The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: INVAR on May 22, 2018, 04:05:38 pm
-
When idiots propose that guns should be registered and mandates be imposed to pay fees and special insurance carriers before you are permitted to exercise a Right, we will continually tell tell them to pound sand because we will not comply - period.
The following news is the reason why:
California Farmer Registers Guns and Gets Raided and Arrested as Result (http://www.kget.com/news/local-news/member-of-prominent-farming-family-faces-felony-weapons-charges/1186514586)
Member of prominent farming family faces felony weapons charges
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - The District Attorney's office filed a dozen felony gun charges Thursday against a member of a prominent farming family.
According to court documents, the California Department of Justice raided Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann's home last month, after he tried to register an illegally modified gun online through the state's website.
What they found in his home, led to the DA filing charges: a dozen guns, 230 rounds of ammunition and two silencers seized from Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann's home in a gated community in Northwest Bakersfield.
Records from the Secretary of State's office list Kirschenmann as the CEO of Scott Kirschenmann Farms, Inc. -- with the same lamont mailing address as Kirschenmann Farms, Inc. -- the local grower known for its potatoes used by Frito Lay to make chips.
Kirschenmann is out on $150,000 bail, accused of 12 felonies for possessing assault rifles, silencers and a multi-burst trigger activator.
We went to Kirschenmann's home Thursday afternoon to speak with him about the case, but there was no answer.
According to court documents, the DOJ began investigating Kirschenmann when he electronically submitted photos of an illegally modified AR-15-style firearm.
Retired KCSO Commander Joe Pilkington is a court recognized firearms expert. He could not speak directly to Kirschenmann's case but says the laws are changing so frequently, it's often hard to keep up with the latest regulations.
"Just in the last few years, there have been lots of changes in gun laws," he said. "Making an effort, a good faith effort to comply with these really complicated laws, should count for something."
A new state law requires assault-style weapons be registered by the end of June.
The ONLY purpose for registration IS CONFISCATION.
The reason for CONFISCATION is SUBJUGATION to a totalitarian Communist state.
I for one am not going quietly into that good night.
-
And for those morons who would try and convince us that registration of our guns will NOT lead to confiscations and the wholesale banning of our right to possess them - all one needs to do is listen to what those in GOVERNMENT tell us that they intend to do:
A Democratic congressman “went there†Thursday. (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/3/eric-swalwell-calls-mandatory-buyback-all-military/)
In an editorial in USA Today, Rep. Eric Swalwell proposed a mandatory buyback of all “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons†without any “grandfather clause†for existing weapons or any deference to the Second Amendment — the sort of forced-confiscation plan that gun-rights advocates have warned about and gun-controllers have hotly denied they seek.
The California Democrat called reinstating the federal assault-weapons ban from the 1990s a good beginning, “but it would not affect weapons already possessed.â€
“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons,†Mr. Swalwell said.
-
This Bakersfield farmer is meant to be the example to all CA owners of AR15's... Sacramento has been changing the configuration requirements for them so often that its nearly impossible to be compliant. The salt in the wound is this guy is from the red part of the state.
With any luck this will backfire on CA when this guy sues in federal court.
But then again, who knows these days.
-
"Just in the last few years, there have been lots of changes in gun laws," he said. "Making an effort, a good faith effort to comply with these really complicated laws, should count for something."
Um.... but it doesn't. And it never will. And "should" doesn't count for chit when you're dealing with radical, fascist leftists intent on disarming a populace.
This guy was apparently unaware of what state he lived in.
-
This Bakersfield farmer is meant to be the example to all CA owners of AR15's... Sacramento has been changing the configuration requirements for them so often that its nearly impossible to be compliant. The salt in the wound is this guy is from the red part of the state....
after he tried to register an illegally modified gun online through the state's website.
This is one of the good guys, trying to do right by following the law. He got caught up in CA changing requirements.
-
Um.... but it doesn't. And it never will. And "should" doesn't count for chit when you're dealing with radical, fascist leftists intent on disarming a populace.
This guy was apparently unaware of what state he lived in.
Don't be too hard on him. This state has radically changed out from under those of us who've lived here awhile.
I hate to sound like a broken record but this shift to the left is the consequence of the social disjointedness caused by massive immigration, which allows these radicals unchecked access to the levers of power.
-
This is one of the good guys, trying to do right by following the law. He got caught up in CA changing requirements.
