PatriotPride
Shooter
18 yr olds cant go to bars................
The first half of his sentence still stands.
18 yr olds cant go to bars................
The first half of his sentence still stands.
Don't take that tone with your father!thanks dad
Kindly inform me when that little inconvenience has ever stopped a determined college student from drinking!!!18 yr olds cant go to bars................
Don't take that tone with your father!
Kindly inform me when that little inconvenience has ever stopped a determined college student from drinking!!!
18 yr olds cant go to bars................
IC 7.1-5-7-9
Parent taking child into tavern prohibited
Sec. 9. (a) It is a Class C infraction for a parent, guardian, trustee, or other person having custody of a child under eighteen (18) years of age to take that child into a tavern, bar, or other public place where alcoholic beverages are sold, bartered, exchanged, given away, provided, or furnished.
IC 7.1-5-7-11
Exception for certain public places
Sec. 11. (a) The provisions of sections 9 and 10 of this chapter shall not apply if the public place involved is one (1) of the following:
(b) For the purpose of this subsection, "food" means meals prepared on the licensed premises. It is lawful for a minor to be on licensed premises in a room in which is located a bar over which alcoholic beverages are sold or dispensed by the drink if all the following conditions are met:
(1) The minor is eighteen (18) years of age or older.
(2) The minor is in the company of a parent, guardian, or family member who is twenty-one (21) years of age or older.
(3) The purpose for being on the licensed premises is the consumption of food and not the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
but what the OP is advocating is that a 12 or 15 or 16 yr old should be allowed to have un restricted access to any gun because of the 2nd amendment saying we have a right to bear arms....
interesting, cant say i disagree, unfortunately thats not always how it goes down, and some murderers do get out..... but if your cool with them owning and purchasing guns legally... ok. thats why we own guns after all, for personal safety.
I can't believe there are 35 people who favor infringements on my rights.
Maybe we should have to apply for a permit and training before we speak in public or on a forum? Or have about getting certified by the government so they don't search our house without a warrant?
I mean, if you have nothing to hide, you'll be just fine with that, right?
Finity... I think the word of the day is not hypocrisy but sarcasm. If I read him correctly, Joe was making a point to someone who agreed with restrictions, by placing hypothetical restrictions on him. I understand that being one of the few on here who identifies himself as a liberal, sometimes it can get overwhelming, but step back and re-read his post... I think you'll see what I'm talking about.
88GT said:But isn't there just a smidge, the slightest streak, of truth in it? )
It clearly and obviously is unconstitutional. Requiring a permit or license to exercise a constitutional right is unconstitutional on its face, and one doesn't have to be a lawyer, judge, scholar, or even a college graduate to understand that. One of Charles Shumer's favorite lines, as seen on CSPAN and major networks during the '90s, was "The courts have repeatedly ruled!" -which should be one's last clue as to why they've been busy packing and stacking the courts with like-minded jurists for decades.
After creating doubt and controversy over a formerly sacrosanct and unquestioned fundamental right, they're counting on people to always take such matters to court and say, in effect, "Whatever that judge, or panel of judges, says goes, since he's the 'expert' on what is, or is not constitutional." To do so is to assume infallibility and incorruptibility of judges, and even if not, why would anyone want to put such monumental decisions in the hands of one* or a small group of men?
(*Not meant to disparage outstanding jurists, some of whom are members here. e.g. - There is no guarantee that one will get a Thomas or Scalia. One may well get a Breyer or Stevens. Even if things did come out in your favor, you will have established a precedent that all such questions must of necessity be resolved in a courtroom, and all decisions are final and binding on everyone.)
Yet, I am a strong conservative.
Say it, doesn't make it so.
Just because I support gun control does not make me a liberal, just a realist. As another individual has said obviously there is something to gun control since so many cases have supported gun control. Just because we want to throw little fits and complain that the "evil" government is infringing on our rights does not make it so either. Extremists and conspiracy theorists normally take a very biased view in this type of discussion. I don't walk around thinking the government is going to break down my door, take my guns, and take away my liberties.
We are the ones who give this government power so it is our own faults we are in this situation.
I.E., the Patriot Act was passed, which allowed the government to infringe on some of our rights and liberties in order for what they proposed as the greater good. We make concessions every day in order to achieve a greater good. This seems to just be another example of that.
It makes you a gun grabber, an enemy of the Constitution, a hypocrite. It makes you the same kind of person as Nancy Pelosi, and Rosie O'Donnell. The kind of smug person who is soooo confident they have the moral right to defend themselves, while denying that right to others.
A gun grabber?
I am not going to go in and steal guns from anyone.
I don't care if other people carry guns
I understand that only those who obey the laws are the ones who are hurt by regulation, but that does not mean we should just make it a free-for-all.
If gun control laws are the method the government uses to deem individuals responsible to own/carry guns then so be it.
i guess im saying that times change, when that was written in the amendments they didnt have crazy asians legally buying guns and shooting up colleges
sj kahr k40 said:Liberal are the ones trying to blame society for a persons action, so IMO they are fine with murderers running lose, because it's not that persons fault it's his upbringing or some other BS like that, criminals should stay in prison until they are not a threat to society, once out of prison they become free citizens again
I guess I'm a ridiculous fear mongerer without any common sense
+1
If you insist...
Sarcasm, I guess some aren't smart enough to get it
Finity, I don't think all liberals want murderers running loose but some I have to wonder about
By the way that was a very insightful post
Finity, I don't think all liberals want murderers running loose but some I have to wonder about
By the way that was a very insightful post
I understand that Joe was using an extreme example to try to make a point about the infringement of others rights, but it was an example using himself as the example. I think it is telling that he is saying that HIS views are extreme enough to be used in his example.
**snip**
If there was any indication that I could be wrong & that Joe doesn’t ACTUALLY feel the way he says in his example then I would apologize. Until that time, my analysis of, & comments on, his views stand.
The people who think that others gun-rights should be abridged because they somehow think those others are irresponsible are no worse than someone who thinks that others 1A rights should be abridged because they don’t agree with their politics. One is no more or no less an enemy of the Constitution than the other.
I think hypocrisy is a fitting description.
I guess I’m not the only one who can see that Joe wasn't being sarcastic, either.Originally Posted by 88GT
But isn't there just a smidge, the slightest streak, of truth in it? )