Democrats Caught Posing as Republican Election Judges in Colorado!

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: beezzer

Im all for doing whatever drugs anyone wants to do, cigs, e-cigs, weed, meth, booze, in the privacy of their own homes.

Like religion, it should be kept out of the public sector.

Yeah, people should just shut the hell up and not voice public opinions!

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: neo96

So, why isn't alcohol banned? Think of the doctors and the fireman and pilots!

Last time I checked there is a government agency that was created explicitly for it.

Once upon a time It was.

There are lots of laws about drinking, and driving, and doing ones job 'intoxicated'.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Oh wow!

I can get fully automatic rifles now!

Where?

Anywhere, as far as I know. All you have to do it get the proper FFL and go crazy. But perhaps you are mad because you have to get permission to get a fully-auto weapon. Sorry about that. Most of us responsible gun-owners don't mind jumping through a few hoops to ensure that such weapons are a little tougher to get for the crazies or murderous among us.

So go get certified and have at it Beez.

a reply to: neo96

You said ban. That is wrong because they are not banned. There are common sense, reasonable restrictions on guns and as a gun owner, I don't mind one bit. Sure, some of the laws or restrictions may seem silly, but they are not banned.

As for the legalization issue, it is easy to place certain guidelines for specific groups of people to follow if they work in certain areas....just like CDL's and alcohol use.

So, again, why are Republicans against this individual liberty?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: neo96

So, why isn't alcohol banned? Think of the doctors and the fireman and pilots!

Last time I checked there is a government agency that was created explicitly for it.

Once upon a time It was.

There are lots of laws about drinking, and driving, and doing ones job 'intoxicated'.

So you would be in favor of legalizing and allowing certain laws to to regulate the substance?

a reply to: beezzer

Absolutely correct.

I couldn't agree more. Keep your opinions out of the public space.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: neo96

Interesting, but you did not answer my question. If Republicans are all for individual liberties, why are they against the legalization of pot?

It's also interesting to note that what you quoted can also be applied to the Republicans as well, but I am looking for an answer to the original question.

Some may think that granting the freedom to smoke pot would infringe on the rights of others by impeding their safety and security.

Someone beat me to it, but I was going to ask about alcohol and nicotine. States such as mine have barred people from smoking indoors in public places, but haven't made smoking illegal.

I don't think your answer would be consistent with precedence.

An honest answer?

I don't care.

You should care, if you care about liberty. Or is it only called liberty when the act in questions conforms to our personal world view?

a reply to: sheepslayer247

You said ban. That is wrong because they are not banned.

Yeah they are.

How about checking out Chicago, and New York, and Washington DC.

. There are common sense, reasonable restrictions on guns and as a gun owner, I don't mind one bit.

OH there is that glaring hypocrisy.

MJ should be legal, but restrictions placed on a clear constitutional right.

For the action the LAW already address that murder already covers.

Like Menchen called it in 1925.

Liberals do love to say they are hot for liberty, but that always condition it to who they happen to favor.

Freedom to smoke.

No freedom for self defense.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

So you would be in favor of legalizing and allowing certain laws to to regulate the substance?

If people got off my back and allowed me to own what ever gun I wanted.

Then I would.

But fat chance of that happening.

a reply to: neo96

I have absolutely no problem with gun ownership. Own a million guns. Buy all of your guns little tiny guns of their own.

And keep them all at your house, right next to the booze and the cigs, the weed, and the bible.

a reply to: AgentShillington

I have absolutely no problem with gun ownership. Own a million guns. Buy all of your guns little tiny guns of their own.

But I can't.

I can't buy one without asking the government for permission to own one.

On the condition that I have live a PERFECT life.

Standards those congressman couldn't even pass.

Hell I would love to buy a new M4.

I can't.

Only the police, and federal leos get that 'privledge'.

The kicker there is they skip the illegal search violation of the background check.

Tha'ts awesome ain't it.

That's some of the 'common sense' regulation as someone put it earlier.

That is nothing but superfluous since society already has laws about the harming, and murder of people.

a reply to: neo96

And I can't buy weed. So, I guess we're both upset.

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: neo96

And I can't buy weed. So, I guess we're both upset.

Sure you can.

In CO. and California.

Hell the US government is now making it 'free' with government subsidies.

To those who 'can't afford' it.

a reply to: neo96

And you can buy whatever Type 1 or Type 2 firearm you would want to purchase, as long as you don't live in a state that has banned them.

The difference between weed and firearms is that the Federal Government has banned weed, not guns.

a reply to: neo96

Yeah they are.

