New Gun laws

cluznar

New member
The Governor of New York and Maryland are planning on making stricter gun laws. They want no magazines larger than a 7 round capacity, and no assault rifles to be sold.

This is whether the President makes new laws or not.

I think magazines for handguns should be allowed up to 10 rounds myself.

:big_boss:
 
Every increment in gun control will lead to an eventual outright ban in the U.S. I think recently the top gun control advocates have shown their true colors. They want everyone disarmed. A U.N. spokesperson said (paraphrase) The citizen's right to own firearms threatens the legitamite power monopoly of the state. I have an issue with this statement.
 
Actually under the second amendment he can make no laws restricting guns, state law inferior to the 2nd amendment.
 
I feel bad for the honest firearms enthusiasts on the coasts, like you say those states will pass new laws regardless of what the feds do. Will it really matter to the mass shooter in all of the gun free zones if he has to stop and slam a new mag in a few times? He will be the only one with a gun if they get there way. Personally I think the whole magazine capacity argument is stupid and goes against the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Actually under the second amendment he can make no laws restricting guns, state law inferior to the 2nd amendment.

That's why the states have their own prisons. The states can and do make laws contrary to 2A and put you in one of their jails when you break one of their laws.

Understand that 2A says what the SCOTUS says it does, not what the words on the paper do. I disagree with this, but who am I?

The politicians forget that power comes from the people and not from the state. We need to remind them of this every now and again. With the liberal academia, the new generation isn't being taught this either. Sad...
 
I have a lot of friends who support the 2nd amendment as do I and most are selling there stuff. Not me i am not selling anything. If they want my stuff they will half to take it by force. That Simple Enough Said.
 
That's why the states have their own prisons. The states can and do make laws contrary to 2A and put you in one of their jails when you break one of their laws.

Understand that 2A says what the SCOTUS says it does, not what the words on the paper do. I disagree with this, but who am I?

The politicians forget that power comes from the people and not from the state. We need to remind them of this every now and again. With the liberal academia, the new generation isn't being taught this either. Sad...

On the contrary - they haven't "forgotten" anything. This is the result of the adoption of the federalist interpretation of the Constitution going all the way back to George Washington. Constructionism sys the majority of rights are enumerated to the States and the People. Federalism says the States and the People must concede more of their enumerated rights to the congress any time congress feels it is necessary under the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution. N&P supersedes the explicit protections of the Bill of Rights. I've posted this before, and I'm going to continue posting it until people finally come to realize what is going on and how long it has been going on:

The problem is that those who were sworn to uphold the Constitution - going all the way back to George Washington - hijacked it.

From the very beginning of our government a war was fought.

On one side stood Jefferson, Madison, and the Anti-Federalists. They believed (indeed, Jefferson and Madison, the two main authors of the Constitution, explicitly worded the Constitution with these goals in mind) in a small, general purpose government with a set of very clearly defined authorities. Having just won a war against a large, centralized government, they were rightfully concerned about the possibility of seeing a similarly all-powerful, centralized government being established in the US - so much so, that when Jefferson and Madison drafted the Bill of Rights (which passed both the US AND State legislatures with a supermajority), they included these words in the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

On the other side stood Washington and the Federalists. They believed strongly in a centralized, all-powerful government (John Adams actually believed the US needed its own king). Washington's own beliefs regarding the correct interpretation of the Constitution were stated in the circular letter he sent to the governors of the states on the eve of his retirement from public office:

"...to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated (this is a direct shot at Jefferson and Madison - added) ⎯ whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress or not ⎯ yet it will be a part of my duty and that of every true Patriot to assert without reserve and to insist upon the following positions:

That unless the States will suffer [permit] Congress to exercise those prerogatives [that] they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, everything must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion;

That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States that there should be lodged somewhere a Supreme Power [executive] to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration.

That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State with the late [recent] proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue;

That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independence of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly..."

