Red Dot Arms Forum

(12-30-2015, 12:31 PM)LisaJarratt Wrote: [ -> ]Illinois Law Declares Second Amendment Is Not an Individual Right

Sounds like your State is doing what CA is trying to do. Which is to REMOVE the 2nd completely.

Why do some people (liberals) always say we misunderstood the founding fathers? Wouldn't it be easier to ask the founding fathers rather than guess. What was George Mason's response when he was asked who the militia was? "...I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials".

What's funny is liberals have never concerned themselves with what the founders meant. We had prayer in schools for 190 years and then one day we woke up and without one word changed it was unconstitutional which means that's not what founders meant.

We have a mechanism to make changes that the founders didn't mean, but that requires an amendment. Without that you are saying the founders meant how you interpret it.

So not only did the next 10 generations not know what the founders meant, apparently neither did the founders.

Liberals are only concerned regarding the 2nd because the founders made that so blatantly obvious that it cannot honestly be interpreted any other way, so they pull out the dishonesty.

They're also having a good go at re-interpreting the 1st amendment.

(12-31-2015, 08:49 AM)British Gunner Wrote: [ -> ]They're also having a good go at re-interpreting the 1st amendment.

Just like most liberals and others that want to prove "their" point, they tend to distort the meanings of this important document to fit their specific agenda.

George Orwell in his book "1984" said the first thing to do to control people is to change the meaning of words. Between Orwell and Rand, they had pretty good insight into the modern progressive agenda.

(12-31-2015, 08:39 AM)Dutz Wrote: [ -> ]What's funny is liberals have never concerned themselves with what the founders meant. We had prayer in schools for 190 years and then one day we woke up and without one word changed it was unconstitutional which means that's not what founders meant.

We have a mechanism to make changes that the founders didn't mean, but that requires an amendment. Without that you are saying the founders meant how you interpret it.

So not only did the next 10 generations not know what the founders meant, apparently neither did the founders.

Liberals are only concerned regarding the 2nd because the founders made that so blatantly obvious that it cannot honestly be interpreted any other way, so they pull out the dishonesty.

Good point! LOL

(12-31-2015, 10:57 AM)British Gunner Wrote: [ -> ]George Orwell in his book "1984" said the first thing to do to control people is to change the meaning of words. Between Orwell and Rand, they had pretty good insight into the modern progressive agenda.

OHHHH... don't get me started on how the meanings of words or association to words have changed!

I tried doing a bit of research on this and one point I have a question on is although it has HB0855 on it, it is titled House Resolution (not bill). So I looked up the difference and this is what it says on GovTrack: https://www.govtrack.us/blog/2009/11/11/...-of-bills/ . If HB0855 is in fact a resolution, not a bill, then I don't think we need to worry about any changes to law....yet. Any other ideas? Did I miss anything here?

(12-31-2015, 03:10 PM)ssphoto Wrote: [ -> ]I tried doing a bit of research on this and one point I have a question on is although it has HB0855 on it, it is titled House Resolution (not bill). So I looked up the difference and this is what it says on GovTrack: https://www.govtrack.us/blog/2009/11/11/...-of-bills/ . If HB0855 is in fact a resolution, not a bill, then I don't think we need to worry about any changes to law....yet. Any other ideas? Did I miss anything here?

I was wondering how anyone thought a state could enact a law that says the Constitution does not apply to them, or a law that says they can take upon themselves the role of U.S. Supreme Court.

It made no sense.

It makes perfect sense to know that all they are saying is we just like to hear ourselves blather nonsense, and we want to put this particular set of blathering to paper so others can read it and know how stupid we are.

(12-31-2015, 03:10 PM)ssphoto Wrote: [ -> ]I tried doing a bit of research on this and one point I have a question on is although it has HB0855 on it, it is titled House Resolution (not bill). So I looked up the difference and this is what it says on GovTrack: https://www.govtrack.us/blog/2009/11/11/...-of-bills/ . If HB0855 is in fact a resolution, not a bill, then I don't think we need to worry about any changes to law....yet. Any other ideas? Did I miss anything here?

Nope this isn't a law, it is a bill. I think we always need to be alerted to any legislation. Just one piece that gets through though, is a gateway for lawyers to have their hay day in court with it to use as another piece to get through.

(12-31-2015, 04:22 PM)LisaJarratt Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2015, 03:10 PM)ssphoto Wrote: [ -> ]I tried doing a bit of research on this and one point I have a question on is although it has HB0855 on it, it is titled House Resolution (not bill). So I looked up the difference and this is what it says on GovTrack: https://www.govtrack.us/blog/2009/11/11/...-of-bills/ . If HB0855 is in fact a resolution, not a bill, then I don't think we need to worry about any changes to law....yet. Any other ideas? Did I miss anything here?

Nope this isn't a law, it is a bill. I think we always need to be alerted to any legislation. Just one piece that gets through though, is a gateway for lawyers to have their hay day in court with it to use as another piece to get through.

Actually, if it is just a resolution, it is not even a bill. I bill can become law, a resolution cannot. I resolution is just a way of the legislature saying, "please listen to me blather".