This is why YOU DO NOT follow ANY "law" that infringes upon or supersedes an inalienable Right.
It is our DUTY to defy such "laws" and refuse to comply with them.
Let them come to put government guns to our heads to force compliance and do mass arrests ala Stalin - maybe THEN the rest of this people will wake up and realize what time it is that we have arrived.
If not, then like the Jews of 30's Europe - walking oneself to the cattle cars for camps will be our fate.
-
This is one of the good guys, trying to do right by following the law. He got caught up in CA changing requirements.
And a law abiding citizen is going to jail. Whereas the criminals won't comply with this law and will only go to jail after they commit some more crimes.
-
Don't be too hard on him. This state has radically changed out from under those of us who've lived here awhile.
I hate to sound like a broken record but this shift to the left is the consequence of the social disjointedness caused by massive immigration, which allows these radicals unchecked access to the levers of power.
I'm not intending to be hard on him. I'm just stunned that someone could be so clueless re: how his state has 'radically changed'. His potatoes supply Frito Lay's. He's not a small operation, evidently.
So you would think he would have more knowledge about current events and "changes" in his own state.
I guess that's part of the problem we're having and a pet peeve of mine. Uninformed voters. A direct reason and result of why this nation is spiraling downward. People totally uninformed, unaware and apparently apathetic when it comes to becoming informed. Just sayin...
-
Eventually registration leads to confiscation
You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian states?
WWI Germany, Russia, Bermuda...Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia.
let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.
Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate
1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.
The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.
How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s
What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)
Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.
-
B-b-b-but I thought we could rely on unbiased Judges to protect out rights?
-
B-b-b-but I thought we could rely on unbiased Judges to protect out rights?
Because it is unhinged lunacy and treason not to trust our government or their courts.
I mean, men in office or on the bench would NEVER violate your rights....
/SARC
-
Because it is unhinged lunacy and treason not to trust our government or their courts.
I mean, men in office or on the bench would NEVER violate your rights....
/SARC
Hey, hey, hey! You sound like you're being an outlaw there...defining laws as you wish like that. How dare you question The Great and Powerful Oz?
-
Hey, hey, hey! You sound like you're being an outlaw there...defining laws as you wish like that. How dare you question The Great and Powerful Oz?
Dorothy. "Were" not in Kansas anymore.
-
Because it is unhinged lunacy and treason not to trust our government or their courts.
I mean, men in office or on the bench would NEVER violate your rights....
/SARC
And of course they know what's better for us than we do.
-
I'm just hoping they'll never require registration of "assault-style" rocks and other assault-style weapons of mass destruction. From my cold dead hands!
(http://www.dreams.metroeve.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/dreams.metroeve_rocks-dreams-meaning.jpeg)
-
And of course they know what's better for us than we do.
Masterminds always do.
-
I'm just hoping they'll never require registration of "assault-style" rocks and other assault-style weapons of mass destruction. From my cold dead hands!
(http://www.dreams.metroeve.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/dreams.metroeve_rocks-dreams-meaning.jpeg)
You and me both! I'm a geologist, and I know I'd be high on their list.
-
An 'Illegaly Modified' weapon.
Used the term illegaly enough, but didn't say What modification to it made it illegal.
What'd he do to it?
If he replaced the receiver to make it burst or full auto we'd of heard all about that at least 15 times.
So what are we left with?
A bump stock?
Two magazines duck taped together?
Did he store night vision goggles in the same safe with it?
-
What a lark.
If gun registration is mandated by law, you’ll meekly register your weapons, just like everyone else, your bluster notwithstanding.
-
What a lark.
If gun registration is mandated by law, you’ll meekly register your weapons, just like everyone else, your bluster notwithstanding.
Well, you would be wrong.
I certainly refused to do it when I lived up in Chicago.
I will be damned if I do it where I live now.
See, I do not view government the way most of you do. So, when they tell me that guns are to be registered, that's a sign - because I know what follows thereafter - and I have no intentions of going along with it.
-
An 'Illegaly Modified' weapon.
Used the term illegaly enough, but didn't say What modification to it made it illegal.
What'd he do to it?
If he replaced the receiver to make it burst or full auto we'd of heard all about that at least 15 times.
So what are we left with?
A bump stock?
Two magazines duck taped together?
Did he store night vision goggles in the same safe with it?
