Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine
Get real luis. I argue that State/local governments can't make unreasonable regulations infringing on our rights to own & carry arms.
That's a lie.
Here's what you really say:
"Our US Constitution makes it clear that the peoples owning & carrying of arms is not to be infringed. - By anyone." -- tpaine
You also claim that as a property owner, I can't deny you access to my property if I don't want you carring a gun into it.
You're back from suspension and lying again.
Are people who drive to work the only people with a Constitutionally protected right to carry a gun to and from work for self-defense?
Get real luis. I argue that State/local governments can't make unreasonable regulations infringing on our rights to own & carry arms.
Our US Constitution makes it clear that the peoples owning & carrying of arms is not to be infringed. - By anyone.
That's a lie.
So you rant, day after day.
You also claim that as a property owner, I can't deny you access to my property if I don't want you carring a gun into it.
Hogwash.. -- This thread makes clear my position on this issue.
You're back from suspension and lying again.
Unable to refute the Constitutional facts, you raise personal issues as a diversion. -- How pitiful.
Are people who drive to work the only people with a Constitutionally protected right to carry a gun to and from work for self-defense?
Unfortunately, gun grabbing zealots like the Brady bunch do not agree, and 'majority rule' still applies in many States & localities.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Making crap up out of whole cloth again.
Now, "people" have a "Constitutionally protected" (you learned that phrase from me) right to have an "easily accessible place to store" their guns while at work provided for them by their employers, which of course, you will demand that this "right" be secured by MORE laws passed by the government.
Big government socialist.
You and I are done.
Kennesaw sticks to its guns: Law requires firearms
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1787232/posts
I see you're still soft peddling tyranny.
There's nothing about defending your rights in forcing your will on others on their property. I liked you better when you were banned. Perhaps I could "defend" my first amendment rights by taping your mouth shut (per your logic).
There's nothing about defending your rights in forcing your will on others on their property.
Typically, you see a gun in your employees car as "-- forcing your will on others on their property --".
Fancy that.
??? Too bad you aren't regularly banned for being nonsensical, as well as for being rude.
You don't believe that property rights really exist. That is the problem. Your empty whining that I'm a gungrabber is simply all you have in the way of defense.
I'm going to start a pool on when you will get banned from FR again. I give you two weeks tops.
You don't believe that property rights really exist.
They exist, and I support them. I don't agree - as you do, - that they can be used to facilitate gungrabbing by businessmen.
That is the problem. Your empty whining that I'm a gungrabber is simply all you have in the way of defense.
You just initiated this exchange with your empty whine of my "tyranny". -- Now that was rude.
-- You admit that businessmen should have the power to ban guns; -- that's gungrabbing, not rude.
Too bad you aren't regularly banned for being nonsensical, as well as for being rude.
Too bad you're incapable of realizing you're being nonsensical, as well as being rude.
I'm going to start a pool on when you will get banned from FR again. I give you two weeks tops.
You hope; -- seeing you can't shut me up with logic, you're betting using personal attacks will work.
You don't believe that property rights provide exclusionary power over the property.
You think other people's property rights end where you wish to stop imposing your rights.
Totalitarian.
Rights and Freedom
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788265/posts
Property rights either give the possessor limiting powers over others or they do not. You believe they do not.
I don't know why you keep arguing with yourself over this. You want your rights to override mine. I got it. I'm armed and prepared for you to attempt it.
They exist, and I support them. I don't agree - as you do, - that they can be used to facilitate gungrabbing by businessmen.
-- You admit that businessmen should have the power to ban guns; -- that's gungrabbing, and to say so is not rude.
Property rights either give the possessor limiting powers over others or they do not.
Properly rights are not absolute. Read the article I just posted for proof.
You believe they do not.
I don't agree - as you do, - that they can be used to facilitate gungrabbing by businessmen.
I don't know why you keep arguing with yourself over this.
I'm arguing with your anti-constitutional concepts..
You want your rights to override mine. I got it.
You're the one in favor of "overriding" our right to carry; not me.
I'm armed and prepared for you to attempt it.
Dream on that you've scared anyone.
Sorry didn't get any farther than that, as its a blatant mistatement of your position. You want to dictate to others what they must do with and on their property. Precisous little is left of property rights after that.
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.