We are about to lose some freedom...

I stated this as speculation and not fact. The speculation of professionals in the business and one member of the FCC panel. Forgive the typo my eyes are blurry today. How is it different? Let me ask you this, if it wasn't different then why are they passing this thing without making it public? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Companies WILL do this. They WILL be required to do that. Sounds like a statement of fact...

Really? Are people knocking on your door, questioning you about your political posts on the internet? Dragging you out of your home and putting you in a political prison for extended periods of time? This isn't a soviet style anything. Pure hyperbole. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You didn't answer my question. Why can't we see the proposed regulations before the vote? The Frderal Communication Commission is not communicating. Enacting laws in private without comment is not how a free country operates.

Prove it. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Prove it???? Are you nuts and completely unaware?

Shaneen Allen had a concealed carry permit which she got after she was a victim of a crime. It was from Pennsylvania. She was arrested after she was stopped in New Jersey for a traffic violation. She volunteered that she had a weapon and a permit. She committed no crime. She is facing three years (after losing her job and the threatened loss of her two children) in prison for playing by the rules and being honest.

http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf...in_prison.html

Gordon VanGilder is looking at 10 years in prison for having a 300 year old, antique firearm in his car. He had just purchased the weapon and was driving it home. He is a 72 year old, retired school teacher with a spotless record.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/0...o-had-antique/

It was just approved...Big surprise!

I guess we'll get to see what's in it now.

Prove it???? Are you nuts and completely unaware?

Shaneen Allen had a concealed carry permit which she got after she was a victim of a crime. It was from Pennsylvania. She was arrested after she was stopped in New Jersey for a traffic violation. She volunteered that she had a weapon and a permit. She committed no crime. She is facing three years (after losing her job and the threatened loss of her two children) in prison for playing by the rules and being honest.

http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf...in_prison.html

Gordon VanGilder is looking at 10 years in prison for having a 300 year old, antique firearm in his car. He had just purchased the weapon and was driving it home. He is a 72 year old, retired school teacher with a spotless record.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/0...o-had-antique/ Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

TWO examples? That's it? Does not a pattern indicate.

TWO examples? That's it? Does not a pattern indicate. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Just another bullshit artist ehhh? I give you two (when you implied that there were none) and then you ask for five. I give you five and you ask for ten. That is your childish game. Face it, I put it out there, I was right, and you are either uninformed and an idiot....only you know which is true.

Just another bullshit artist ehhh? I give you two (when you implied that there were none) and then you ask for five. I give you five and you ask for ten. That is your childish game. Face it, I put it out there, I was right, and you are either uninformed and an idiot....only you know which is true. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Your beef is with new jersey. Not my fault they have strict gun laws. And I think I remember you arguing for state's rights at some point... Hmmmm

Why do refuse to answer my question, OverCompensation?

Why do refuse to answer my question, OverCompensation? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I have no idea. Neither do you. That won't stop you from making some shit up though.

You don't know why you won't answer my question? Have you sought therapy? My question is, do you think it is proper, in a free society, for the government to draft laws and enact them without the public being able to see and comment on them first?

You don't know why you won't answer my question? Have you sought therapy? My question is, do you think it is proper, in a free society, for the government to draft laws and enact them without the public being able to see and comment on them first? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Goddamn, I said I had no idea. It's this the first time its happened? You act like everything that happens is the first time and unprecedented.

Here's your butt buddies at fox doing what they do best

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/81...y-barack-obama

I guess answering a question is too difficult for you. And FYI, I don't watch FOX news. I don't even have cable. FOX is no different than CNN, MSNBC, or the rest of the state-controlled media.

You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

Your beef is with new jersey. Not my fault they have strict gun laws. And I think I remember you arguing for state's rights at some point... Hmmmm Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You just fucked yourself. I have not spoken about states right in some time and you've misrepresented what I said. You are someone else who has either been banned or has been pretty much marginalized if you "remember" what I wrote months ago. I'm taking you out of the picture and putting you on ignore. I encourage everyone else to do the same with this lying sack of shit.

Your beef is with new jersey. Not my fault they have strict gun laws. And I think I remember you arguing for state's rights at some point... Hmmmm Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

The matter of states Rights enters into the picture when there isn't a specific Constitutional issue. The Constitution always, or should, trump any State Law.

For instance, Gay Marriage, Rducation, Abortion, etc. There is no mention of any of these in our Constitution. In fact , the Contitution plainly states that issues not raised in the Document are reserved for the States and the People.

http://constitutioncenter.org/consti...tes-and-people

The Constitution specifically addresses Gun ownership in The 2d Amendment. Only because we The People have allowed such a warped and convoluted interpretation have States such as New Jersey been allowed to pass these draconian laws concerning a right of the People that is layed out quite specifically in our Constitution.

The Constitution specifically addresses Gun ownership in The 2d Amendment. Only because we The People have allowed such a warped and convoluted interpretation have States such as New Jersey been allowed to pass these draconian laws concerning a right of the People that is layed out quite specifically in our Constitution. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Your OPINION. The 2nd Amendment is very non-specific.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We can argue all day and night as to what gun rights, and to whom these rights, are granted by the 2nd Amendment. And after arguing all day and night we will probably not agree. The states cannot agree. The courts cannot agree. The 9 members of SCOTUS cannot agree. Yet YOU know EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment states and how it MUST BE interpreted.

Give me a break.