Posted on 09/29/2011 4:20:43 AM PDT by sushiman
We left the Orlando Peabody Hotel Friday evening and quick-stepped over to the Rosen Center for a “Meet and Greet” with Presidential candidate Herman Cain. It was scheduled to begin at 7:30 but delayed while management set up a room twice as large to hold the excited Republicans. And still the crowd spilled over.
(Excerpt) Read more at nsbnews.net ...
I was listening to his radio show some time back and the question came up and he answered he supported some restrictions on firearms. Sorry fan boy, but that makes him an anti-gunner in my book.
If you believe that there are laws that actually prevent crooks from getting guns then you're extremely gullible, And if you believe that we should have such laws, then by my definition you ARE anti-gun and I don't give a rat's ass about your NRA membership.
Do you believe violently crazy people should have gun rights? Like that kook who shot Gabriel what's her name. Everyone knew he was nuts, no way should he have the ability to get a gun. Yes, you can't prevent criminals from getting guns but if legal guns are easy to get, there would have been several armed folks to bring him down before he got more than a shot or two off.
Yep, and I'm okay with that. I'm a big believer of states rights (and you may be too). If you don't like a particular states laws, or taxing system, you can always find another one that is more to your tastes. i.e., I would not be moving to Massachusetts.
Who gets to say who's violent and crazy? Gun control is based on prior restraint ie punishing someone for soemthing the MIGHT do. The constitution doesn't make any distinction among individuals, saying some should have rights and some shouldn't. So until someone commits a crime, then yes they have the right to keep and bear arms, and anyone who wants to infringe those rights is by definition an anti-gunner. Regardless if they only want "reasonable restrictions" and they belong to the NRA or if they believe it's OK for states and localities to pass gun control.
Guessing from your response, you’ve been decided to be violent and crazy. Why would anyone support that unless they have been denied guns due to some mental disorder?
lol
What would you “might” have done had someone given you a gun?
So...are you saying some who have already committed crimes should not be allowed guns?
What about our 2nd amendment rights? You’re acting like those who have committed a crime should not be allowed guns, isn’t that your argument that if we didn’t allow guns that criminals would get them anyway???
Gotta choose one....can’t be on both sides of the coin.
sorry to pop your bubble toots, but wrong and beyond that completely clueless. I've had a carry permit for years. I just happen to know that prior restraint is a violation of rights. Putting up with the possibility of misuse of a firearms is the price you have to pay for freedom. You obviously don't want to pay the price and therefore it follows that you don't particularly want to be free
From reading your posts it's obvious you haven't a clue about freedom and rights. AND you totally missed the point about who judges whom.
Ever heard of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians? He and his church were judged to be violent and crazy and accused of having a meth lab and child molestation etc. There was NEVER any evidence to support any of these accusations, but using the principle of prior restraint the overnment decided to deprive him of his rights. And the FBI did so very effectively by murdering him and his followers. Gun control in action. You should be proud since the feebs think just like you do.
What would you “might” have done had someone given you a gun?
I used to own guns, but like so many others on this forum they were lost overboard in a fishing incident.
nice liberal move there. Postulating something I didn't say and then arguing against it. Just to make my position clear, I feel very stongly that criminals should NOT be armed while in jail. However, once they've served their time, they should have the same right to protect themselves as anyone else. After all if they're a danger to society, what are they doing out of jail? and if they're not a danger to society there isn't any harm in letting them arm themselves is there?
Price of freedom again. I think Sam Adams had something to say to you
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.