How about checking out Chicago, and New York, and Washington DC.

State's rights......don't live there if you don't like their laws.

And you can own whatever gun you choose, even FA guns. There is a limit to what you can own though. You can't own a nuclear warhead ya know. We do have to use common sense and reason at some point. The 2nd amendment right does not mean that you can have any sort of "arms" and call it covered by the constitution.

If people got off my back and allowed me to own what ever gun I wanted.

Then I would.

But fat chance of that happening.

So people cannot have their liberties because you feel like your's are being violated? Ya, that makes sense...or that makes you a salty ol republican that says "if I ain't havin' fun, no one else can either".

Well, I guess that's a good summary of what the Republican part has become. Salty dogs that are being left behind by the rest of the world.

a reply to: AgentShillington

The difference between weed and firearms is that the Federal Government has banned weed, not guns.

Yes it has.

Lots of times:

Tell me where I can go buy a new ak-47.

Go on now.

Tell me where I can go buy a new mp5.

Tell me where I can go buy a new m-16.

Answer?

Nowhere.

But the average American can't.

Guns 'aren't banned' !!!!

a reply to: neo96

I can tell you were to buy a used AK-47.

Would that help?

a reply to: xuenchen
Vote Independent. Neither D's or R's give a damn about us.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

State's rights......don't live there if you don't like their laws.

So now it's 'state's rights' !

That isn't what someone was saying earlier.

And you can own whatever gun you choose, even FA guns.

No I can't.

You can't own a nuclear warhead ya know

That's weak.

I love when that red herring 'Nukes' gets brought to a gun fight.

. We do have to use common sense and reason at some point.

No we don't.

For the umpteenth time.

Gun laws are not necessary since we already have laws that cover the ACTION.

And the punishment dished out to the 'degree'.

The 2nd amendment right does not mean that you can have any sort of "arms" and call it covered by the constitution.

I suggest rereading the BILL of RIGHTS.

READ:

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The militia, The RIGHT of the people.

Being necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

All gun control laws INFRINGE that CLEAR RIGHT that was laid out.

But that is not all.

Move on to the next one:

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The right of the people to be secure in the persons,houses,papers, and EFFECTS.

That's talking about lots of things there, GUNS is one of them.

The FEDERAL background check that I have to go through is a clear VIOLATION.

Common sense someone said.

That isn't common sense that is FASCIST AUTHORITARIANISM because the government decides who is worthy to own one.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No person shall held be accountable for a capital offense or otherwise infamous crime.

So why do I have to pay, and other gun owners have to pay for the actions of the Lanza's, and the Holmes?

What happened to due process and my crime, and everyone else who hasn't done jack snip to anyone else have to pay for things WE DID NOT DO?

Moving on.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

We is my trial by jury and my 'crimes' proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a COURT OF LAW ?

The only thing I and ever other gun owner have gotten is a 'trial' in the kanagroo courts of public opinion.

That has led to that 'common sense' gun control laws.

Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Because of gun control laws. Guns cost a hell of alot more than 20 bucks.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The 200 tax stamp, and unusual punishments inflicted because of just how many government hoops people have to jump through for the actions of what a small minority does.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The enumeration in the constitution. Those rights that have been CLEARLY spelled out.

SHALL not be intrepreted to DENY OR DISPARAGE the rights WE THE PEOPLE RETAIN.

We retain the right to own whatever gun we want.

IT WAS NEVER LIMITED, and all gun control laws DENY, and DISPARAGE, and LIMIT our rights.

Not only the second but almost the entire BILL OF RIGHTS.

Lastly:

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Gun ownship is a clear right.

It is not conditional.

The right of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS is a right that NO ONE can't take from anyone.

The constitution.

The BILL of RIGHTS.

Was a protection that was created SPECIFICALLY as a protection from the mob.

And from the federal state.

That 'common sense' gun control is a WILLFUL VIOLATION of Americans CIvil LIBERTIES.

But apparantly that doesn't matter to some.

They would rather smoke their lives away instead of noticing the other totalitarian foot on their necks ready to snap it.

www.legendsofamerica.com...

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: neo96

I can tell you were to buy a used AK-47.

Would that help?

Still have to pay 200 bucks, and wait months to get it, and still have to get governments permission.

Then local leo has to sign off.

If they are feeling 'generous'.

But then again I don't want used.

And I sure the EFF are not going to pay over $5000+ for a gun.

That 'common' sense ban on 'machine guns' did grandfather the OLD ones in.

To where most people can't afford them.

a reply to: neo96

The Constitution said nothing about automatic assault rifles being affordable for most people.