Well, the state mandated 'bullet' buttons' a few years back, making it necessary to use a tool to remove a magazine, then they decided bullet buttons made it too esy to change magazines so they made a new law making it necessary to modify your AR so that its necessary to break the barrel from the receiver/stock in order to remove the magazine.
Of course they've also banned the following features:
Pistol grip that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon
Thumbhole stock
Folding or telescoping stock
Grenade launcher or flare launcher
Flash suppressor
Forward pistol grip
All perfectly common sense restrictions, I'm sure.
-
What a lark.
If gun registration is mandated by law, you’ll meekly register your weapons, just like everyone else, your bluster notwithstanding.
I most certainly will NOT.
-
Well, the state mandated 'bullet' buttons' a few years back, making it necessary to use a tool to remove a magazine, then they decided bullet buttons made it too esy to change magazines so they made a new law making it necessary to modify your AR so that its necessary to break the barrel from the receiver/stock in order to remove the magazine.
Of course they've also banned the following features:
Pistol grip that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon
Thumbhole stock
Folding or telescoping stock
Grenade launcher or flare launcher
Flash suppressor
Forward pistol grip
All perfectly common sense restrictions, I'm sure.
The one that got me was when they banned bayonet lugs.
Sounded really scarey. What kind of sicko would want a rifle with a . . . . GASP . . . . . Bayonet on it?
The question should be (as with all the idiot restrictions you cited above) WHY, would having a bayonet added onto a semi automatic poodle rifle make a person snap?
They already have a Rifle, but somehow being able to use it as a short thrusting spear instead of a gun, would be the breaking point.
A 4 and 1/2 ft long spear would be All a mass murderer (with a rifle) needs to push them over the edge.
-
What a lark.
If gun registration is mandated by law, you’ll meekly register your weapons, just like everyone else, your bluster notwithstanding.
You assume a whole hell of lot there.
-
You assume a whole hell of lot there.
:thumbsup:
-
I'm not intending to be hard on him. I'm just stunned that someone could be so clueless re: how his state has 'radically changed'. His potatoes supply Frito Lay's. He's not a small operation, evidently.
So you would think he would have more knowledge about current events and "changes" in his own state.
I guess that's part of the problem we're having and a pet peeve of mine. Uninformed voters. A direct reason and result of why this nation is spiraling downward. People totally uninformed, unaware and apparently apathetic when it comes to becoming informed. Just sayin...
I think the legislatures; city, county, state and federal, make so many damn laws that it's impossible to keep up with them all. And then there's remembering the nuances of all of them.
These are mostly silly, but you get the point: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-commonly-broken-laws-in-america-2013-10 (http://www.businessinsider.com/most-commonly-broken-laws-in-america-2013-10)
-
What a lark.
If gun registration is mandated by law, you’ll meekly register your weapons, just like everyone else, your bluster notwithstanding.
I cannot tell you how many different ways you are wrong.
Those German Jews are a perfect example of what meekness like you adhere to will get you.
Laws like that is the worst possible thing a citizen of this country need, as the vast majority will be then branded as criminals by an oppressive government.
-
I think the legislatures; city, county, state and federal, make so many damn laws that it's impossible to keep up with them all. And then there's remembering the nuances of all of them.
These are mostly silly, but you get the point: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-commonly-broken-laws-in-america-2013-10 (http://www.businessinsider.com/most-commonly-broken-laws-in-america-2013-10)
You are not far off with that... All y'all (including me) break the law every day.
-
I wonder if this potato farmer voted reliably Dem, as most voters of his state have. If so, I don't have a lot of sympathy.
-
You are not far off with that... All y'all (including me) break the law every day.
"The more laws the less justice."
Old German saying.
-
I wonder if this potato farmer voted reliably Dem, as most voters of his state have. If so, I don't have a lot of sympathy.
The facts that he owned an AR and that Barkersfield is in a pretty red part of CA, together wth the fact that although he is wealthy and still is being prosecuted leads me to believe that he’s one of us.
-
The facts that he owned an AR and that Barkersfield is in a pretty red part of CA, together wth the fact that although he is wealthy and still is being prosecuted leads me to believe that he’s one of us.
.
I was thinking that was a good possibility. Pity he wasn't up on the laws enough to know those weapons are trouble in CA
-
.
