Jetackuu said: »
You were inferring the right to drive, don't be facetious.
Politicians/Media Refuse "proudly Gun Free" Sign
Politicians/Media refuse "proudly gun free" sign
Nope travel. You have the right to travel if you don't agree with a set of municipal laws set in ordinance by the city/residents. That's how it should be tbh.
The point of a republic (representative democracy) isn't to protect minority rights. What planet are you taking Government on?
Kimble2013 said: »
Its literally impossible to argue, much less converse, with someone that unconditionally believes their opinions = facts, and are always right. Its literally the same thing as talking to a wall.
::shrugs:: gotta do what ya gotta do though.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
You were inferring the right to drive, don't be facetious.
If a set of laws doesn't agree with the Constitution/bill of rights, then it is invalid.
Your argument of 2 different things, merging them into one, smooth.
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
You were inferring the right to drive, don't be facetious.
If a set of laws doesn't agree with the Constitution/bill of rights, then it is invalid.
Your argument of 2 different things, merging them into one, smooth.
Exactly what mechanism of representative democracy defends minorities against the will of the majority?
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
You were inferring the right to drive, don't be facetious.
If a set of laws doesn't agree with the Constitution/bill of rights, then it is invalid.
Your argument of 2 different things, merging them into one, smooth.
which are just as unconstitutional
Jetackuu said: »
which are just as unconstitutional
The fact of the matter is the 2nd amendment is vague and archaic.
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Exactly what mechanism of representative democracy defends minorities against the will of the majority?
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
which are just as unconstitutional
The fact of the matter is the 2nd amendment is vague and archaic.
the lack of the conviction to fight it, same reason a lot of injustices remain, unfortunately, we've managed to create a too reasonable/content society with too few willing to stand up for themselves.
Jetackuu said: »
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Exactly what mechanism of representative democracy defends minorities against the will of the majority?
Representatives are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents and are voted in by majority.
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Exactly what mechanism of representative democracy defends minorities against the will of the majority?
Representatives are supposed to represent the best interests of their constituents regardless of what they want and are voted in by majority.
That doesn't change anything.
They're not unconstitutional.
The Constitution ensures your right to keep and bare arms, this ranges from guns to daggers. It does not however encompass all forms of weaponry, despite its phrasing. It would be a naive assumption to consider that a right.
The Constitution ensures your right to keep and bare arms, this ranges from guns to daggers. It does not however encompass all forms of weaponry, despite its phrasing. It would be a naive assumption to consider that a right.
In case you haven't noticed, opinions don't alter reality.
The only real recourse the minority has is the legal system.
[+]
Who is more foolish, the fool or the people trying to argue with him ?
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
They're not unconstitutional.
The Constitution ensures your right to keep and bare arms, this ranges from guns to daggers. It does not however encompass all forms of weaponry, despite its phrasing. It would be a naive assumption to consider that a right.
The Constitution ensures your right to keep and bare arms, this ranges from guns to daggers. It does not however encompass all forms of weaponry, despite its phrasing. It would be a naive assumption to consider that a right.
I wouldn't call it naive to encompass all types of arms as "arms"
[+]
His modification changes it a lot, actually.
@Jet: I'm going to have to disagree. I can support your right to own a gun. I can support your right to own ammunition. I can't support your right to have a cannon, a bomb, a military class plane, a military class boat, anti-aircraft weaponry, don't make me continue into the extreme.
@Jet: I'm going to have to disagree. I can support your right to own a gun. I can support your right to own ammunition. I can't support your right to have a cannon, a bomb, a military class plane, a military class boat, anti-aircraft weaponry, don't make me continue into the extreme.
[+]
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
In case you haven't noticed, opinions don't alter reality.
[+]
I didn't actually post anything.. I went to hit the TOP button and hit post in my daze of sleepyness.. and it posted nothing..
Jetackuu said: »
it is to restrict guns to the point of an effective ban.
I wouldn't call it naive to encompass all types of arms as "arms"
I wouldn't call it naive to encompass all types of arms as "arms"
Quote:
California law[18] provides that the Sheriff of a county or a city Police Chief may issue a license to carry a concealed weapon upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character and that good cause exists for the issuance.[19] While it is generally believed to be extremely difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) in California, the difficulty varies greatly by city and county of residence.[20] In some rural counties, qualified applicants are usually successful in obtaining a license, while some cities and counties, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, are extremely restrictive in what they perceive to be "good cause".
EDIT: Along with the bans to specific ammo and gun classes.
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
His modification changes it a lot, actually.
No it doesn't.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The only real recourse the minority has is the legal system.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
it is to restrict guns to the point of an effective ban.
I wouldn't call it naive to encompass all types of arms as "arms"
I wouldn't call it naive to encompass all types of arms as "arms"
Quote:
California law[18] provides that the Sheriff of a county or a city Police Chief may issue a license to carry a concealed weapon upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character and that good cause exists for the issuance.[19] While it is generally believed to be extremely difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) in California, the difficulty varies greatly by city and county of residence.[20] In some rural counties, qualified applicants are usually successful in obtaining a license, while some cities and counties, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, are extremely restrictive in what they perceive to be "good cause".
yeah, that's rather stupid.
I find it hilarious that some people would blindly accept anything written on a piece of paper in the 1780s.
It has been amended more than 25 times to adapt to a changing society, what makes you think it can't be changed again? The US would probably not exist today if people had followed the constitution to the letter.
It has been amended more than 25 times to adapt to a changing society, what makes you think it can't be changed again? The US would probably not exist today if people had followed the constitution to the letter.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The only real recourse the minority has is the legal system.
Until the minority gains enough voting clout (population) and support within the majority to gain the support of a majority of representatives.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.