a nut or a felon to have a weapon?
According to the 2nd amendment... yes. I also believe it is my right to own weapons of choice with which to defend myself with in the event I should happen to have a problem with a "nut or felon".
Do you support the 2nd amendment?
I do support the second however it is silly to make that mean that EVERYBODY should be allowed a weapon.
Nuts and felons should NOT be armed period!
Have you be ajudged insane or are you a felon? If not why are you concerned?
No, neither one. I just understand the 2nd amendment. Apparently you do not.
I am concerned because people claim to support something but really have no understanding of what it is they claim to support. Much like the lunatics of the left.
Amendment II states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to secure the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't see where it says a person having been convicted of a felony, or one being diagnosed as insane, shall be stripped of this right. So yes, it is inclusive. The words are quite simple really. I don't add to or take away, it just is what it is.
Do you own any weapons?
Shapiro is almost as much an idiot as Morgan, but that is CNN for you, spoon feeding other idiots misinformation like calling a semi automatic rifle an "assault rifle" which it absolutely is not. Shapiro also mistakenly suggests a new law to lock up guns. That is about the most stupid comment I've heard as it makes a gun nearly useless for self defense.
Shapiro is almost as much an idiot as Morgan, but that is CNN for you, spoon feeding other idiots misinformation like calling a semi automatic rifle an "assault rifle" which it absolutely is not. Shapiro also mistakenly suggests a new law to lock up guns. That is about the most stupid comment I've heard as it makes a gun nearly useless for self defense. Actually, I also rather agree with Texas, that "shall not be infringed" is clear in the 2nd amendment, but where I disagree with him is that I believe Article 1 clearly allows for sanctions to limit the so called rights of nut jobs and felons. The 2nd doesn't stand alone. No, we won't be putting guns in prisoner hands, except special cases approved by the insane attorney general, Holder, and his criminal boss, Ovomit.
If the NRA succeeds in getting States to put names into a database of the insane for the purpose of background checks, Holders name had better be at the top of that list, or it will be worthless and a violation of the constitution in itself.
I am not really suggesting that a person actively serving time for a felony should be armed, but once time is served ( dues have been paid to society) I believe that right should be restored.
I have just read through the 1st Article (again) but I am not catching how it allows for sanctions to limit rights of felons/nutjobs. I just want to be informed ( not like the left liberals)... or if I may, let me use use on of my favorite sayings... Make me understand.
Texas T. Do you believe a drunk person has the right to drive while he is intoxicated?
Yes, but they do not have the right to harm others with their choices. If they cause harm to another, there are prices to be paid.
Driving is not a right, it is a priviledge controlled by the states, as it is not covered by the Constitution. Priviledges are subject to certain criteria, one of which, for driving, is not being intoxicated while exercising that priviledge.
A mentally deranged person with a gun poses a lethal threat to innocent people. Shouldn't someone be responsible for protecting the innocent from lethal danger? If not restricting their ablility to acquire a gun shouldn't they be restricted from contact with the general public until they can be cleared to function with civil deportment.
Transplant you are the poster child for those who wish to disam the people!
A part of protecting the populace is to not allow nuts to obtain dangerous weapons.
If we followed your thinking then we would allow the guy who has martians chasing him and is waiting for the mother ship to beam him up a gun so he can perhaps, in his deluded state, kill the six year old next door thinking he is an enemy sent to get him, right?
Piers is going to push this just a bit to far some day....
The Constitution has enumerated powers listed for our federal government. They are few.I have yet to see where it states that the feds are responsible for protection from mentally deranged people. My main point being, our Constitution has been circumvented many times in many ways by many presidents. Bit by bit, we are losing everything that made us the nation we were founded to be and this has accelerated under the current administration.
Mr. Marcello, you have an overactive imagination or perhaps you are paranoid to the point of insanity? You don't own any weapons, do you?
I am not asking you to follow my way of thinking, but I am suggesting that we find our way back to our founding before all is lost. And we are losing very fast.
Texas T The state and local governments must protect the innocent from the mentally deranged. We can't allow innocent school children to be murdered by nutjobs just because you think they have the right to buy a high powered rifle. If you aren't willing to protect the helpless and children then you are as guilty of murder as the nutjob that kills.
Texas T The state and local governments must protect the innocent from the mentally deranged. We can't allow innocent school children to be murdered by nutjobs just because you think they have the right to buy a high powered rifle. If you aren't willing to protect the helpless and children then you are as guilty of murder as the nutjob that kills. What to freak is your stupid problem you freakin idiot, no one hear is advocating the repeal of our constitutional rights you freakin Texas stupid idiot !!
My problem is the fact that while you argue your point, that state and local governments should be the ones to protect the innocent (this is fact) it does not fall on the federal government. The federal government has no business trying to ban any weapon. This should fall to the states through the votes of the people. I would certainly cast my vote on this issue. But as things stand, it appears that I won't have that RIGHT now, will I?
Do you realize that our rights listed in the Bill of Rights are given to us by our Creator and not government, correct? For the federal government to deny rights (as written by our f.f.'s) is wrong.
I won't stoop to your level, I will pray for you instead..
Tell us how you really feel Patricia!
Texas T why don't you whine yourself into stupor and then cry yourself into oblivion as you act like the whole world is disintigrating even as we speak and the sky is falling in too, whiner !
I think TT is yet anorg disgruntlrd Gary Johnson fool!
You know the drill the fed needs to disapear.
Or maybe he is a sovereign citizen, sounds like some of their nonsense!
Yes Richard, it looks as if we are screwed. As I read the responses to my comments by Braveheart & Marcello, it is more than obvious that name calling seems to be the high point of their arguments. This seems to be the final resort of people who can not counter with facts or hold a reasonable adult conversation.
If the both of you feel that I am so wrong, rather than reverting back to days of schoolyard politics, prove me wrong. Have the facts and the nads to back what you say.
Mr. Hannabarger was kind enough to chime in with reasonable statements. And while he did not post any links to support his statement, I know his statements to be true.
Oh and Braveheart, please give me your definition of a "high powered rifle."
Piers is wrong... the kid is right. TexTran whines.
So boot, you are for more unconstitutional law?
Texas T: I understand your concerns about Constitutionality. That said, there are cases where ones' rights under the Constitution are forfeited. One of which is being a convicted felon. Another is getting a dishonorable discharge from the military. Not sure where being judged mentally unstable falls. Rights are not absolute. They come with responsibility, and the capacity to be responsible.
Texas T: I understand your concerns about Constitutionality. That said, there are cases where ones' rights under the Constitution are forfeited. One of which is being a convicted felon. Another is getting a dishonorable discharge from the military. Not sure where being judged mentally unstable falls. Rights are not absolute. They come with responsibility, and the capacity to be responsible. To do otherwise would be to invite total chaos and put The People at great risk, in my opinion.
Your support keeps freedom alive!