.. the rights of man have always been both sacrosanct and inalienable. What has changed, is the definition of man.
Yep, very close to what was meant by the phrase, "in practice".
.. the rights of man have always been both sacrosanct and inalienable. What has changed, is the definition of man.
Don't forget the 10th amendment, either.
that would be deep concealment......Do turtles open-carry? Seems like they have a good cover garment....
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
what do you mean "you people"?You people are touchy! Patchntx didn't say one word against OC,he merely asked what tactical advantage it gives,if any.
Holy side-track, batman! This thread is a runaway train
The constitution is to place limits on the federal gov.
NOTHING in the Bill of Rights says you have a right to be on my property, and you don't.
If you have no right to be on my property, how can you have the right to carry on my property.
I'm not violating your 2A rights, I'm not disarming you, I'm saying you can't enter my property unless you meet certain criteria. That is perfectly constitutional.
(I used myself as an example, I generally don't have a problem with someone carrying on my property)
Because it started out so wellHoly side-track, batman! This thread is a runaway train
Agree 100%. We use to be a nation were States Rights were supreme.The Founding Fathers intended the US to be a federation of Sovereign States. After Lincoln's raping of the Constitution and the War of Northern Aggression, we became a Union of subject states.
Bwahaha! Hilarious.
I'm just not getting involved. Not going to fight it either. I did not mean to imply that I am against it. Just not mustering up to join.
I fight for many rights I may never use, because that's how all rights are protected.
I'll still fight for your rights also, even the ones I may not exercise. Guess I just got principles like that.
If you think OC isn't about the greater gun rights battle, your wrong.