Your 2nd amendment rights are in trouble

Discussion in 'Second Amendment and Legal' started by Tommycourt, Oct 6, 2015.

  1. Tommycourt

    Tommycourt Tommycourt

    2,139
    17
    38
    Right now your 2nd amendment rights are under attack by Hildebeast. She is on the campaign trial and stating she will do any and everything in her power to get rid of the 2nd amendment, even if she has to do it with a presidential fiat. Since her e-mails have fallen by the wayside, she needs another way to get the heat off her butt and taking away your guns is one way of doing it. Now according to the Constitution she can't do that but we have seen Obama shred the Constitution. I don't care what party you are akin to, now is the time to really start to fight back. It makes no difference if you are a shot gunner, rifleman or hand gun shooter, you are all under her target. We have a range out here that if you are a shot gun shooter then you are ok and they don't care about handguns. That SUCKS! Now is the time to unite and do it vigorously. If she gets the job of POTUS all hell will break loose. She may not get your guns but she can do some real damage to buying ammo, reloading, having a check on how much ammo you buy, what kind, having a ammo certificate, all kinds of things. Don't think it can't happen because if she gets into office-she will. Watch and see how she will escalate this situation and view points to the unknowing public and prey on sentiment. She is crooked and tenacious and will do ANYTHING to assume the presidency regardless of our rights!!! This will not be the end of my rant for I will continue to fight her and her party til my last breath!!!!

    Tommy
     
  2. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    8,549
    267
    83
    If B.O. has his way the hildabeast will not have guns to lie about. Obama is still going full bore sighting in on gun confiscation.
     

  3. gunslinger669

    gunslinger669 Active Member

    1,091
    1
    38
    They're not completely evil, and you two are like gas and a match. Who are you going to stand behind? Ben Carson? He thinks the earth is 7,000 years old and there's no such thing as evolution. Donald Trump? Seriously? He's got a few good ideas, but he's a lying tax evading scumbag who doesn't give a crap about the regular people in this country.

    No one smart enough, honorable enough and wise enough wants to be President of this country - it's a shame.
     
  4. VThillman

    VThillman Active Member

    2,733
    24
    38
    Hah. Tommy and Buster are "extremists in defense of Liberty" (paraphrasing Senator Goldwater, who got my second vote for president). As per usual, the longer the pursuit of the candidacy goes on, the less attractive all the candidates get. Bernie is slowly drifting toward gun control, apparently because he thinks that helps. If Carson pays any attention to what the Pope says, he is for gun control - but maybe he doesn't, eh? Can't say I care how old he thinks the Universe is.
     
  5. havasu

    havasu In the army now..

    5,591
    5
    38
    I now see Hillary is attempting to allow the courts to blame the weapons manufacturer for the deaths of the shooting victims. Look out Mc Donald's, their coming after you too for the deaths you cause from your unhealthy and fattening foods.
     
  6. phideaux

    phideaux Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    12,933
    100
    63
    She is just protecting "the children"..:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



    Jim
     
  7. berettabone

    berettabone In the army now..

    475
    0
    0
    Mickey Dee's has already been sued because their coffee was too hot................................................you just can't fix stupid.
     
  8. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    8,549
    267
    83
    Is that why MC Dees now serves ice coffee? OH heck think of the coming law suits for brain freeze!
    The latest show of liberal ignorance is gun owners should have to buy gun insurance to help cover costs of gun violence. Liberals should realize just making posting no gun signs illegal would have a profound decrease in mass shootings.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
  9. Tommycourt

    Tommycourt Tommycourt

    2,139
    17
    38
    Before you scold or chastize me maybe you should take some time and look at all the candidates that are running for president. Yes, I admit I have nothing but scorn and hatred for Hildebeast and Obama. Both of them neither have morals or principals or any sense of what the Constitution means or how it is applied. There are still some good politicians out there and some who actually believe in the things I stated. One of them is Marco Rubio. He stands and supports guns and the ownership. He doesn't believe in regular people NOT having guns and letting the criminals run amok. Yes he is not in the top of the lead however whenever he talks he gains popularity. So my advise to you would be to listen to others BEFORE you make judgement over me and my ideas. Gas and a match? Damned right and I am proud of it! This is America and before our idiot POTUS got into office that used to mean something to some of us and to some of us it still does.

    Tommy
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
  10. gunslinger669

    gunslinger669 Active Member

    1,091
    1
    38
    Rubio also believes that gay couples don't deserve the same rights as non-gays, that marriage should be defined by the government and that abortion under any circumstances should be against the law. People, regardless of their religion, ethnic background, sex or sexual orientation are human. That's why they're called human rights, not Christian rights or white rights or Muslim rights, etc.. The sooner everybody figures that out, the better. But, I don't believe as a species we're capable of it, so I give us about 200-300 years before we exterminate ourselves.
     
