I see your pointConsider your question self-answered.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
I see your pointConsider your question self-answered.
Which was a God given right back when they wrote the Second Amendment!
If the Supreme Court of the United States of America has firmly declared that the right to bear arms is an individual one then why is Massachusetts still requiring licenses, training, fees, etc for the privilege to exercise our second amendment rights? Under the ruling isn't such an action by the state now firmly considered unconstitutional, ergo illegal?
You only get to keep the rights you're willing to fight to protect. The rest you LOSE.
Keep thinking "They can't take my God-Given rights from me", while doing NOTHING to protect them (throwing money at organizations doesn't count as doing something), and you will certainly lose them.
Reading the ruling isn't the problem. I've read it several times. Sadly, since I'm not well versed in "legal-eeze" it made no more sense the eighth time I read it then it did the first time. That's why I asked here.
Sounds good but unless one plans on becoming a lawyer and fighting the system yourself then it seems to me that the reasonable alternative would be to give money to an organization that can handle the problem.
It makes no sense to anyone.Some things never change.
Nothing in my statement implied that I did any of those things. Don’t act like you know me.So, you're one of those guys that joins the NRA and maybe GOAL as well, then sits back down on the couch, proud of himself for "fighting for his rights", while going to back to watching TV, aren't you?
I don’t even know where this comment is coming from.You DON'T have to be a lawyer to take a newbie shooting. Don't need to be an Instructor, either.
That’s right, but being in political office still requires you to file legal briefs to fight court mandates and good luck writing one without legal experience. Especially in regards to something as controversial and complex as gun control.You DON'T have to be a lawyer to run for political office, either.
Who said that anyone was “doing nothing more than throwing money at the problem”?? But I’m glad to hear that you have other ideas. So what have you done that has changed anything? I’m just curious. You seem to be proud of what you’ve done to help solve the problem so I’d be interested in hearing what you’ve done that has worked to change the gun control laws in this state.Just doing nothing more than throwing money at the problem is NOT going to change things.
Honestly, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about you.Do you REALLY think I am a lawyer?
See previous answerDo you REALLY think crak, Martlet, dwarven1 or Mr Twigg are lawyers? Think Wayne Wong is a lawyer?
Another wonderfully crafted vague boast.Hint, none of us are rich, either. We're ALL working stiffs. We are ALL making a difference.
Are you so naïve as to draw tons of conclusions about me based on a few posting on a website??Are you REALLY so naive that you think this stuff is only resolved in court?
Who is this “we”? We all vote. We don’t all elect our politicians. Sometime others elect the politician. Unless you have succeeded in being on the winning side of every election since you came of voting age. If you’re that lucky then I’m impressed.You do know we actually elect our politicians, don't you?
Couple of thoughts here: your comments would have to hold a level of value for me to actually be “demeaned” by them. But given the combative nature of them, they don’t.Let me ask you a simple question. It's going to hurt your feelings, but I HAVE to ask it. Are you so useless, that the only thing you are capable of doing is to be a test case? Please tell me you are better than that. I KNOW you are better than that.
If my comments sound demeaning, good, change your ways, get off the couch and start bailing. I'll welcome the help, and even pat you on the back and congratulate you for it when you do.
…or polite apparently.You don't have to be a lawyer (or an expert in anything) to help bail.
Oh please. Understanding a language does not automatically confer one with an understanding of everything written in it. Stop trying to treat everyone like their stupid.Some of us understood it right off. It is written in English.
I totally agree on both points: I think being directly involved in a cause can help create a better chance of success and I also agree that that's what he was trying say...in between the cheap shots about sitting on the couch and that everyone can understand court documents solely based on the fact that it's written in English.I don't think Nickle was attacking you personally at all. He was just making the point that a few paid advocates at gun rights organizations aren't what's going to make the difference. It's boots on the ground that will.
Well, you may think God-Given.
But, Congress has already taken some of it away. So don't tell me they CAN'T.
You only get to keep the rights you're willing to fight to protect. The rest you LOSE.
Keep thinking "They can't take my God-Given rights from me", while doing NOTHING to protect them (throwing money at organizations doesn't count as doing something), and you will certainly lose them.
Well, you may think God-Given.
But, Congress has already taken some of it away. So don't tell me they CAN'T.
You only get to keep the rights you're willing to fight to protect. The rest you LOSE.
You seem to be proud of what you’ve done to help solve the problem so I’d be interested in hearing what you’ve done that has worked to change the gun control laws in this state.
"God-given rights that are inalienable."
Well, believe what you want about them being God-given. I know a slightly different, and historical origin. The creators think they were God-given, as do many people. I'll accept it in principle at least. (I'm an Atheist, and therefore don't believe in God, that's all.)
The Bill of Rights says inalienable, but truth be known, they also accepted "reasonable restrictions" even then. Their idea of reasonable pretty much matches my opinion. Clearly insane, or a felon convicted of "mala per se" crimes.
In practice, they are hardly "inalienable". If you think that's a lie, you're wrong. NFA '34, GCA '68, FOPA '86 (MG portion), "Jim Crow" Southern CCW laws from the 1800's and early 1900's, '94 AWB and many state laws are clearly restricting our rights.
You clearly are lacking in understanding regarding the founding principals of this country. I normally would not write something like that but felt that I should since you constantly boast about having more knowledge in this area than most. Trust me, you do not...
The answer lies in the accepted notion in the religious communities that angels are pure intelligences, not material in the physical plane of existence, but limited, so that they have location in space, but not extension. Therefore the question is analogous to asking how many people's thoughts can be concentrated upon a particular pin at the same time. The answer, therefore, is that an infinity of angels can be located on the head of a pin, since they do not occupy any space there.Angels. Dancing. Pin. How many?
Nickle,
Do you know what narcissism is?
.
Sigmund Freud believed that some narcissism is an essential part of all of us from birth and was the first to use the term in the reference to psychology.
The terms "narcissism", "narcissistic" and "narcissist" are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit, egotism or simple selfishness.