New Colorado gun laws..

[def90]

now now.

Yousee.. freedom as per your explanation and argument would be that local municipalities to create laws that may be more restrictive than the state or that they may be less restrictive than the state. This would be freedom of each municipality to make laws according to the desires of their populace. Creating a law that only allows local municipalities to make more restrictive so they can only go one direction on the dial is a loss of freedom even if that municipalitie agrees with making them more restrictive.

Having the menu option of choosing meat or vegetarian is freedom of choice, only having an option for vegetarian even if you are a vegetarian is not freedom of choice. Pretty simple.

 

[Newtosavage]

Yousee.. freedom as per your explanation and argument would be that local municipalities to create laws that may be more restrictive than the state or that they may be less restrictive than the state. This would be freedom of each municipality to make laws according to the desires of their populace. Creating a law that only allows local municipalities to make more restrictive so they can only go one direction on the dial is a loss of freedom even if that municipalitie agrees with making them more restrictive.

Having the menu option of choosing meat or vegetarian is freedom of choice, only having an option for vegetarian even if you are a vegetarian is not freedom of choice. Pretty simple.

I can see how some would interpret it that way.

@def90 and everyone else trying argue logic. You're wasting your time and being setup. The game is to irritate/agitate and toe the line of insult as closely as possible. Then you will cross the imaginary line and be accused of making a personal attack, and how it was just one man's opinion being shared. Then others will agree with your comment and the victim card can be played.

204, you're lucky some others here could actually argue the point for you. What they've said makes sense. What you're doing is nothing more than adding a "so there" at the end. LOL

 

[204guy]

 

[5MilesBack]

Would have helped if they had defined "arms" and "well regulated militia" so we didn't spend the next 250 years arguing over their definition.

As far as the 2A goes.......it's pretty clear in regards to "Arms"........"shall not be infringed". So there you go.........Arms is wide open and yet not open to infringement. No restrictions noted.

In regard to the "well regulated militia".......a finite definition really has no bearing on the last half of the 2A. It's pretty safe to say that not ALL people would be part of the militia, but the Founding Fathers saw fit to add into the 2A "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". That means "the people"......."all the people"......not just those in some form of state sponsored militia's. Otherwise it would have said "the right of those people that are part of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms".

 

[def90]

Yeah, a lot of "people" like to ignore the phrase "the people" in the second amendment as it's either just a little bit inconvenient for their agenda or they really are just dumb as rocks and don't get it.