Sherrif Begins Taking Away Concealed Weapons Permits, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 28 times


reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 10:38 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
Unfortunatley the constituion is not written in stone. There are changes made to it all the time.



You're absolutely correct. Article V actually states this directly, and gives details on how amendments may be made:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: www.usconstitution.net...

Oh, wait a minute; this can't be right. It doesn't say anything about nine people in black robes voting on what they want it to say.

The courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have the right to amend the US Constitution. They are charged with resolving conflicts and declaring laws to be constitutional or unconstitutional based on the document itself and not their own personal interpretations of what it should mean.

For the role of the courts, see Article III on the same link.

TheRedneck


reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 11:24 PM by TheAgentNineteen
Well, there you go. You can expect A LOT more of this if Senator Obama and Senator Biden are elected to the White House. They have already pledged to make the Assault Weapons Ban PERMANENT. Those of you who are familiar with the AWB, know that it also includes Magazine limits for ALL Firearms, and further restrictions. This is the first sign of a Socialist Government infringing upon the rights of American Democracy.

I always hear some "Anti-Gun" individual describing how if we simply disarmed the populace, there would be much less violence. Well, look at Washington, D.C., which has had a Handgun ban in place since the 1970's. What happened after they enacted the ban? They had the "Crack Wars" in the 1980's, and the District of Columbia became the Murder Capital in the 1990's. It still tops the list in sheer number of Homicides ever year, and ONLY as of recent has the Supreme Court finally quashed the City Council's ridiculous Firearms Codes.

As for Gun Ownership and violence, look at it this way. Back in the 1770's, during the time period in which this Nation was being founded, every household had multiple Firearms. These Firearms were kept for Hunting, and Protection (From Bandits, Indian War Parties, etc.). YET, how often did someone whip out a Firearm back then and shoot someone for stepping on their shoes, or do a Ride-by on Horseback and shoot-up an entire block? It is ALL about how we raise those in our Society, NOT about the number of Guns or Weapons floating around. We as Americans need to stop blaming others for the mishaps we have had in raising our Children, for the past couple of Generations.

When my Old Man went to College back in the day, they were allowed to keep Hunting Rifles in their DORMS, yet they NEVER had a single shooting, even over a fist-fight or argument. That says a lot about how people are being raised now-a-days.


reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 11:25 PM by dooper
I don't understand the thinking of folks scared of other folks not only owning, but carrying guns. I live in Florida, and we are issued our permits by the State.

I hate to date myself, but in Viet Nam we truly had a cross-section of society. Not a lot of Jane Fonda's, but with the draft, we had a fair representation of America. White, Black, Yellow, Red. Jews, Christians, and it seemed like a crapload of pagans!

Everyone was armed. 24/7, and weapons were not only concealed, including pistols, grenades, knives and such, but we openly carried M-16's and other assorted automatic weapons.

What stuck out to me was that trouble-makers, dropped faster than burdschitt in a downdraft. No one was going to put up with any unnecessary bull***t, and it rapidly became a very polite society.

Rough, dirty, swearing, no-women-around men among men. And yet, you didn't cause trouble because the group decided that trouble-makers were not welcome.

If every adult citizen was required - yes I said required - to become proficient and carry a weapon, just like a driver's license, then while in the short term law-breakers would quickly assume ambient temperature, after a suitable "self-correcting" period, we'd have a great, generally law-abiding society.

The best trouble makers are dead trouble makers.

Yeah, my family all are licensed concealed weapons carriers. But that's only half of the task. You have to be aware at all times of what is happening around you, and if push comes to shove, you've got to have the resolve to not only pull that trigger, but to make sure that SOB is dead. Dead is good. Deader is better!

Killing never sat real well on my supper, and it usually took a bit longer to go to sleep, but at least I was having supper.

That Sheriff ought to be taken out back for a good, old-fashioned, country ass-whipping.!


reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 02:05 AM by TheAgentNineteen
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to
post by gimme_some_truth
Unfortunatley the constituion is not written in stone. There are changes made to it all the time.



The only way to actually change the Constitution is through a Nationwide vote of States. Yes, some do not follow it in it's entirety, but of course that is why we have Checks and Balances within our System.

BTW, throughout History you have always had Loose Constructionists and Strict Constructionists. This is nothing new, and it is why we still debate to this very day on the meaning of the wording within our Constitution.

[edit on 10-13-2008 by TheAgentNineteen]


reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:44 AM by Supes
reply to post by punkinworks



I think most of us get that now, but what a lot of the anger stems from is the fact that its difficult just to own a gun in California let alone carry concealed.

Macomb County (where I live) Had an estimated population of 832,861 in '06 and as of march this year there were 614 pending CPL applicants waiting for approval.

OC had an estimated 2006 population of 3,002,048 and just over 1000 total CCW's held? I know where I'd land my invading army


reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 09:02 AM by Supes
reply to post by logician magician



The article said they are being revoked because they listed "avid shooter" as their reason for needing a CCW on their application.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^