H.R. 822: National Right To Carry...

Why does congress need to pass any legislation that affects American's inherent rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

What would the outcry be if this thread was in another section of the Political Forum where congress was passing legislation affecting American's 1st Amendment inherent rights?

Weasels...the whole lot...

 

Some of us disagree with that open interpretation.

 

But most of us agree that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to every law-abiding American; an inherent right granted to us by our creator (not government).

Hell, even the Supreme Court agrees with us...

 

Please provide examples of predictions published pre 2008.

It is not exlusively my position. An idea not shared by anyone you know? What does this prove? Who are you, and why are the people you know at all relevant to anyone but yourself?

My position is shared by an ever increasing portion of the financial and political world. Your's is shrinking in popularity.

LOL - How do you figure?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/cbo-c...2021-deficit-50-admits-it-probably-dead-wrong

I can find as many articles as you need to me proving CBO forecasts wrong. You just let me know when you have had your fill.

A better alternative would be to let the market handle everything relating to the economy. Sounds like a novel idea I know....but the government has proven time and again that it is inept and incapable of doing it.


Here is some food for thought on your precious "non-partisan" CBO.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/cbo-scores-own-goal

 

Many did, actually, but that isn't the point is it? The fact that economists are sometimes wrong does NOT mean that your prediction of imminent bankruptcy is somehow correct. This is a flawed logic on your part.

 

So you cannot provide examples? I do not care if you feel it is or is not the point. You and your economists can try and try to rail against simple math...but you will continue to lose.

 

The burden of proof is all yours, friend. I'm sure that you don't want ME to do YOUR work for you, right? You claimed that we were in iminent bankruptcy, yet have not supported this. Not even with any of the "simple math" you alluded to. Weak really.

All this, to avoid admitting the flaw in your argument. The fact that economists are sometimes wrong does NOT mean that your prediction of imminent bankruptcy is somehow correct. This is a flawed logic on your part.

 

The simple math is this - You cannot solve a debt problem with more debt. There is to much debt and the only solution offered seems to be that more debt is the answer. That flies in the face of "simple math" 2+2 = 4.

The entire globe is effected, every single currency out there is backed by nothing but the hope of a bigger future. When you have a currency that requires you to go futher into debt in order to create more of it you are doomed to failure. You fail simple math.

That is why economists are wrong when they feel that we are not bankrupt....there is NO other outcome...it is inescapable.

 

...How so?

 

"Green" jobs are those that make his buddies a lot of greenbacks (money).

 

I see, then you can't support your argument with anything other than your own uninformed views of economics.

I see that you still can't refute your flawed logic when you claimed that because economists are sometimes wrong, that it does NOT mean that your prediction of imminent bankruptcy is somehow correct, one does not prove the other.

Simple math, really. Right?

 

You are to stupid for words. I am done with you.

 

What a pity. Just when you had a chance to show your intellect.



Oh, and a little tip for ya':.. When you call someone else "stupid", it will typically help your case if you know the difference between "to" and "too".

Just sayin'.

 

Ah yes, yet another gun control thread has been Danct'ed....

Once past page 1, the topic has been lost....
It didn't even take her a page to ruin the thread, draggin' it off topic....

She wins again, atleast in her own tiny mind....

Ayuh,... It's a good law, movin' in the right direction,...
It's gonna be a long road to the end, but it's doable, 'n will take some time,...
Long enough time that President Obo will be long gone, on his perpetual Vacation...

Unfortunately, still on our dollar...

 

H.R. 822, The National Right To Carry legislation that has passed the House and awaits a hearing in the Senate, is being criticized for messing with States' rights. The truth is, it just enforces the Constitution. Read about it here: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/06ecda69#/06ecda69/99.

 

Madam, Have I offended you somehow?

It seems that if I don't agree with your views, then I am somehow doing something wrong. Do you favor the authoritarian model of government? One voice, no dissension?

 

Not sure its been mentioned in this thread yet, but companion legislation to H.R. 822 was filed in the Senate (as S. 218.

At first look, the bill (sponsored by Mark Begich (D-AK) and Joe Manchin III (D-WV)) seems to be well written with no hidden surprises (yet anyway).

I think this is a good sign - hopefully this means we will see national reciprocity for carry permits sooner rather than later.

 

Of course this is a federal issue because of the Bill of Rights. There is no state that has the right to over ride the 2nd Amendment even though there are those that tried.

 

Funny, before the 1934 The National Firearms Act, we could carry how ever we saw fit. In my opinion FDR was the first to abridge the 2nd Amendment.

 

Probem is, it doesn't so let's take care of the problem.

 

That's not true. Refer to State v. Chandler that referred to a law written in 1813:

"The act of the 25th of March, 1813, makes it a misdemeanor to be "found with a concealed weapon, such as a dirk, dagger, knife, pistol, or any other deadly weapon concealed in his bosom, coat, or any other place about him, that does not appear in full view." This law became absolutely necessary to (p.490)counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons. It interfered with no man's right to carry arms (to use its words) "in full open view," which places men upon an equality. This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if neccessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."
​

There is plenty of historical precedent since this country's inception that shows lawful regulations on the carrying of guns in this country.

You appear to be taking as fairly narrow and convenient view on this.

 

That is a well reasoned fear...If the feds have the right to allow CC everywhere, they also have the power to preclude it...A better bill would be one that mandates reciprocity like in drivers licenses, amongst all states having CC.

 

Is restricting ownership the same thing as restricting concealed carry?

 

Is that not one of the questions going to the court this month when they discuss BoBocare?

 

That is not accurate...from the very early 19th century we have had state and local restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon. In fact, these laws added to the confusion as to the second amendment. Before the 14th, the states ignored any restrictions found in the second on the theory the protection only applied to federal efforts to grab guns. After the 14th it took the courts another 50 years to realize the 14th trumped their old precedent. As late as Miller we had the federal court misapplying pre 14th amendment precedent on modern gun law.