Such a weird story

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,082
2,544
1,743
So Cal
#41
I'm not aware of those, but my reading is that the text was put in place to at least acknowledge that firearm ownership was a serious responsibility of citizenship, not to be taken lightly, and to be subject to reasonable regulation. Reasonable being the key word. Otherwise, why even include it??
reasonable regulation? now you're just making things up. it says the right shall not be infringed. Period.

There is nothing about regulations. ("well regulated" means well drilled and prepared).

My State already has all that stuff that you're lobbying for, Colorado has too many regulations too.

What the heck are you even talking about. This is an example of how things are supposed to work.

Her crazy talk got her on the "radar", then her gun purchase background check invoked a man hunt. This was across multi-States

If you know of something further that needs to be done, then contact Colorado. California doesn't need it.
 
Nov 6, 2010
717
280
613
#42
reasonable regulation? now you're just making things up. it says the right shall not be infringed. Period.

There is nothing about regulations. ("well regulated" means well drilled and prepared).

My State already has all that stuff that your lobbying for, Colorado has too many regulations too.

What the heck are you even talking about. This is an example of how things are supposed to work.

Her crazy talk got her on the "radar", then her gun purchase background check invoked a man hunt. This was across multi-States

If you know of something further that needs to be done, then contact Colorado. California doesn't need it.
So was she well drilled and prepared?? Come on man, we know it's all bullshit and completely inapplicable to the times. I want all sane people to have the option to own firearms. I want mentally ill people to not have that option. How can we not get there?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,082
2,544
1,743
So Cal
#44
So was she well drilled and prepared?? Come on man, we know it's all bullshit and completely inapplicable to the times. I want all sane people to have the option to own firearms. I want mentally ill people to not have that option. How can we not get there?
I'm with you brother. Each State needs to address their mental health issues.

In this case IT WORKED... as I said.

If you are labeled as crazy you will not pass the background check. YOU (personally) need to start talking about who is crazy (AOC), and what is the criteria for determining crazy, and implementation of a crazy database.

It has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with mental health. Felons can't buy guns either, that seems to be working out okay, the back ground check screens them out.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,632
23,960
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#46
And...……………….like there was never debate or discussion regarding any of the 27 amendments. BTW, Constitutional Amendments AMEND the Constitution and/or any of the preceding Amendments. And yes the 2nd Amendment can be modified with another Amendment, just like the 21st Amendment changed/repealed the 18th Amendment. So let's just stop the NOT ALLOWED nonsense. If the States want to Amend the Constitution, it is the States' prerogative.
Exactly. It shouldn't be changed by a simple bill in congress. It should require a change to the constitution and all that entails.
 
Sep 29, 2011
550
97
578
59
Breckenridge, CO
#47
And...……………….like there was never debate or discussion regarding any of the 27 amendments. BTW, Constitutional Amendments AMEND the Constitution and/or any of the preceding Amendments. And yes the 2nd Amendment can be modified with another Amendment, just like the 21st Amendment changed/repealed the 18th Amendment. So let's just stop the NOT ALLOWED nonsense. If the States want to Amend the Constitution, it is the States' prerogative.
Exactly. It shouldn't be changed by a simple bill in congress. It should require a change to the constitution and all that entails.
If a bill in Congress doesn’t step on the 2nd Amendment, then they can pass a bill in Congress as such. If the States want to amend the Const, they can go that route.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,290
2,947
1,743
#48
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/us/columbine-threat-search-for-woman/index.html

For those who say gun control advocates unfairly use mass casualty tragedies to advance their cause, this seems like a perfect opportunity to have the debate under not so emotional circumstances.
From the story:
Prior to news of Pais' death, a man who said he was Pais' father told the Miami Herald he lost contact with his daughter on Sunday. "I think maybe she's got a mental problem," he told the Herald.

Florida has laws against selling guns to the mentally ill. It's unfortunate that he didn't seek help for his daughter if he believed she had a mental illness. This tragedy probably could've been avoided.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,082
2,544
1,743
So Cal
#49
And...……………….like there was never debate or discussion regarding any of the 27 amendments. BTW, Constitutional Amendments AMEND the Constitution and/or any of the preceding Amendments. And yes the 2nd Amendment can be modified with another Amendment, just like the 21st Amendment changed/repealed the 18th Amendment. So let's just stop the NOT ALLOWED nonsense. If the States want to Amend the Constitution, it is the States' prerogative.
knock it off..... I'm talking about the BILL OF RIGHTS. You know what those are, correct, rights?