  11. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    8,549
    267
    83
    I think Carson would possibly be the better of the bunch. Which came first the egg or the chicken doesn't matter when the country has to have a change for the better in leadership. Distraction - distraction- distraction is the name of the game.
    I have no problem with gays having same rights as heterosexuals. That includes not having a right to force a business to do business with gays or bring suit against them and put them out of business. That is total opposite of equal rights. That is forced acceptance of the gay lifestyle. That is just wrong period.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2015
  12. gunslinger669

    gunslinger669 Active Member

    1,091
    1
    38
    Do you mean a business should have the right to refuse service to whom ever it wants? So it would be OK to refuse service to all Christians or all women or all men under 6 feet tall?
     
  13. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    8,549
    267
    83
    There you do distraction... distraction.
    First off a Jewish church will not marry a Christian couple or even a Jewish/Christian couple. A catholic church will not marry a protestant/catholic couple. At leas that's how it used to be. Let's see what would happen if a gay couple wanted to get married in a Jewish church, or a Muslim church. Oh now come on now that's a different story.
    I just about bet a cake decorator that hold strong religious values will not make a pornographic cake for a heterosexual couple either.
    My bank says no entrance wearing a ball cap or hoody. So what happens if a Muslim comes in with their head all covered but their face?
    Distractions are picked and chosen but still shouldn't fly. IMO is just a way to cause more crap enforced on people to accept against their will. Your will must be my will or I am considered prejudiced.
    Your examples imo are totally ridiculous.
     
  14. MagBlackhawk

    MagBlackhawk Patriot

    2,150
    100
    73
    The answer to your question is below.

    My guess would be you have never owned or worked at a business that deals directly with the public at large.
    I have, and do.

    If the owner doesn't want ANYONE that could cause the business harm in the place the owner should be able to refuse them.
    He owns the joint!
    He risked the capital.
    He scratched it up from nothing.
    He worked from 8:00 AM till midnight six and sometimes seven days a week to get it going.
    He sweated bullets hoping it would be successful.
    He missed family outings for the sake of the business. And much more.

    If Christians under 6 feet tall are causing HIS business problems, HE should not be sued out of business when he refuses them.
    If ANYONE is a danger to HIS livelihood, HE should be able to refuse them, bar none!

    If the owner is silly enough to refuse someone because of the way they comb their hair, or whatever, it's his right to make that mistake.
    He owns the joint!
    He gets to let it fail or flourish by making smart choices or bad choices.

    He built it, not POTUS or some court!!!

    Christians? I'm a Christian and I had to refuse a group of them because I was not the 'right type' for them.
    They constantly wasted my time by pretending they would spend money with me hoping to get FREE information.
    They were condescending, insulting and even tried to cheat me. I had to tell them to stay out so I could make a living.

    Am I to be forced to do business with those that are condescending toward me, insult me or undermine my ability to make a living?
    According to you, YES!!!

    Considering the above, here is your answer: YES.
     
  15. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    8,549
    267
    83
    I got to some more thinking about your examples and as ridiculous as I thought they were I realized the Christian part of it is being discriminated against.
    The 1st Amendment has been basically trashed because of separation of church and state being read into what's not any part of the of the 1st.
    The first guarantees a persons right to express their religion but then SCT says people are protected from your expression of religious beliefs on state grounds. Christian students are not permitted to have prayer before a sporting event. There is your separation of church and state being used exactly opposite by the state saying religious beliefs will not be allowed to be expressed. Ten Commandments removed from state property. All because they are saying separation of church and state yet the state is determining how religious beliefs can be expressed due to state funds or property being used for that expression. There is the hypocrisy of their own separation of church and state when the state is saying what can or can't be expressed. I have news for the state in that the state property and funds belong to the tax payers not the state.
    The 2nd states shall not be infringed but that is exactly what the states and cities and governments have done. The Constitution reads that it is the law of the land. It even says the states have no individual right to withstanding separate from it. But oh how the misinformed public has been duped to believe otherwise which is in total opposition due to the belief the Constitution was only concerning limiting the federal government. Such stupidity when you think about it because in effect they make the Constitution null and void concerning the states. At least that's how they want you to believe just like they want people to believe in separations of church and state and then only when they can use it against the people. Such two faced government. Obama's regime wants to confiscate all guns while at the same time he is building and funding an internal army to be used against the citizens which is also not constitutional.
    So the state/government says I have to not only welcome gay lifestyle I have to even participate in their beliefs. Well cripe where is that separation of church and state now? Such hypocrites.
    People don't understand self protection of ones self is only natural. They also don't understand if man was stopped from protecting himself then man would be extinct by now. To funny how they don't trust politicians but they are not concerned politicians are the ones wanting to disarm the people. The 2nd is the only thing standing in politicians way of making total slaves of the people.
    Look at what is happening in countries where the people have no right to arms. Cattle led to slaughter. It is happening right now and yet we have a government that wants to disarm the citizens here? Is this insanity or what to go along with this and let it happen?
    Obama arms ISIS but then next thing he does is call for disarming the American citizens. Doesn't take an Einstein to see his agenda in action.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2015
  16. gunslinger669

    gunslinger669 Active Member

    1,091
    1
    38

    I do own a business, have for over 20 years and it interacts with dozens, sometimes hundreds of people on a daily basis. I not saying that you can't refuse to accommodate those 3 or 4 people of a class(under 6' tall Christians in your example) that have proven to be troublesome, just that you can't judge and exclude ALL under 6' tall Christians based on the behavior of 3 or 4 of them. You exclude them as individuals based on your personal experience, which is justified. Banning all under 6' tall Christians can't be.
     