I was thinking that was a good possibility. Pity he wasn't up on the laws enough to know those weapons are trouble in CA
Article says they popped him for possession of silencers. Without special dispensations from the Govt those have been felonies since 1934, right along with machine guns and sawed off shotguns. Kind of a hard law to claim ignorance of.
Teddy Roosevelt used to hunt varmints on his Long Island Estate with silencers to keep from annoying his neighbors.
They don't actually silence anything, just suppress it. Could cover something as innocuous as a lawnmower muffler if it was fitted with a barrel attachment device like a sleeve and setscrew or a plastic soda bottle.
-
What a lark.
If gun registration is mandated by law, you’ll meekly register your weapons, just like everyone else, your bluster notwithstanding.
@Oceander
BS. Even liberal California and New York cannot get decent compliance with their newly required registration.
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/581879702/in-new-york-gun-owners-balk-at-new-handgun-database (https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/581879702/in-new-york-gun-owners-balk-at-new-handgun-database)
http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/feb/04/loretta-sanchez/sanchez-makes-pants-fire-claim-about-california-gu/ (http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/feb/04/loretta-sanchez/sanchez-makes-pants-fire-claim-about-california-gu/)
And when Canada tried it, it was such a failure they gave up.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#44c165165a1b (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#44c165165a1b)
To believe all those in more gun friendly area would comply with such a demand is ignorant of reality and recent history.
-
...They don't actually silence anything, just suppress it. Could cover something as innocuous as a lawnmower muffler if it was fitted with a barrel attachment device like a sleeve and setscrew or a plastic soda bottle.
If you are going the cheap homemade route, Oil Filter is the way to go, or so I've heard. You can buy cheap adapters for standard barrel thread to standard filters. I would recommend cash sale rather than ordering online.
-
If you are going the cheap homemade route, Oil Filter is the way to go, or so I've heard. You can buy cheap adapters for standard barrel thread to standard filters. I would recommend cash sale rather than ordering online.
:happyhappy:
Hell, it's so bad already I'm getting rid of my smart phone.
-
:happyhappy:
Hell, it's so bad already I'm getting rid of my smart phone.
A couple years ago I quit using credit or debit cards for any gun/ammo related purchases. I end up carrying more cash than I like, but life is full of compromises.
-
Well, you would be wrong.
I certainly refused to do it when I lived up in Chicago.
I will be damned if I do it where I live now.
See, I do not view government the way most of you do. So, when they tell me that guns are to be registered, that's a sign - because I know what follows thereafter - and I have no intentions of going along with it.
@INVAR some people don't seem to comprehend the phrase "I will not comply" means something to some people.
-
@INVAR some people don't seem to comprehend the phrase "I will not comply" means something to some people.
And recent history makes it clear it is not a few extreme people, but a large percentage of the population that would not comply with gun registration.
-
If you are going the cheap homemade route, Oil Filter is the way to go, or so I've heard. You can buy cheap adapters for standard barrel thread to standard filters. I would recommend cash sale rather than ordering online.
New from the box I assume. Otherwise it would make a bit of a mess...
-
And recent history makes it clear it is not a few extreme people, but a large percentage of the population that would not comply with gun registration.
Nope I think the gun grabber/registration folks will me extremely surprised at the push back they'll receive if they ever get their way.
-
Are these the same folks who wax apoplectic over immigrants defying the law? What moral authority do you possess to criticize illegal immigrants when you so casually refuse to follow the law yourselves?
-
Are these the same folks who wax apoplectic over immigrants defying the law? What moral authority do you possess to criticize illegal immigrants when you so casually refuse to follow the law yourselves?
You seriously have to ask that?
The people like myself who will not comply with illegal gun registration have the Second Amendment on our side. ANY form of coerced or forced registration is a clear violation of a Constitutional Amendment.
The fact you can't see the difference between the two issues shouldn't shock me...and yet it does.
-
Are these the same folks who wax apoplectic over immigrants defying the law? What moral authority do you possess to criticize illegal immigrants when you so casually refuse to follow the law yourselves?
You seem to ignore this isn't the law.
But it is an understanding that attempts at creating such a law would have extreme pushback before it became law.
Keep throwing up your strawman arguments and false analogies.
-
Are these the same folks who wax apoplectic over immigrants defying the law? What moral authority do you possess to criticize illegal immigrants when you so casually refuse to follow the law yourselves?
