56 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
About time someone told them off good. Maybe they'll listen to someone directly from that situation telling the other side of it, for once. Now, if only that parent can help straighten out a few of the grieving parents so they'll quit blaming anyone other than the one who did it.
Nobody is taking your rights away from you
There are no proposed laws that would prevent you from owning a gun, unless you have something in your past that would get flagged by a background check.
Have you not read the proposals? A complete ban on hunting rifles with added cosmetics, AKA "Assault Rifles" and their standard magazines.
can't vouch it, haven't research, but a background for ammo?
Heard today there is even a proposal for a background check to buy ammo. Seems the desire is to require a permit to buy anything similar almost to a conceal weapon permit.
One guy actually surprise me, in that he objected more to the concealed weapon permit being a cash cow to local sheriff office rather than to the requirements itself. You have to apply in your county of residence, and every sheriff department sets the fee itself, no state standard. I have to say that begs for abuse.
It seems in NC, even though the permit is statewide, each county sheriff is totally autonomous in granting concealed weapon permits. They run a background check, but the sheriff is the final authority, if you jilted his sister forget it. Unless you make a suitable campaign contribution and help his election of course. No appeal. Two people with roughly the same background, say a few small infractions years ago, one may get a permit, one won't.
I'm not all that fond of conceal carry, but that is obviously a set up that begs abuse. I'd agree to the local LEO having the decision, but there should be an appeal process.
Interesting, not verified again, but it seems you have to have the permit to buy from your home county even when you're buying elsewhere. Again that is a state permit, but it seems administration (and charges) are entirely controlled by local head sheriff.
Thank God . . .
I live in Texas. Our governor is telling gun manufacturers to move to Texas because of much lower taxes and more relaxed gun laws. And local authorities have no veto rights on the state concealed handgun law.
I do possess a CHL and have for years, and I carry a small .380 with laser sight every time I leave the house. I've signed up with the State to get certified as a CHL instructor, and have also signed up for the NRA certification courses. Retirement is great BTW, lots of free time.
There is also a motion (just talk right now) in the senate for open carry. I'm not too fond of that, but I don't make the laws. And even if it did pass (like Georgia and other states) I doubt if I'd open carry.
Good for you Wayne,you live in the USA......
I'm here,in the "people's republic of NJ" which is a "may issue" state.
FWIW..NC is "shall issue",the sheriff must issue the permit if you meet the criteria or find himself in court.
I'll pass that the gun guys who told me that
they know a lot more about it than I do, since they have several guns. At least two of the ones talking have a concealed permit. Of course, if they drive to work with it, they can be fired. They can't pick their kids up at school with a gun in the car, or face heavy penalities. You can't carry in a bank or post office, almost every business has a no carry placard on the door meaning you can't carry within.
Honestly, I'm doubt you could legally carry your gun except on a Sunday drive without breaking someone rule or law.
Most business still don't allow employees to have guns on the property, not even in the vehicle.
PS, in the rural areas here
often what the law seems to say and how it gets applied doesn't match.
good ole' boy neighborhoods you know.
......is on new sales. Nobody is proposing or suggesting any effort to take away the ones you already have.
That also goes to the NRA's claim that the 1994 ban "didn't work." That was also only a ban on new sales and had no effect on the assault weapons already out there. Any such legislation will need more than a ten-year trial, to account for the expected lifespan of an average gun of that type.
If it's to be a felony
just slap'em with some hot lead. Might as well make it worth the charge.
I don't see how something like that could work...
....or even be legal. You can't force someone to give up something they bought legally, and not only lose what they bought but lose the money they paid for it. I can see a voluntary buy-back program -- those have been pretty successful -- but a confiscatory law, I don't see it passing muster.
Does it surprise you . . .
that the anti-gun lobby is trying it?
It's clear that you are not a staunch second amendment supporter and therefore not prone to keeping up with the current legislation. But the anti-gun lobby is actually trying to make registration mandatory and therefore they will have a list of all gun owners when they try to confiscate our guns. This is a fact.
First of all....
......it isn't the "anti-gun lobby" that's trying that. It's apparently one group of legislators in one state. According to this article the people who proposed it don't really expect it to go anywhere; it was just to make a statement.
Secondly, I do support the second amendment. I just don't think it means that anybody can own as much of anything as they want with absolutely no accountability.
