#WWJVD: New Gun Laws - Unnecessary Danger or Necessary Right?

In this all-new Off the Grid, I discuss new gun laws, like the one in Texas that makes it legal for people to pack a piece at college campuses, and the law in Georgia that lets citizens carry handguns in airports. Tune into this #WWJVD to find out whether these new gun laws are an unnecessary danger or a necessary right.

What do you guys think? Is there a line, or do we have a right to bear arms wherever we want?

a reply to: JesseVentura

It's a result of Progressive/Political Correct cancer.

As one group of political initiates fight to take away rights, the opposing side become just as brainless as those they hate to prove their point.

Where does it end?

The Constitution is quite clear on our rights.

There is that old saying, "Never argue with an idiot. They will beat you with stupidity and bring you down to their level.".

What do you guys think? Is there a line, or do we have a right to bear arms wherever we want?

I was under the impression that the right to bear arms was in line with fighting tyrannical government...

But also to defend ones property and self...


Can't protect yourself if you can't carry wherever you are.




There should be no line.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

There should be a line, there was a line when it was wrote, there was a line in the wild west and there should be a line now.

If you want you gun fine, but if you feel you need your gun everywhere you go, maybe rethink what you are doing.

They did put 'well regulated' in the second.

If the state has a CCW process, why not let legally qualified adults who are licensed carry in the place they live and work?

a reply to: NavyDoc

I'm with ya. CCW says you can carry here....but not here...or here...or here or here or here or here........................
What makes one place safer than another? We've seen the results of "gun free zones". It just disarms the law abiding gun owner, not the criminals.

a reply to: JesseVentura

The Koran says if you let them take away your guns you will become their servants.

I don't want a king, I want an elected official who actually serves the people.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
...
They did put 'well regulated' in the second.

The "well regulated" part is for a "well regulated militia"... Not for "well regulated arms"...

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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Perhaps you should start by actually reading the bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution for that matter first before saying/typing something so absurd.

Also, note that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in between commas, and that section specifically states "the right of the people" not the rights of a well regulated militia.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Umm

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.

They where referring to the militia in that part. Which was regulated by the Militia acts of 1792.

"The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)"

Which by this means that all males between the age 18-54 were in fact members of the militia. Seems pretty clear to me that they felt everybody should be armed. (sorry ladies, not much help in your cases here. )



en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Sremmos80

"Regulated" in that era meant "Being put into good working order." In other words, the Framers were saying "If you cannot afford a firearm, we will provide one for you." They did this because they recognized that bad people exist and sometimes good people need to put bad people down to protect themselves and other good people. The Framers also recognized that they had just successfully escaped a system of tyranny and failure in Britain and laws were needed not to control the people but to handcuff the government, ensuring that they would forever know their damn place and be restrained from stepping out of it. (Unfortunately, this has failed and we're stuck with the pathetic jackasses and control freaks currently residing in DC.)

They want to disarm people their bodyguards and police can go first. Along with all the alphabet agencies after that. But I'm pretty sure they'll back peddle after the police are disarmed.

a reply to: Sremmos80

This tired old attempt to redefine what was written again???????

We all know what the 2nd states and what it meant.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Sremmos80

This tired old attempt to redefine what was written again???????

We all know what the 2nd states and what it meant.

We've been over this many times. The 2nd amendment is not clearly defined and not everyone agrees to what the 2nd covers, even within the pro-2nd crowd.

Arms are not defined, we cannot agree on that definition and the constitution is very vague.

When you say "we all know what the 2nd states", what you mean is that you have your own interpretation and believe others think just as you do. Yet in other threads we have conversed, many of us on the pro-2nd side do not agree to what extent the 2nd amendment applies.

a reply to: introvert

Webex meeting starting. Will try to come back later to address this.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Sremmos80

This tired old attempt to redefine what was written again???????

We all know what the 2nd states and what it meant.

We've been over this many times. The 2nd amendment is not clearly defined and not everyone agrees to what the 2nd covers, even within the pro-2nd crowd.

Arms are not defined, we cannot agree on that definition and the constitution is very vague.

When you say "we all know what the 2nd states", what you mean is that you have your own interpretation and believe others think just as you do. Yet in other threads we have conversed, many of us on the pro-2nd side do not agree to what extent the 2nd amendment applies.

Actually, since the first federal gun law came about in 1934, pretty much everyone agreed on the meaning of the second amendment for the first 144 years or so of it's existence. This "confusion" is a relatively new thing and invented by those who want to ban guns.

a reply to: NavyDoc

pretty much everyone agreed on the meaning of the second amendment

Pretty much? That doesn't sound very convincing when it pertains to our 2nd amendment RIGHT. If it was a clearly defined right, why have the authorities been able to create gun laws overriding the 2nd amendment itself? If we "pretty much" agreed what the 2nd amendment covered, we wouldn't need politicians and bureaucrats passing legislation to further decide what is acceptable under the 2nd amendment. Would we?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: introvert

Webex meeting starting. Will try to come back later to address this.

Very well. I've brought this up before and have yet to hear a reasonable rebuttal. So I await your response.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Sremmos80

This tired old attempt to redefine what was written again???????

We all know what the 2nd states and what it meant.

We've been over this many times. The 2nd amendment is not clearly defined and not everyone agrees to what the 2nd covers, even within the pro-2nd crowd.

Arms are not defined, we cannot agree on that definition and the constitution is very vague.

When you say "we all know what the 2nd states", what you mean is that you have your own interpretation and believe others think just as you do. Yet in other threads we have conversed, many of us on the pro-2nd side do not agree to what extent the 2nd amendment applies.

Actually, since the first federal gun law came about in 1934, pretty much everyone agreed on the meaning of the second amendment for the first 144 years or so of it's existence. This "confusion" is a relatively new thing and invented by those who want to ban guns.

Exactly just like they have tried to redefine words in the dictionary to facilitate an agenda......

They do the same damn thing with the constitution

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: NavyDoc

pretty much everyone agreed on the meaning of the second amendment

Pretty much? That doesn't sound very convincing when it pertains to our 2nd amendment RIGHT. If it was a clearly defined right, why have the authorities been able to create gun laws overriding the 2nd amendment itself? If we "pretty much" agreed what the 2nd amendment covered, we wouldn't need politicians and bureaucrats passing legislation to further decide what is acceptable under the 2nd amendment. Would we?

You can thank progressives for ALL of that......the agenda has always been to uproot the constitution and circumvent rights....

Change the argument, redifine the words, establish a different truth instead of what is actually true.....

Its a damn play book

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Sremmos80

This tired old attempt to redefine what was written again???????

We all know what the 2nd states and what it meant.

We've been over this many times. The 2nd amendment is not clearly defined and not everyone agrees to what the 2nd covers, even within the pro-2nd crowd.

Arms are not defined, we cannot agree on that definition and the constitution is very vague.

When you say "we all know what the 2nd states", what you mean is that you have your own interpretation and believe others think just as you do. Yet in other threads we have conversed, many of us on the pro-2nd side do not agree to what extent the 2nd amendment applies.

Actually, since the first federal gun law came about in 1934, pretty much everyone agreed on the meaning of the second amendment for the first 144 years or so of it's existence. This "confusion" is a relatively new thing and invented by those who want to ban guns.

Exactly just like they have tried to redefine words in the dictionary to facilitate an agenda......

They do the same damn thing with the constitution

Could you please provide an example of such?