Bill Would Let Legal Gun Owners Carry Weapons Around Country

[NavyLCDR]

I am heartened by the warm welcome newcomers receive here. Especially if they disagree with you. The libs call us intolerant of others. It would appear that they peeked in this forum to get that characterization. Anyone who disagrees with the hardcore few gets soundly thrashed.

Last time I looked, forums like this were a good way to debate ideas, principles, and concepts. People could post experiences and have reasonable expectation that they wouldn't be bullied. Times have changed. Now it seems like a group of 5 or 6 people sitting in a circle pulling each others puds.

Either you want honest debate or you want to holler and thump your chests. Which is it?

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Because you just have given the Feds the right to enforce something that is outside their enumerated rights in the Constitution. And once the camel has its nose under the tent flap, it soon is inside.

I agree with you there S&W!

This part if for the sheeple who just can't get it through their thick skulls...
I just don't get it. Are you guys who want a national carry fuking dense or what?!
What part of the God damn Guberment has NO God damn authority to do shyte don't you friggin understand!?!
Read the God damn Constitution and BOR for Christ sake...
You want to hand over power to the gov to regulate something they have no authority over and you think WE don't get it?!
Move on.... You're dismissed..

Link RemovedLink RemovedLink Removed

 

[maybejim]

Sorry but your imagination is running wild with no relationship to the facts. All or nothing gets us nothing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Sorry but your imagination is running wild with no relationship to the facts. All or nothing gets us nothing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

How bout you get off your arse and fight to get the laws changed?
Just because the elected royalty in your location thinks y'all are to stupid to have a gun does not mean that I have to suffer.
Cowboy up ladies and handle your own business.

"By ballot or by bullet, restoration is coming".

 

[NavyLCDR]

Sorry but your imagination is running wild with no relationship to the facts. All or nothing gets us nothing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

Refusing to support one bill that has great potential for abuse by the Federal government as proven by their past track record [18 USC 922 (b)(3) cited as an example] is hardly all or nothing. It is your thinking that is all or nothing regarding this.

 

[Bikenut]

Sorry but your imagination is running wild with no relationship to the facts. All or nothing gets us nothing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

Supporting more gun control power for the government isn't a step forward for gun rights but is the exact opposite of giving more power to control guns to the government.

Just looking at the bill itself doesn't take into consideration that any Federal bill that makes carry permits a commodity that crosses State lines gives the Federal government the ability to control (regulate/set standards for) carry permits through the commerce clause.

Trying to present that intentionally handing an increase in power to the government that "shall not be infringed" was written to prevent as some kind of baby step for regaining the right to bear arms is at best an indication of not understanding what a right actually is, along with an unwillingness to look at the big picture in the context of what the government does with even the smallest bit of power and, at worst is a transparent attempt to use an excuse to justify the selfish desire to gain a privilege at the expense of the right to bear arms.

If something is a right why is it necessary to beg for permission... and why would anyone think that taking the step of begging for more permission has anything to do with a step for regaining a right?

If folks had any kind of intellectual honesty about this national reciprocity thing they would not present it as having something to do with regaining the right to bear arms...... they would present it as it really is... the desire to have permission from Daddy Fed to be "allowed" to carry across State lines.

Wanting to be "allowed" is NOT a step forward for regaining the right to bear arms but is the exact opposite of begging for permission to have the convenience of a privilege.

And not supporting a bill that is just more of the same begging for permission is not an "all or nothing" approach but is understanding that begging for permission to be allowed has nothing to do with the right to bear arms and everything to do with handing the government.... "all power to control leaving us nothing".

 

[S&W645]

Sorry but your imagination is running wild with no relationship to the facts. All or nothing gets us nothing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

Nothing in many cases is better when it comes to the gov't. Those in power always want to stay in power. The chipping away over time of Rights by giving one permission slips is what got us where we are today. An example of that is with the NFA Title II firearms. It is a Right to own any weapon that the gov't can or does have. It is a permission slip that allows you to own a full auto firearm made before 1986 and registered before May 1986. AP ammo, again is going down that road even if it really isn't AP. What the gov't gives, the gov't can take away and you see that in the Sig Arm Brace ruling from the new director of BATFE firearms tech branch. BATFE = an unConstitutional agency making unConstitutional rulings. Proof that two wrongs don't make a Right. A better way than asking for a permission slip is to repeal all of the illegal laws that were put in place to start with.

