ten gun bills introduced today - action item

nate45 said:
Proving one isn't a felon or a loon, isn't tantamount to surrendering our second amendment rights in my mind. . . .
Click to expand...
Perhaps not in your mind, but it puts the burden on those wishing to exercise this fundamental, individual right on those wishing to do so, before they are allowed. For a comparison in the First Amendment context, it is akin to a prior restraint.

nate45 said:
. . . .I've tried, but I can't find an excuse for not making it as difficult as possible for felons and those adjudicated to be mentally ill from acquiring firearms. Background checks and coordinating mental health records with the database, is actually one of the few things that would really help.

Screaming my rights, in the face of something that would actually keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, isn't doing us any favors.
Click to expand...
There's little evidence to support the notion that imposing such a restriction (forcing everyone to prove that they're entitled to exercise the 2A prior to exercise of same) would actually keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Mind you, I'm not fussing about the coordination of mental health records. That's probably a good idea. My concern on that front is how we (the American public & Congress) will define "mentally ill," and where we'll draw the policy line at when it's appropriate to deny someone the 2A.
 
Nate, I understand your sentiment. I also believe that if our backs are against the wall, we may need to offer comprimises which we can live with, instead of having no say at all.

BUT (and this is a very important "but"), we are nowhere near the point where our back is against the wall. Well, unless you live in New York State. I feel bad for those folks, but as a resident of a different state, I have no say in what goes on there. It is their fight.

As far as federal action goes, I don't think anything will get through congress, except for the most harmless of window-dressing...if that...
 
I would also like to say this:

I think that real, meaningful, positive, effective firearm regulation could be possible. Regulations that the vast majority of gun owners could agree with. But NEVER in the current political envirionment. The gun-ban crowd have so poisoned the politics that there is no sense of trust among our side... and why should we have any trust? The gun-ban politicians have demonstrated repeatedly that their ultimate goal is a prohibition on private ownership of any firearm which could possibly be used in self defense. After the Newtown tragedy they have shown their cards yet again. Our side does not trust them to negotiate sensible laws in good faith.
 
So only the government can have big guns? And we can only have little ones?
So one gov't. says sell them magazines or go to jail, and the other gov't.says sell em and go to jail. Boy Howdy, what's a cowgirl to do? Even if the founding fathers hadn't said from now on, we get what the gov't. gets, I'd smell a rat. But then, I never was completely civilized. Just another failure of the system.
It's a wonderful life. Don't weaken your resolve.
 
nate45 said:
Proving one isn't a felon or a loon, isn't tantamount to surrendering our second amendment rights in my mind.
Click to expand...

So every American should be forced to ask the Federal government for permission before exercising their 2a rights? That's not a right. Also, if we have universal background checks do you honestly believe that wouldn't turn into registration or are you ok with that too?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
I'm for complete and unfettered gun rights.

My opinion is, if the government abused any part of the identity process, tried confiscation, etc it would be time for drastic action.
 
There is no compromise for a right. When a right becomes conditional it is no longer a right but a permission and as such permissions can be taken away.

“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.”
 
I'm not right. It's our right.

There should be no laws passed in any situation that would reduce or infringe upon the RIGHTS of law abiding citizens. EVER!
 
Nate. They do not require me to have an ID to vote so I do not think I need one to own a firearm. It's the constitution you know.
 
mayosligo said:
Nate. They do not require me to have an ID to vote so I do not think I need one to own a firearm. It's the constitution you know.
Click to expand...

Voting is not a right.

I strongly suggest that everyone read John Locke - Second Treatise of Government. It's probably the most complete discussion of man's "natural right" to self determine his own government.

It's free on Amazon Kindle I'd you take the unannotated version.

This was a core document to the founding fathers.

It's not a particularly easy read, but this isn't a particularly easy time.

MB
 
Sorry mrbatchelor, voting is a right. It is a political right. That what the difference between Privileges (political rights) and Immunities (natural rights) were, at the time of the founding.

Locke's 2nd Treatise points this all out.
 
Let's stop bidding against ourselves. Some things we won't like might well come out of this, and we need to have "our place at the table" to be in a position to try to influence the outcome. But it's not useful to concede ground.
 
Al Norris said:
Sorry mrbatchelor, voting is a right. It is a political right. That what the difference between Privileges (political rights) and Immunities (natural rights) were, at the time of the founding.

Locke's 2nd Treatise points this all out.
Click to expand...

Ok. I'll accept this distinction, but point out that even in your use of vernacular you felt the need to differentiate privilege from immunities. In 21st century NA English that's a very subtle distinction.

We still use the word "privileges" in much the same sense. But by the word "rights" we generally refer to immutables. After all rights in most people's minds are immutable.

But, as pointed out, linguistic hair spitting is for another day. Right now we desperately need to stop those who are our opponents. When the air is clear then we can pontificate as friends.

And my original assertion was aimed at the fact that individual states set up voting laws. And whole classes of people were originally disqualified.
 
To get back to the original topic- I'm a fairly young guy, and unfamiliar with the process of encouraging our representatives to oppose the bills that were in the OP. Isn't there a link through the NRA?
I'd like for me and my friends to be able to influence our reps, since we still retain that right. :rolleyes:
 
shredder4286 said:
To get back to the original topic- I'm a fairly young guy, and unfamiliar with the process of encouraging our representatives to oppose the bills that were in the OP. Isn't there a link through the NRA?
I'd like for me and my friends to be able to influence our reps, since we still retain that right.
Click to expand...
To find your Senators, go here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

To find your Representative, go here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
 
You're welcome & yes, they do need to hear from us. Even if all that really happens is some staffer puts your email into the "Yes" or "No" piles, somebody is counting. Counting and trying to figure out what will happen come re-election time.
 
113th Congress: House Bills 223-306

H.R.226 -- Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act (This one allows tax credit for surrendering an assault weapon, but only if it's lawfully possessed. Soooo, ummmm, felons in possession are NOT being encouraged to give up their assault weapons. :confused: )

H.R.227 -- Buyback Our Safety Act -- Establishes a gun buyback program in the AG's office. (Gee, I guess all of the buying panic dried up the supply of ARs that Holder needed to fill the cartel's orders.)

H.R.236 -- Crackdown on Deadbeat Gun Dealers Act of 2013

H.R.238 -- Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act

H.R.274 -- Mental Health First Act of 2013 (not strictly firearms related, but we're seeing a whole lotta mental health talk tied together with firearms talk these days)
 
Nate, obviously there are some possible compromises. The trouble with the FOID concept is that licensing of given rights, eliminated it as a right. Also, it creates a clear path for McArthyism (sp?). We don't need ids which establish a vehicle for political selection of gun owners.

We would be much better off controlling ourselves by the NRA or similar making a trained gun owner program and promoting it to gun ranges, gun buyers and gun sellers as a way to ensure their customers are legal, safe shooters and gun buyers who can be reached by contacting the NRA. I'm thinking this private organization creates a basic training level, creates online buyers and sellers who are "known" even if only by the NRA and addresses most issues of being screwed by buyers, sellers and some untrained jackwad shooting next to you pointing his gun at you.

I'm thinking that the NRA,etc could work this into basic training classes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top