  17. Tommycourt

    Tommycourt Tommycourt

    2,139
    17
    38
    When I made this statement it was because I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. However, to be politicially correct today is more important than the rights that were given us by the 2 documents. I have nothing against gays as long as the don't try to push their theocracy on me. I do have a problem with people who think that their way is the only way and the right way. Right now their is a debate going on because of 1 and I mean 1 school teenager is an atheist and the rest of the football team are all Christians so they can no longer pray before and after a game. Our country was founded on Christianity, so if you don't like it, then by all means leave. As I did when I went into the service I took a pledge to serve and protect my country. When you become a legalized citizen, you do the same. If a cake baker does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, then he should have that right and NO ONE should tell him he has too. Marco Rubio does not care for gay marriage BUT as he stated, it is the law of the land and for the time being, it must be upheld. We do things we have to do not because we want to, but because the government and the Supreme Court says we HAVE to. Long before I retired I owned my own business and I had a sign on the door that said that "I have the right to refuse service to anyone". What has happened to that law? Sorry to inform you, but the bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Next we will start having polygamy rights, which they already have in Utah. I think you should stop and think of the ramifications of what is happening to our country and see if you agree with all the B.S. that is going on. If so, then I feel you are (as Buster states) one of the sheep and one day will be led to slaughter. If it makes you feel any better, I extend my condolences to you and your loved ones because 1 day this will all come to an extreme of which none of us want to hear or see. It's too bad we have to have such war like chat on this forum because this is not the reason for the forum in the first place. We have it for our love of our guns, shooting and our endearing and unquestionable love for our country. This is still the greatest country in the world and hopefully within the next year and a half we will have a POTUS that will have the cajones to stand up to tyranny and hostility not only from 3rd world countries but from our own government including the SCOTUS!!!

    Tommy
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2015
  18. gunslinger669

    gunslinger669 Active Member

    1,091
    1
    38
    Well, being gay isn't a religion, so there's no "theocracy" to push. Secondly, perhaps if you believe in and value the constitution and our bill of rights, maybe it would be good to know more than just the second amendment. I took the same oath- doesn't say anything in it about protecting just the people I like. Never said I agree with any B.S. Going on, from either "side"- both of which are full of copious amounts. I am no sheep.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2015
  19. VThillman

    VThillman Active Member

    2,733
    24
    38
    I 'liked' this, though if I had written it the 'you' would have been a 'we' and the 'maybe' wouldn't be there.

    The, ah, gender neutral difficulty with the term 'marriage' is that it is a loaded word, too full of associations to be useful without elaboration. Before this Age of Plastic, a well-made rifle was a marriage of wood and steel. Is a civil union a marriage, or is it merely a partnership?

    And - the very nature of being a practicing centrist in government requires seeing and discarding the BS. Some of it is pretty hard to recognize. There are lots of smoke and mirrors, and some of the smoke is in our heads.
     
  20. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    8,549
    267
    83
    Funny I didn't see any comment from Tommy saying he wouldn't protect all the Constitutional rights of all people let alone gays. I also didn't see anything he said that gave the impression he doesn't know or support all the Constitution. What I did gather from what he commented was that he felt Gays have no right to determine which of his beliefs he can express without being called a discriminator.
    Gays aren't pushing theocracy they are pushing their lifestyle to be accepted by all even if it is against your religious beliefs. It seems to me they are pushing their theocracy, aka form of government, which is against the 1st Amendment freedom to express religious beliefs. But no the gays are pushing that religious beliefs are actually, according to them, a form of discrimination. The 1st doesn't read freedom from religion. But that is what is being read into it in order to remove religious expression. Funny how the false reading "separation of church and state" has no separation in the gay argument. They are using the state to remove 1st amendment rights. The courts should say take it outside because "we the court" can't get involved in church freedom of expression due to the 1st Amendment.
    Problem being nowhere in the Constitution does it say it can be limited or re-translated in order to lawfully order people to accept anything contrary to its contents.
    Nobody has a right to bring suit against me because I will not bake your cake or photograph your wedding. It is unreal how a student can't read his bible or pray in school but students will be required to take classes about the gay movement and lifestyle. A student can't bite the shape of a gun out of his pop tart or wear the American flag on an under shirt. Don't talk not knowing the Constitution to me to justify your argument which is filled with holes.
    Maybe people should read the Constitution so they can find out how our government has totally outstepped its allowed bounds. How our government has twisted the Constitutional meanings from what it was written to protect us from. Yeah read the Constitution and then tell me the clause supporting the tyranny in our government right now.