 

[Leader]

I agree with you there S&W!

This part if for the sheeple who just can't get it through their thick skulls...
I just don't get it. Are you guys who want a national carry fuking dense or what?!
What part of the God damn Guberment has NO God damn authority to do shyte don't you friggin understand!?!
Read the God damn Constitution and BOR for Christ sake...
You want to hand over power to the gov to regulate something they have no authority over and you think WE don't get it?!
Move on.... You're dismissed..

Link RemovedLink RemovedLink Removed

I think I'm beginning to understand.
It's kind of like the Fed sticking their noses into the states right to enforce segregation.
If a state doesn't want Negro's to be allowed to go to the same school as Caucasian's then it should be alright.
And does that extend to Cities rights to "local rule"? Should States as well as the Fed be prohibited from preventing local laws?

 

[Axeanda45]

I think I'm beginning to understand.
It's kind of like the Fed sticking their noses into the states right to enforce segregation.
If a state doesn't want Negro's to be allowed to go to the same school as Caucasian's then it should be alright.
And does that extend to Cities rights to "local rule"? Should States as well as the Fed be prohibited from preventing local laws?

BULL.... You understand nothing except how to infringe and pull stupidity out of your backside to fail at making any point other than proving you dont know anything about rights.

Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Leader]

BULL.... You understand nothing except how to infringe and pull stupidity out of your backside to fail at making any point other than proving you dont know anything about rights.

Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app

Then help me understand how it is different.

 

[Firefighterchen]

All or nothing.

Group 1: Return our Rights or the new law helps nothing.

Group 2: Government should have all the power, or the People should have nothing.

I gots it.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[NavyLCDR]

I think I'm beginning to understand.
It's kind of like the Fed sticking their noses into the states right to enforce segregation.
If a state doesn't want Negro's to be allowed to go to the same school as Caucasian's then it should be alright.
And does that extend to Cities rights to "local rule"? Should States as well as the Fed be prohibited from preventing local laws?

What government license is a black person required to obtain from the government in order to have equal treatment without segregation? That's the difference. We aren't talking about requiring states to respect the right of a person to carry a firearm. We are talking about the Federal government requiring states to recognize government issued licenses.

 

[Leader]

What government license is a black person required to obtain from the government in order to have equal treatment without segregation? That's the difference. We aren't talking about requiring states to respect the right of a person to carry a firearm. We are talking about the Federal government requiring states to recognize government issued licenses.

Ok... So states rights have nothing to do with this?

I'll have to go back & look but I thought you mentioned that before.
Maybe it was one of the other people explaining why this is so bad.

Anything the states decide to "license" will automatically exclude the Fed.
If the states licensed schools, they could require schools prohibit Native Americans from attending and it would then be ok.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

I think I'm beginning to understand.
It's kind of like the Fed sticking their noses into the states right to enforce segregation.
If a state doesn't want Negro's to be allowed to go to the same school as Caucasian's then it should be alright.
And does that extend to Cities rights to "local rule"? Should States as well as the Fed be prohibited from preventing local laws?

Hey, dip sh!t....

The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
Majority does not rule in this country and you will not diminish my rights just so you may pack heat across state lines.

Grow some balls and get off your fat ass and work to change the laws if you don't like them! Get off your couch and get involved! Sitting on your ass, waiting for daddy gov to allow you permission to bring your weapon with you is a serfs lifestyle... Enjoy your wait time fool.