Washington stood for a centralized, all-powerful government, which, according to his letter, required that the People and the States "...forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community." Where the Bill of Rights reserved the majority of powers to the People and the States, Washington called on both entities to concede more of those powers and authorities to the federal government whenever the legislature called upon them to do so. To resist such a request or to take steps to limit (or diminish) the supreme authority of the federal government was a crime that "...will merit the bitterest execration [hatred and contempt] and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country." In other words, the Tenth Amendment was to be ignored in favor of the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution. It was Washington who declared that revolution as a means of changing a tyrannical government was no longer an option since the founding of our republic:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The meaning was clear: revolting against a monarchy, as HE had done, was a good thing, but the AMENDMENT was the only proper way to effect change in a republic. By taking revolution off the table as a legitimate means of changing a government that had become so corrupt that it could not be changed by means of legislation or amendments, he also nullified the Second Amendment - which was intended by Jefferson and Madison to be a safeguard against a corrupt and tyrannical government. Sam Adams was even more blunt in his opinion of revolting against a republic:

"In monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

Again, it was justified when THEY finally resorted to revolution; for anyone else, revolution constitutes treason. The federalist understanding of the Constitution nullifies the Second Amendment, and with it, the right to bear arms for anything but hunting.

And since Washington was the first President of the US, who also appointed the first Supreme Court justices, the Federalist interpretation of the Constitution is the one that became the norm for the government. It is the understanding under which our legislature and the President operate to this day, and it is this hijacked interpretation of the Constitution that permits the federal government to confiscate more of the rights that were Constitutionally enumerated to the PEOPLE whenever the urge hits, all in the name of the "Necessary and Proper" clause and national security.

No, the problem we face today is the direct result of the federalist interpretation of the Constitution that was institutionalized by none other than George Washington himself. That our nation's capitol is named for Washington is appropriate; his interpretation of the Constitution set the stage for what is happening today. The resulting mess is his to own forever.
 
I think magazines for handguns should be allowed up to 10 rounds myself.

I think magazines for handguns should be allowed up to as many rounds as you want in them.

ezkl2230: There is a great difference between the U.S. Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was written first and is much shorter. It was decided that it was not adequate and the Constitution was written.
 
I think magazines for handguns should be allowed up to as many rounds as you want in them.

ezkl2230: There is a great difference between the U.S. Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was written first and is much shorter. It was decided that it was not adequate and the Constitution was written.

I edited Articles of Confederation out - it was added on one of the web sites that posts the text of the circular letter (you see that it was in brackets) Washington sent to the governors of the states to supposedly "clarify" what they think Washington meant by Constitution (which had been fully adopted by the time Washington left public service), and I forgot to remove it. It's out of there now.
 
The Governor of New York and Maryland are planning on making stricter gun laws. They want no magazines larger than a 7 round capacity, and no assault rifles to be sold.

This is whether the President makes new laws or not.

I think magazines for handguns should be allowed up to 10 rounds myself.

:big_boss:

How did you come up with the number 10?
Did you run out of fingers to count?
 
ezkl2230: I don't recall all that much about the Articles, since it was just a couple years before my time. However, I do remember that they were a lot shorter than the Constitution. Personally, I hold the opinion that the shorter is better. And opinions are like a$$holes: everybody has one, and they all stink.
 
As I have stated before you have to fight any new proposed restriction on firearms or related items. Whenever you try to deal with the antis in a "reasonable" way as they say it simply encourages them to come right back for more. Anytime you try to comprimise with the antis they see it as weakness.

Case in point: When it seemed that the people of New York were willing to accept a reduction in magazine capacity to 10 rds max the Governor immediately announces that he wants a further reduction.

You can not deal with these people. You have to fight them tooth and nail on EVERYTHING ALL OF THE TIME!!!
 
crazy idea here, why not ENFORCE the laws we have!
Watched Andrew Cuomo's state of the state address. He yelled "stop the madness. No one needs 10 rounds to kill a deer." Dumb bastard doesn't even know his own state law. You can only load 5 rounds when deer hunting.
.
Well, OK Mr. Cuomo, yes, let's stop the madness. My property tax is over $1,000 per month and I don't live in a mansion. And my property tax is not high compared to much of lower NYS. In lower NYS tax can be over $15,000 per year on a 2,000 square foot house. Yes, let's stop the madness. Every year the state of NY extorts that money from us with threat of taking the houses of those who can't pay. All to fund schools where less than 65% of students graduate. I'm hitting the same pothole for 20 years yet my tax money is used to take away my rights.
.
To show you how nuts this is... I can still sit in a bar armed and have a beer without violating any law. Crazy aren't they?
 
Cuomo is a complete corrupted jackass. I love how they always act like or think they are doing such good things for our country when in fact they are not. I wonder if they ever look in the mirror and see how stupid they really are. Feel sorry for New York and i am sure we will all half to deal with it soon.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,525
Messages
610,668
Members
74,995
Latest member
tripguru365
Back
Top