Thirdly, no, it is not a fact. Registration is not some plot to confiscate your guns. It's only a plot to be able to better trace them when a crime is committed, and to give police a better idea of what might be behind the door when they enter a house.
Do you really needs a assault weapon to kill a deer? And how many rounds do you need?
I'm not a gun owner myself
and often wonder about the guns in our country.
However, the right to own guns doesn't say you have a right to have a gun for hunting.
It says you have a right to arms. I don't really want the guy down the road practicing with an RPG on the back forty, but many argue the second amendment right is to allow individuals to fight off the military in the case of the government becoming a despotic one.
Then it's rather an odd paradox....
.....that those same people argue furiously against any cuts in military spending. You'd think if they wanted to be able to defeat the US military in a war then they'd want to level the playing field a bit more.
I'd not want to speculate that, in the case
of an actual revolt, the (entire) military would stand with any country's leadership. Military personnel are people too.
I would think.....
....that nearly the entire military would stand against an attempt by a president to establish a totalitarian government. Plus, there are so many other legal and Constitutional safeguards in place to prevent such a thing that to fear it is a bit ridiculous.
I agree that it seems rather far fetched but
it will take more than an act of congress to undo the spirit and intent of the second amendment. Anyone who thinks keeping arms was just meant for hunting or protection from thieves and indian (native american) attacks has it all wrong.
That's why so many worry about a step by step
I'd say it was completely paranoid, but government works that way sometimes. Good things happen that way too, not overnight, but bit by bit.
Step by step processes
You're talking about temporary taxes, right?
or temporary tax cuts?
depending on who is revolting and why
how much I hope most of the military stands with or against the federal government.
But I understand what you mean, if a president tried to stage a military coup it would probably fail.
Of course, normally it's the army brass that stages a coup, not an elected official. Still the military would fracture I expect. Some would probably feel they could trust their own generals more than any civilian.
Read Feinstein's bill ...
then say that with a straight face Josh.
The discussion should not be about banning weapons of any sort but about Congress LACKING any authority to do such a thing because Congress was forbidden to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms equivalent to those of the military.
The Second Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights because the delegates to the Ratification Conventions DEMANDED them as a pre-condition to ratification. The Founders told the worried citizens who had just fought a war and were concerned about this new government treating citizens as King George did that the new government had LIMITED POWERS and had no power to do ANY of the acts the Bill of Rights forbid any government authority over.
The firearms under discussion are the very type of arms that the founders had in mind, arms equivalent to those carried by American or Foreign soldiers.
Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania even indicated in his statement that the founders anticipated technological advances because during their own lifetimes they had seen such - "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tench Coxe in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." --Zacharia Johnson, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson`s "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -- Samuel Adams, delegate to Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
And George Mason of Virginia sounds like he anticipated Obama and crowd - "If, at any time, our rulers should have unjust and iniquitous designs against our liberties, and should wish to establish a standing army, the first attempt would be to render the service and use of militia odious to the people themselves--subjecting them to unnecessary severity of discipline in time of peace, confining them under martial law, and disgusting them so much as to make them cry out, "Give us a standing army!" I would wish to have some check to exclude this danger; as, that the militia should never be subject to martial law but in time of war. I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil. By these amendments I would give necessary powers, but no unnecessary power. If the clause stands as it is now, it will take from the state legislatures what divine Providence has given to every individual--the means of self-defence." -- Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
RE: bear arms equivalent to those of the military.
YOU get a tank! ......YOU get a tank! ........ YOU get a tank!.. . .... EVERYONE GETS A TANK!
You can buy plate steel
and make a tank if you wish. Plate steel and two inch multiple laminated polycarbonate vision panels. Gas mileage will suffer though and better start with a semi-tractor diesel frame to build upon.
Never mind tanks, I want nukes
If Ed's right and private citizens should be able to have anything our military has, then I want nuclear warheads. I want to keep them in my apartment. If my neighbors complain I have the Constitution behind me.
I also want bunker-buster bombs to take care of noisy downstairs neighbors.
We need to make it an Act of Treason
for anyone to interfere with the Second Amendment and even to seek to infringe it to any degree.
Why so much in USA?
Why is so important to use guns in USA and not in Europe? And second amendment say about militias. Are they still in USA?