I must admit, I am getting a little sick of this "laws on the books" crap I keep hearing. I am very upset with the NRA concerning this too (and I just happen to be an NRA member also). The laws on the books are unlawful and unconstitutional. I don't hear much about repealing any of these "laws on the books". The NRA's position on this issue is quite compromising and moderate. They have battled the anti's in the past when new legislation was being created. New legislation was created anyway, some of it as a result of "compromising". Now the NRA is saying "Enforce the laws on the books" and "give the laws on the books a chance to work". This sounds like they are saying these laws are a good thing and they work. If that is the case, one could simply say "more laws will do more". What will they give up next?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"laws on the books"
- Thread starter RHarris
- Start date
Claemore70
Moderator
I hear ya' pal. But if you are looking for supporters, there are only a few of us. We are called whiners because it bothers us that 80 people, including children, burned to death, because the ATF was enforcing existing gun laws. It bothers us that Randy Weaver's son and wife were murdered by the Feds while enforcing existing gun laws. Heston and J. Shanks of HCI have almost the same goals. I talked to Shanks, and he, like Heston, doesn't think that people need assault rifles for defense, or for any other reason. He also wants to enforce existing gun laws. If you think there is something wrong with that you are a whiner.
------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
This discussion has gone on before, and I think folks are missing one point in this chess game.
First off remember two things: First, The anti-gun crowd and the media don't give a flip about the 2nd, 4th and 9th amendments. Second, it costs a ton of money to take a case to the Supreme Court--and there are many vagaries in judicial decisions along the way. And remember, somebody has to break a particular law, running the risks of the criminal justice system, just "to make a point".
So, in this game of politics, it's an effort at playing "Gotcha!" That is, if the case can be made that those in office are merely passing laws which harass the law-abiding, and which not only do not affect crime rates, but are not even enforced, there is then a chance to get new legislators elected.
The hope, then, is long-term: New legislators will be pro-gun, will have the guts to resist the media's BS, and will repeal unconstitutional laws.
Call my opinions, then, one fella's opinion of a chess game in the real world of politics. It ain't purty, but that's real life.
Regards, Art
First off remember two things: First, The anti-gun crowd and the media don't give a flip about the 2nd, 4th and 9th amendments. Second, it costs a ton of money to take a case to the Supreme Court--and there are many vagaries in judicial decisions along the way. And remember, somebody has to break a particular law, running the risks of the criminal justice system, just "to make a point".
So, in this game of politics, it's an effort at playing "Gotcha!" That is, if the case can be made that those in office are merely passing laws which harass the law-abiding, and which not only do not affect crime rates, but are not even enforced, there is then a chance to get new legislators elected.
The hope, then, is long-term: New legislators will be pro-gun, will have the guts to resist the media's BS, and will repeal unconstitutional laws.
Call my opinions, then, one fella's opinion of a chess game in the real world of politics. It ain't purty, but that's real life.
Regards, Art