Gee I see you shopped at Whole Foods for Apples and Oranges this Morning.
-
And recent history makes it clear it is not a few extreme people, but a large percentage of the population that would not comply with gun registration.
@thackney
A guy I know ran into this up in Massachusetts. He had the state firearm license and his .357 was duly registered. They could come into his house at any time to make sure it was stored properly.
He ended up with a crazy girlfriend who attacked him one night. Police were called, he went to jail because he was a white male, cops went looking for his registered firearms. Fortunately, he had taken it out to a shed and they didn't find it.
They issued a restraining order which meant he couldn't go back to his house because she was there. Took him 30 days to evict her despite it not being her residence. Meanwhile she sold all his stuff except for the firearm which was out in the shed. Once he could get back on the property he buried the gun and then moved out of the state.
He didn't do anything, didn't hit her, didn't threaten her, nothing. BUT if they had found the gun at any point they would have charged him and he would now be a convicted criminal. THAT is why they want registration. Because its a tool that can be used to make more people into criminals and thereby unable to own a firearm.
-
You seriously have to ask that?
The people like myself who will not comply with illegal gun registration have the Second Amendment on our side. ANY form of coerced or forced registration is a clear violation of a Constitutional Amendment.
The fact you can't see the difference between the two issues shouldn't shock me...and yet it does.
In his world, Inalienable Rights are mere government privileges that really don't exist and can be reasonably regulated out of existence - while illegal aliens are entitled to open borders and perverted behaviors are untouchable 'rights' plucked out of thin air that we may not infringe upon.
It's Bizarro World. But then, that is what Liberalism and Communism is all about.
-
New from the box I assume. Otherwise it would make a bit of a mess...
Plus forensics would be able to match the splatter pattern. 😆
-
In his world, Inalienable Rights are mere government privileges that really don't exist and can be reasonably regulated out of existence - while illegal aliens are entitled to open borders and perverted behaviors are untouchable 'rights' plucked out of thin air that we may not infringe upon.
It's Bizarro World. But then, that is what Liberalism and Communism is all about.
Cue the endless posts about Scalia and rewriting the 2nd.
-
He didn't do anything, didn't hit her, didn't threaten her, nothing. BUT if they had found the gun at any point they would have charged him and he would now be a convicted criminal. THAT is why they want registration. Because its a tool that can be used to make more people into criminals and thereby unable to own a firearm.
And for someone like me that has a state license and minor security clearance to work, it is a huge hammer. That is why I will always fight to prevent registration. It can be used against me in children legal proceedings as well.
Not to mention, it does nothing to stop current criminals; only create more criminals out of currently law abiding citizens.
-
Plus forensics would be able to match the splatter pattern. 😆
Not to mention, forensics could trace the contaminants in the oil to the car it came from and then check the vehicle registrations at the DMV and come to your home and arrest you and take you and your car to jail. :thud:
-
New from the box I assume. Otherwise it would make a bit of a mess...
New is pretty, but nearly all suppressors work even better with some fluid. I know several that normally dump water in the factory-made type then dump out before using. Those droplets absorb more sound than straight air/metal.
http://www.advanced-armament.com/06-What-is-a-WetDry-suppressor_df_40.html (http://www.advanced-armament.com/06-What-is-a-WetDry-suppressor_df_40.html)
-
Are these the same folks who wax apoplectic over immigrants defying the law? What moral authority do you possess to criticize illegal immigrants when you so casually refuse to follow the law yourselves?
there is your problem in a nutshell.
You see no difference in the rights of a citizen vs a non citizen.
Until you do, there is no cure.
-
New is pretty, but nearly all suppressors work even better with some fluid. I know several that normally dump water in the factory-made type then dump out before using. Those droplets absorb more sound than straight air/metal.
Okay. Nother dumb question. Do you predrill an exit hole in the other end of the Fram filter or let the fired projectile handle that job?
-
Okay. Nother dumb question. Do you predrill an exit hole in the other end of the Fram filter or let the fired projectile handle that job?
I've read about both, but I would pre-drill. While the tighter minimal opening size would have some suppression advantages, not having clearance between the bullet and filter material is going to result in some uneven drag that effects accuracy.
Maglite kits are out there as well.
Remember, this is a BATFE regulated device and you need to register and pay the fee!
-
there is your problem in a nutshell.
You see no difference in the rights of a citizen vs a non citizen.
