The ignore it
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
people are wondering ....what the definition of ....is.....is.
Yes on the reading comprehension. How is it with reading Oklahoma statutes?
I CANNOT support this as long as Paragraph "B", or any part of it, is included. Paragraph "B" contradicts Paragraph "A" in its entirety. Most of all, a "compelling state interest" is only suitable in dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies, oligarchies, meritocracies, autocracies, tyrannies, and all other such forms of government where the people are disarmed and subjugated.
I see this proposal as a sugarcoated central core of government overreach. The core - Paragraph "B" - is the overreach of government power and the sugarcoating is Paragraphs "A" and "C". It sounds good in the beginning and ends on a high note, but the central core of government overreach is so discordant that it turns the whole proposal into a funeral dirge for our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Paragraphs "A" and "B" could all be written into one paragraph. There is no need to parse the whole in two other than to insert the poison pill.
Put your logic to work here, folks. Don't be tempted to pull this out of the box of chocolates and bite into it until you have at least read the ingredients. Fitoo! Yuck! Blah! GAG!
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
I see this proposal as a sugarcoated central core of government overreach. The core - Paragraph "B" - is the overreach of government power and the sugarcoating is Paragraphs "A" and "C". It sounds good in the beginning and ends on a high note, but the central core of government overreach is so discordant that it turns the whole proposal into a funeral dirge for our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Paragraphs "A" and "B" could all be written into one paragraph. There is no need to parse the whole in two other than to insert the poison pill.
Put your logic to work here, folks. Don't be tempted to pull this out of the box of chocolates and bite into it until you have at least read the ingredients. Fitoo! Yuck! Blah! GAG!
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
I'm afraid that what it would do is give people a feel good reason to believe that the change fixed what was wrong, when in fact it doesn't, and then there wouldn't be enough support to change it again in the future.
If there are any changes to be made to this part of the State Constitution it should be to remove everything past the semicolon. Period.
Last edited:
With no point of reference, "narrowly" is somewhat like saying "over yonder."
It can mean whatever they say it means in the future.
It can mean whatever they say it means in the future.
Lets hear what @sturgisrun has to say about it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Anyone know what the OHP, etc we’re doing at the AG’s office most of today?- Latest: Glock 'em down
-
-
-
[Sale/Trade] Beautiful BEAST! LNIB Smith & Wesson 500 Mangum W/ 8-3/8 barrel. Leupold Pistol Scope & Ammo!- Latest: Aim small Miss small
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
