1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

For your consideration

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by DammitBoy, Nov 23, 2012.

  1. srawl

    srawl Well-Known Member

    I understand the point but adding laws when laws need to be removed doesnt make much sense...
  2. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Well-Known Member

    Shane - the proposal eliminates many restrictions on firearm owners - one new law that eliminates about two dozen horrible infringements - not even counting states restrictions.
  3. CZguy

    CZguy Well-Known Member

    In my state laws are seldom repealed, they just stop enforcing them.

    We still have ones on the books to have a man walk ahead of a car to warn people so the horses won't be startled.

    I'm certainly not saying that this is the right way to do things, I'm just acknowledging that that's how it done in Missouri.
  4. guyfromohio

    guyfromohio Well-Known Member

    Let's then issue a national ID card for 1st amendment rights. Must read/write English....must attend formal liberal arts degree program.... must agree with POTUS....

    Slippery slope.
  5. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Well-Known Member

    I agree, speaking English should be a requirement of citizenship.

    Guessing you never had to get a permit to legally assemble and exercise your right to free speech? Or are you referring to the huge amount of laws States have that infringe upon our freedom of speech?

    Because there are a bunch of States/Cities infringing upon your right to bear arms...

    Notice how one of those things is not like the other?
  6. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    My state do not infringe on my rights to the extent that the fed does

    No, there wasn't- I worked in the energy industry at that time - there was no actual shortage at all

    Yes I did read it - Nowhere does it say eliminate the NICS; dammitboy was just saying how well it worked - why do you think a centralized federal gov't control over your guns is such a good idea?

    Right........if you truly think that NYC, DC, Chicago and the like won't set the rules, you are badly mistaken - national soft drink rule? not too far behind, but places like I mentioned will sure have input, even if it is to make the costs so prohibitive you can't own a gun.
    As to shipping, there aren't a whole lot of regulations now, except involving handguns - which will just get more difficult - you will watch gun shows and FTF sales become illegal, you'll see only brick and mortar FFL's be allowed to do a transfer - and there will be a federal tax in that, you'll see so much added crap stuck into bills here and there - like is done now - that the 2nd will go away from a civilian standpoint

    You folks need to revisit Germany in the 30's, and every other regime that instituted some form of gun registration and see what happened
  7. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Well-Known Member

    Well as long as your State doesn't, I guess it's all good! :rolleyes:

    You keep referring to more and more of our gun rights being trampled upon, what's your solution to stop it? I see you badmouthing this person's proposal - but zero positive input on your part.

    Are you just resigned to the idea that eventually we will lose the right to bear arms?
  8. Axel Larson

    Axel Larson Well-Known Member

    The solution from my stand point is to keep fighting off bad legislation and to keep giving money when we can to the NRA and other related organizations, as well as to write your senators and congressmen.
    We have won major battles recently DC handgun ban was lifted.
    It is slow, it is painful but we are getting there.
    I would love the NFA to be repealed but not at the cost of the federal government having more play in what happens.
    And the ATF would be involved even more, anyone forgot about fast and furious yet?
  9. guyfromohio

    guyfromohio Well-Known Member

    Honestly .... I would dig my heels in far further to the right, but might be satisfied with that scenario. I already have an ID CHL with my state.... why not a national one?
  10. justice06rr

    justice06rr Well-Known Member

    I would probably only agree with #5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

    The rest is really debatable. I understand the person who made the proposal did it with good intentions, but there are just too many factors to consider.

    Although its great that it proposes to even the playing field on firearms laws/regulations on a national level, it will be debated and argued to death and never come to an agreeable outcome for everyone involved.
  11. thecarfarmer

    thecarfarmer Well-Known Member

    Well, what I've seen out of governments - state, federal, local... doesn't matter which... once they get their foot in the door, they keep inching along, until they get what they wanted.

    Once any government is allowed to oversee/regulate/control something, they will then have an office to do so. The document which allows them control generally is worded so that their scope of oversight is allowed to be expanded - by themselves.

    From the standpoint of staying free, allowing the government to start a new program of oversight is kinda' like allowing Col. Sanders to guard your chicken coop, isn't it?

  12. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    OK folks - for those who think that giving in to the antis and libs so you can have a national Gun ID is a great idea with no downside:


    here is a lib calling for liberal control of free speech - if you folks REALLY think you will win, you are so sadly mistaken. Try reading history about what Nazi Germany did to gun owners and every other socialist government

    You want a big central government making the rules? Why not compromise and push for abolishing the states and having us all live under one big central socialist government? Think of the cost savings, think of the minimalizing of states rules against gun ownership;
    "“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

    you folks really need to rethink this BS, because you are giving up freedoms without getting anything from the antis - they l;earned their stance well from Stalin - it is called "Soviet Style Negotiations" - it means there is no "win-win" scenario - it means they win you lose....been there done that on corporate mergers and have had my fair share of doing the negotiations
    YOU will have to compromise, and when you ask them to do so after you give in, they will not

    Look at the news about the current Fiscal Cliff - the lib stance is "give us tax hikes now and we will discuss spending cuts later"

    If you think, when it comes to guns, you are going to win, you are blind to reality

    You will give and give - more than we did in 1968 and 1986, and you will get squat and go home thinking you won.............
  13. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Well-Known Member

    What some seem to either not grasp, or are else comfortable with, is that every power of the federal government is gained by usurping and superceding the power of a state government. Power given away is all but impossible to peacably reclaim. Our Founders SPECIFICALLY FORBADE the federal government to regulate firearms for this very reason!

    As a Texan, I simply should not have to sit by and allow California, New York, New Jersey, or Illinois to have any say in how my rights are exercised in my home state. They shouldn't even get a vote, not even a seat at the table, not even a voice in the discussion. I do not CARE what compromise they think would be "reasonable", because I shouldn't have to compromise with them.

    All bad precedents begin as "reasonable" expediencies.

    I am not a Texas Secessionist, but I understand the anger and fear that drives it. Just in the past month, our president tried - TRIED - to force the State of Texas to submit to regulatory oversight of our voting process BY EUROPEANS - apparently to ensure that we're obeying our own law. Not including that incident, by my count the current governor and AG have filed suit against the US government SIX times to obtain legal injuctions against unconstitutional infrigements of the State's legal rights and authority.

    I don't trust the federal government - especially this one - to regulate car exhaust, much less my RKBA.

    No compromise.
  14. srawl

    srawl Well-Known Member

    "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."

    It doesnt say anything about type of guns or who should own them... its a right of the people that "shall not" be infringed... if anything we should have the same weapons as the military in order to form that "well regulated militia." The laws shouldnt have been passed in the first place. Something needs done (which we all agree) but the idea of the a national ID card when we all have state IDs recognized by the national government doesnt seem like the answer... to many variables...
  15. Warp

    Warp Well-Known Member

    I stopped at #1 as it is a violation of the Second Amendment.
  16. srawl

    srawl Well-Known Member

  17. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Texan Scott said it well enough that I'm just going to shamelessly plagiarize and edit. If I were a Texan, I wouldn't even edit.
  18. Warp

    Warp Well-Known Member

    I understand why you feel that way, but even Arkansas is part of the United States and is subject to Federal law.
  19. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Well-Known Member

    The point being made here is that the proposed federal law to which we would be "subject" (subjected) would be flagrantly unconstitutional, for reasons previously propounded. We aren't arguing that we shouldn't obey federal law; only that the other States (using the federal legislature as a mechanism) lack authority, and so should not be permitted, to infringe the RKBA outside their own borders.
  20. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Well-Known Member

    Scott, are you saying it's ok for states to infringe upon the rkba inside their borders?

Share This Page