Until you do, there is no cure.
Status as a citizen doesn't give you license to selectively ignore the law. It is hypocrisy to decry illegal immigration while boasting of your willingness to thumb your nose at the law.
-
You seem to ignore this isn't the law.
But it is an understanding that attempts at creating such a law would have extreme pushback before it became law.
Yes, and that's a disgrace. There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.
I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude.
-
Yes, and that's a disgrace. There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.
I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude.
I despise the idea that any government imposed tyranny must be accepted, since it is the new law.
We left the Kingdom for the consent of the governed centuries ago.
-
Yes, and that's a disgrace. There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.
I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude.
@Jazzhead
The more I reread your post the more I fear I missed your point.
What do you consider the disgrace?
That we don't already have the law? Or that we would pushback against the notion of even having the law created?
-
Status as a citizen doesn't give you license to selectively ignore the law. It is hypocrisy to decry illegal immigration while boasting of your willingness to thumb your nose at the law.
That mind of yours remains mired in your weird world of obvious denial of differences between a citizen and noncitizens.
Oh, and BTW, you seem to equate an existing law and a hypothetical law as equal.
Only someone insane makes comparisons like that. Hard to believe you claim to be a legal expert
Guess there is little hopen for you after all.
-
Yes, and that's a disgrace. There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.
I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude.
Get used to it. We do not care what your 'community' of Leftists demand.
We despise those like you who insist that our Inalienable Rights are merely government-granted privileges that can be abolished under the color of 'law'.
-
Get used to it. We do not care what your 'community' of Leftists demand.
Who you don't care about is the community of your fellow Americans, and the Constitution that provides for our miracle of self-governance under the rule of law.
-
Yes, and that's a disgrace. There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.
Only person that has ever said that here is you. And you need to stop.
I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude.
So did the British in 1776 when the Colonists held the same attitude.
-
@Jazzhead
The more I reread your post the more I fear I missed your point.
What do you consider the disgrace?
That we don't already have the law? Or that we would pushback against the notion of even having the law created?
I don't care one way or the other whether we have the law. Yes, I happen to support firearms registration as reasonable, Constitutional and efficacious. But it doesn't matter what I think. If the Peoples' elected representatives decide to require Constitutionally-permissible firearms registration, then respect for the nation, IMO, morally obligates you and me to comply. Instead I have to listen to the idiots on this thread engage in their masturbatory fantasies about resisting the law, watering trees, and confronting peace officers. *****rollingeyes*****
-
then respect for the nation, IMO, morally obligates you and me to comply
If the law is in direct violation of the Constitution...then no we do not have to comply.
You clearly think we should be sheep.
-
If the law is in direct violation of the Constitution...then no we do not have to comply.
You clearly think we should be sheep.
Read what I wrote. I said "Constitutionally permissible firearms registration".
-
I don't care one way or the other whether we have the law. Yes, I happen to support firearms registration as reasonable, Constitutional and efficacious. But it doesn't matter what I think. If the Peoples' elected representatives decide to require Constitutionally-permissible firearms registration, then respect for the nation, IMO, morally obligates you and me to comply. Instead I have to listen to the idiots on this thread engage in their masturbatory fantasies about resisting the law, watering trees, and shooting peace officers. *****rollingeyes*****
The only one talking about shooting others on this thread is you.
As for resisting the law, not complying with registration, we have multiple examples of that already happening on gun registration. It isn't the fantasy of a few extremest. It is the reality of large portions of the population already ignoring it where required.
I'll repeat what I posted above:
Even liberal California and New York cannot get decent compliance with their newly required registration.
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/581879702/in-new-york-gun-owners-balk-at-new-handgun-database (https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/581879702/in-new-york-gun-owners-balk-at-new-handgun-database)
http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/feb/04/loretta-sanchez/sanchez-makes-pants-fire-claim-about-california-gu/ (http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/feb/04/loretta-sanchez/sanchez-makes-pants-fire-claim-about-california-gu/)
And when Canada tried it, it was such a failure they gave up.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#44c165165a1b (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#44c165165a1b)
To believe all those in more gun friendly area would comply with such a demand is ignorant of reality and recent history. If New York is going to get compliance with gun registration, how do you think it will be received in Texas, Kentucky and other freedom-cherishing states?
-
Read what I wrote. I said "Constitutionally permissible firearms registration".