I'm talking about the PURPOSE of those 10 amendments (and the purpose of the Constitution) - to limit and to restrict the Federal Government.

Sure, anything can be amended, but he was not talking about an amendment to the constitution to remove our rights. That won't ever happen, there will never be enough States to support that. Hence there is no real debate. If he want's to debate whether his STATE want to support a change to the 2nd Amendment, then he's welcome to do so - but I don't live in his State - so no debate.

In the past, every time some dang socialist progressives got in there they removed more of our rights, like was done with the 16th and 17th amendments, both of which should be repealed because they limit and reduce our rights. The 2nd amendment establishes our rights - from the government.

so yeah... the FOUNDERS said flat out that the Federal Government is NOT ALLOWED to do that to us - some yahoo's wearing hammers and sickles changed the constitution to reduce our rights and permit that tyranny.

It was NOT THE INTENT. Not allowed in our founding. Specifically prohibited from being done to us.

you know dang well that he is talking about a discussion about LEGISLATION to remove our rights on a national level. That would be unconstitutional - i.e., not debatable. Nothing to discuss.

you know dang well that's what he meant.

How about from now on, every time someone says let's discuss gun control you shut them down with a "just change the constitution" retort. How's that.
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
6,849
6,404
1,743
Tulsa
#50
So was she well drilled and prepared?? Come on man, we know it's all bullshit and completely inapplicable to the times. I want all sane people to have the option to own firearms. I want mentally ill people to not have that option. How can we not get there?
He may have a point. AOC, all the Dims, Gumby and Townie prove liberals are insane daily. Maybe we can agree. No guns to Dims! At least they will have their conscience clean that they don't own them.
 
Sep 29, 2011
550
97
578
59
Breckenridge, CO
#51
So was she well drilled and prepared?? Come on man, we know it's all bullshit and completely inapplicable to the times. I want all sane people to have the option to own firearms. I want mentally ill people to not have that option. How can we not get there?
He may have a point. AOC, all the Dims, Gumby and Townie prove liberals are insane daily. Maybe we can agree. No guns to Dims! At least they will have their conscience clean that they don't own them.
Gumby a liberal? That’s rich.

I’m the most conservative person on the planet. I just don’t see the need, except for hunting, for guns. Just my view.

Quoting the famous Deep South poet, R. Van Zant

“Hand guns are made for killin’, they ain’t no good for nothin’ else. And if you like to drink your whiskey, you might even shoot yourself.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
143
77539
#54
Gumby a liberal? That’s rich.

I’m the most conservative person on the planet. I just don’t see the need, except for hunting, for guns. Just my view.

Quoting the famous Deep South poet, R. Van Zant

“Hand guns are made for killin’, they ain’t no good for nothin’ else. And if you like to drink your whiskey, you might even shoot yourself.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Obviously, you have no clue what "conservative" means. Maybe this will help. https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
Probably not.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,679
2,171
743
Where else but Stillwater
#55
He may have a point. AOC, all the Dims, Gumby and Townie prove liberals are insane daily. Maybe we can agree. No guns to Dims! At least they will have their conscience clean that they don't own them.
LOL, no, pokes16, I'm not insane. But you sure did prove to us all you're insane by writing, "No guns to Dims!". They are people, too, whether you are sane enough to accept that or not. Seriously, pokes16, just because you quite strongly believe in highly conservative ideals doesn't mean you have to be insane about it.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,778
8,363
1,743
#58
I'll put you in the category of wanting to take away rights from someone who hasn't yet committed a crime. Excellent choice.
That would be EVERY American adult that hasn’t committed a crime.

All over an incident where everything worked out successfully.

But by gawd, let’s take away everyone’s freedom. With NO regard to the woman that was in a state that required her to be on a 3 day handgun waiting list while her psycho ex-husband violated his restraining order, busted in to her house and brutally murdered her because she had NO means to defend herself (other than an imaginary shield of a restraining order).

Yes, more imaginary shielding laws will help!







Just stupid. :facepalm: