211d
@Wajoma saidThat just goes to show that Reagan’s assailant should not have had a gun.
felonies involving violence, there's room for debate. Non-violent felonies there is no debate, dis-arming the man is unconstitutional. And like so many other stunts by the left whingers it only bolsters him. The gloaters are enjoying a smaller and smaller audience.
BTW Reagan would have had body guards around him so, ooops, another argument just fell over.
211d
@Wajoma saidIt’s in the US constitution that you can’t disarm a non-violent felon?
felonies involving violence, there's room for debate. Non-violent felonies there is no debate, dis-arming the man is unconstitutional. And like so many other stunts by the left whingers it only bolsters him. The gloaters are enjoying a smaller and smaller audience.
BTW Reagan would have had body guards around him so, ooops, another argument just fell over.
Really?
211d
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYes. Yes they do.
good example…its funny how in everyday talk your mind jumps straight to perverted sex
people reveal themselves in strange ways sometimes
You little closet gimp.
211d
@shavixmir saidNo, it is not in the US Constitution. States can regulate whether a felon is allowed to carry a weapon or to vote or various other things.
It’s in the US constitution that you can’t disarm a non-violent felon?
Really?
211d
@moonbus saidSo, wayoma is once again squeaking out his arse.
No, it is not in the US Constitution. States can regulate whether a felon is allowed to carry a weapon or to vote or various other things.
It’s from all those koalas raping him, his hole is so stretched, he can’t keep his BS in anymore.
211d
@shavixmir saidI speak from experience in my immediate family. My brother had two nonviolent felony convictions for drug offences in California. Because he showed contrition and, on account of his youth and no previous convictions, was paroled immediately, rather than sent off to the sheriff's chickenwire hotel (think Cool Hand Luke). The conditions of his parole specified that he not only could not own a firearm, but also that he was not allowed to be in the vicinity of a firearm not his own. This meant that he was not allowed to go hunting, or to a private club and engage in target practice, with borrowed weapons. He was at that time on automobile mechanic, and a customer brought a car in for repair. The customer had a firearm in the glove compartment of the car (not unusual in Amerika). My brother took the sensible precaution of removing the firearm from the glove compartment and putting it in a locked drawer elsewhere in the workshop. Unfortunately, the authorities came around on an unannounced spot-check, searched the place, found the weapon, and my brother was in deep judicial solid effluent. He subsequently emigrated to Alaska, and engaged in salmon fishing and deer hunting with a bow and arrow. True story.
So, wayoma is once again squeaking out his arse.
It’s from all those koalas raping him, his hole is so stretched, he can’t keep his BS in anymore.
Your mileage may vary in another state.
211d
@shavixmir saidShag Pseudy, I'm aware that different states have different, let's call them, rules. It was a statement as to the ideal. If we mention 'intent' 'constitution' we're going to lure No.1 out of retirement, and on one wants that.
So, wayoma is once again squeaking out his arse.
It’s from all those koalas raping him, his hole is so stretched, he can’t keep his BS in anymore.
211d
@Wajoma saidThe intent of the 2d Amendment was that Americans should shoot the British, if they ever tried to reclaim their lost colonies, not each other. At that time, America had no standing army, and Britain had the world's greatest army and navy, so a citizen militia was needed to guard the borders. It was never intended that Americans be shooting each other in shopping malls and schools.
Shag Pseudy, I'm aware that different states have different, let's call them, rules. It was a statement as to the ideal. If we mention 'intent' 'constitution' we're going to lure No.1 out of retirement, and on one wants that.
211d
@Wajoma saidThe ideal that you proclaim is false.
Shag Pseudy, I'm aware that different states have different, let's call them, rules. It was a statement as to the ideal. If we mention 'intent' 'constitution' we're going to lure No.1 out of retirement, and on one wants that.
So, crawl back to the rack gimp boy.
211d
@shavixmir saidThen you can show us where it says non-violent felons must have their right to bear arms violated.
The ideal that you proclaim is false.
So, crawl back to the rack gimp boy.
Or you can resort to your single ijit emoji response, dance for me shatmixer.
211d
1 edit
@Wajoma saidNo rights are absolute. Every right is limited, either by other people‘s rights, or by legislation. The right to freedom of speech does not cover shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater with intent to cause a stampede when there is no fire; it does not cover defamation, slander, or lying on tax returns and financial records; it does not cover incitement to violence/riot or incitement to sedition or treason. The right to own property can be trumped by pressing social need; a land owner can be dispossessed to make way for a road or a harbor or a railway (though not without due process and due compensation). The right to keep and bear arms can also be restricted by law, as can the right to vote, specifically regarding convicted felons. The right to freedom of religion does not cover leaving rattlesnakes in someone’s mailbox (yes, there was such a case). All these things have been tested in the courts and held to be valid limitations of the rights enumerated in the BoR.
Then you can show us where it says non-violent felons must have their right to bear arms violated.
211d
@shavixmir saidits sad the only language you know is this
So, wayoma is once again squeaking out his arse.
It’s from all those koalas raping him, his hole is so stretched, he can’t keep his BS in anymore.