2nd Amendment, No reasonable restrictions apply

[M. Sage]

Like other posters, you need to read what I write. My only issue with many as to the 2A is when OC enthusiasts have stated the absence of OC is a restriction on the 2A in regard to "bear arms" and "keep arms". In other words, my issue is that per the 2A, the absence of OC is NOT a restriction on the 2A!! How many times do I have to state my position?

You need to first seek to understand and then to be understood.

Why do you think the abolition or restriction of open carry isn't an infringement on the right to bear arms?

 

[Texas42]

Now I know I'm a little late to this conversation, but . . .. . . what does a bachalor's degree have to do with anything?

 

[TexasRedneck]

Nuthin', really - but as with any other conversation amongst friends, there's often a bit of subject slippage...

 

[MR Redneck]

Now I know I'm a little late to this conversation, but . . .. . . what does a bachalor's degree have to do with anything?

 

[randmplumbingllc]

Now I know I'm a little late to this conversation, but . . .. . . what does a bachalor's degree have to do with anything?

EXACTLY ! Just because you don't have a "degree", does not mean you don't have an education. It just means that you don't have a paper to say you are educated.

I can't speak for local or state LEO's, but I know that the FBI and DEA require a degree before you ever become an agent. I can also say that a fair precentage of them have a masters degree. Not that having a formal education has anything to do with being a good LEO.

I know some of the smartest people in the word DON'T have a "degree", I have also met some "dumb" people that have a masters degree.

My point to this whole "rant", is that anyone, with no education "CAN" be just as good ,or better then all the schooling in the world can provide. Just depends on the person.

 

[Texas1911]

You can't be serious - you REALLY think I feel that way? If it wasn't so dumb a question, I'd be insulted. The courts have held that constitutional rights are suspended for convicted felons, and I agree with that. A stalker? No - because unless he's been convicted of a felony he's done nothing to lose his FEDERAL rights over. Habitual wife beater? I may not wanna be his buddy - but again, unless he's been convicted of a felony, not much we can do about it.

Well when you use the word "any" it implies, "all".

 

[Texas1911]

No sir - I support those restrictions that are provided by the Constitution, or eludicated by a ruling of the Supreme Court. Not those created by a government bureaucrat.

You just agreed to reasonable restrictions employed by the Gun Control Act of 1968, not the Constitution, earlier in this thread.

 

[TexasRedneck]

You just agreed to reasonable restrictions employed by the Gun Control Act of 1968, not the Constitution, earlier in this thread.

Really? Where?

 

[TheDan]

Now I know I'm a little late to this conversation, but . . .. . . what does a bachalor's degree have to do with anything?

+1
Ya'll sound like liberal elitists arguing about college stats

 

[APatriot]

:sign0101: From a debate as to reasonable restrictions on 2A to college/non-college educated LEO. Not sure how we got there.

 

[Texas1911]

Really? Where?

You can't be serious - you REALLY think I feel that way? If it wasn't so dumb a question, I'd be insulted. The courts have held that constitutional rights are suspended for convicted felons, and I agree with that. A stalker? No - because unless he's been convicted of a felony he's done nothing to lose his FEDERAL rights over. Habitual wife beater? I may not wanna be his buddy - but again, unless he's been convicted of a felony, not much we can do about it.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 is what stipulates whom holds the right to bear arms. It is a series of reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment that was drafted in Congress and approved by Congress and LBJ. I personally would change some verbage in the bill, but it's pretty comprehensive.