Oh.....yeah,
As a Constitutional Republic, I don't care if 99% of the country wants to ban guns or not.. MY Right to own one is still protected, whether you like it or not... Period.
People today astonish me with their absolute lack of both understanding what a Right is and thinking that the Guberment has control over them.
The public schools and the media have done their jobs well!
The sheeple are to stupid to live on their own. They believe it is the Guberments job to keep them safe, fat and blissfully unaware of the world around them..
Your problem is obvious. You drank the punch and now.....
Link Removed

 

[Saltheart Foamfollower]

The people her who are against this bill are both violently against it and profane. Insults flow from them freely. They don't want a rational discussion of the issue. They want you to bow down to THEIR interpretation of it and of the 2A. Unless one or more of you sit on the Supreme Court, your OPINION means absolutely nothing. And no amount of internet bravado and meme-posting is going to change it.

This bill is most likely going to pass. If Obama vetoes it, then you are siding with HIM...a known socialist and likely muslim extremist who does NOT have the best interests at heart. You folks are more liberal than I realized. You certainly act like libs when you shout down opposing viewpoints.

Sent from my SCH-i705 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[maybejim]

Let's see. There is all the irrational fear that this bill might lead to the Fed's getting involved in gun control. Ignoring of course the Fed's already getting involved as they will. 34 gun control (unconstitutional). 68 gun control (unconstitutional). Magazine bans. Gun import bans. The Fed's don't need a new excuse.

The camel's nose under the tent is a legitimate example. However the camel is already in the tent. This bill sticks his nose under the tent on the way our.

It is no surprise that y'all against the bill have jumped to personal attacks. You have nothing else.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[maybejim]

Let's see. There is all the irrational fear that this bill might lead to the Fed's getting involved in gun control. Ignoring of course the Fed's already getting involved as they will. 1934 gun control (unconstitutional). 1968 gun control (unconstitutional). Magazine bans. Gun import bans. The Fed's don't need a new excuse.

The camel's nose under the tent is a legitimate example. However the camel is already in the tent. This bill sticks his nose under the tent on the way out.

It is no surprise that y'all against the bill have jumped to personal attacks. You have nothing else.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[CharlesMorrison]

The people her who are against this bill are both violently against it and profane. Insults flow from them freely. They don't want a rational discussion of the issue....

...and that is where I stopped reading your drivel...

Let's make it simple. You know, for the kids, I mean if it saves just one... Wouldn't it be worth it?

There is no "common sense" gun control. Any more than there appears to be common sense in your head.
This is a gun control bill...

The Guberment has zero authority to enact and or enforce it and or any gun legislation...

Oh, shyte! I forgot...
Those "appointed black robed gods" have had the final say on it!

Darn! Foiled again!

There are some here who better take off the rose colored glasses and start looking around at the world they live in.
It's much bigger than you or your family, or even me and my family...
Get your head out of your ass and wake up!

 

[Saltheart Foamfollower]

I believe the question of states rights vs. federal rights was settled over 155 years ago. To the victors go the spoils.

As for you NOT reading my entire post, that only proves what I stated. You only want to hear discussion that agrees with you.

Sent from my SCH-i705 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[S&W645]

Let's see. There is all the irrational fear that this bill might lead to the Fed's getting involved in gun control. Ignoring of course the Fed's already getting involved as they will. 34 gun control (unconstitutional). 68 gun control (unconstitutional). Magazine bans. Gun import bans. The Fed's don't need a new excuse.

The camel's nose under the tent is a legitimate example. However the camel is already in the tent. This bill sticks his nose under the tent on the way our.

It is no surprise that y'all against the bill have jumped to personal attacks. You have nothing else.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

As far as the camel in the tent, it was a female and gave birth to another camel. It is that young camel that is now trying to get its nose into a second tent. That is how gov't violates the Constitution. A good analogy would be a bull (gov't) in a china shop ( USA ) where it wrecks everything in the place sooner or later. That was the warning the founding fathers gave 200+ years ago and why they included a Second Amendment.

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Funny but there you go making generalization yourself. Not everyone has jumped to personal attacks.

As far as all or nothing. If you don't have all your Rights, you have nothing.
Let me ask, do you own land? Or do you just think that you do?