Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
"get that crap off the lawn"...Oklahoma Supreme Court says...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Overpaid Union Thug" data-source="post: 1717406" data-attributes="member: 198"><p>I don't believe their should be absolutely no restrictions but very few. In my opinion convicted felons and other habitual criminals shouldn't be permitted to carry but be able to protect their homes. But the NFA and the entity that enforces it is a farce. The Second Amendment is very clear. The laws proceeding the amendment (and were used as a model for it) and the reasons for them obviously were meant to give the average Joe the ability to arm themselves. The restrictions then we're mainly on who and not what.The benefit of the right to bear arms was even more obvious when it was time to fight the British and whoever else need be. The idea that the right to bear arms only existed in order to serve in a militia is flawed for many reasons and they go back all the way to pre colonial times.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Overpaid Union Thug, post: 1717406, member: 198"] I don't believe their should be absolutely no restrictions but very few. In my opinion convicted felons and other habitual criminals shouldn't be permitted to carry but be able to protect their homes. But the NFA and the entity that enforces it is a farce. The Second Amendment is very clear. The laws proceeding the amendment (and were used as a model for it) and the reasons for them obviously were meant to give the average Joe the ability to arm themselves. The restrictions then we're mainly on who and not what.The benefit of the right to bear arms was even more obvious when it was time to fight the British and whoever else need be. The idea that the right to bear arms only existed in order to serve in a militia is flawed for many reasons and they go back all the way to pre colonial times. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
"get that crap off the lawn"...Oklahoma Supreme Court says...
Top