I read what you wrote. Doesn't change a thing about what I said.
What you keep missing is the fact that...
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
...doesn't leave any wiggle room for "Constitutionally permissible firearms registration".
-
I don't care one way or the other whether we have the law....
You sure put a lot of time and effort into something you don't care about.
I will make it clear. I care deeply about it. I will make vocal my opinion to those proposing it and certainly to my representatives if they even consider it.
-
Who you don't care about is the community of your fellow Americans, and the Constitution that provides for our miracle of self-governance under the rule of law.
And yet, somehow in your twisted mind, the plain words in the Constitution that tell your government my right to firearms "Shall Not Be Infringed" - can be reasonably regulated out of existence and abolished and confiscated under the color of "law".
So, we do not care what your "community' demands. You come take our guns by arming up your government agents to come and take them The bloodshed that results - will be on your head because you and morons like you will have made that last mistake.
-
And yet, somehow in your twisted mind, the plain words in the Constitution that tell your government my right to firearms "Shall Not Be Infringed" - can be reasonably regulated out of existence and abolished and confiscated under the color of "law".
So, we do not care what your "community' demands. You come take our guns by arming up your government agents to come and take them The bloodshed that results - will be on your head because you and morons like you will have made that last mistake.
You just can't make this stuff up. His thinking on this (or what subs as thinking) is a surreal and stunning disconnect from reality.... typical of most leftists' ""unrealistic, irrational, illogical"" political stances.
And then... to top it all off.... he has the colossal nerve to call anyone ELSE on this thread an idiot! :silly:
-
I read what you wrote. Doesn't change a thing about what I said.
What you keep missing is the fact that...
...doesn't leave any wiggle room for "Constitutionally permissible firearms registration".
Read the predicate clause. Read Heller. The reasonable regulation of firearms does not constitute unlawful infringement. Even ignoring the predicate clause, the right that shall not be infringed is the right to "keep and bear". The 2A is silent about the rules for the transfer and disposition of firearms. That is what registration is getting at - to create the effective conditions for documented transfers and dispositions of firearms, by assigning each firearm to its lawful owner.
You are not the king who gets to implement your own fantasy of what the Constitution permits and does not permit.
-
Read the predicate clause. Read Heller. The reasonable regulation of firearms does not constitute unlawful infringement. Even ignoring the predicate clause, the right that shall not be infringed is the right to "keep and bear". The 2A is silent about the rules for the transfer and disposition of firearms. That is what registration is getting at - to create the effective conditions for documented transfers and dispositions of firearms, by assigning each firearm to its lawful owner.
You are not the king who gets to implement your own fantasy of what the Constitution permits and does not permit.
I was wondering when you were going to start up with this nonsense. Took a little longer than I anticipated. Thank goodness I've had some masturbatory fantasies to keep me busy in the meantime.
-
You just can't make this stuff up. His thinking on this (or what subs as thinking) is a surreal and stunning disconnect from reality....
Oh, the term idiot is quite apt. Two centuries of court precedents establish that the reasonable regulation of firearms is not unlawful infringement. Yet you continue to reside in Cloudcuckooland.
-
I was wondering when you were going to start up with this nonsense. Took a little longer than I anticipated. Thank goodness I've had some masturbatory fantasies to keep me busy in the meantime.
(https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED55/53ed5b234ad20.jpeg)
-
Read the predicate clause. Read Heller. The reasonable regulation of firearms does not constitute unlawful infringement. Even ignoring the predicate clause, the right that shall not be infringed is the right to "keep and bear". The 2A is silent about the rules for the transfer and disposition of firearms. That is what registration is getting at - to create the effective conditions for documented transfers and dispositions of firearms, by assigning each firearm to its lawful owner.
You are not the king who gets to implement your own fantasy of what the Constitution permits and does not permit.
Go back to the original topic of the thread and try again on how registration doesn't impact keeping your arms.
-
Read the predicate clause. Read Heller. The reasonable regulation of firearms does not constitute unlawful infringement. Even ignoring the predicate clause, the right that shall not be infringed is the right to "keep and bear". The 2A is silent about the rules for the transfer and disposition of firearms. That is what registration is getting at - to create the effective conditions for documented transfers and dispositions of firearms, by assigning each firearm to its lawful owner.
I read the predicate clause and I read the only part of Heller that counts...the MAJORITY decision.
You are fixated on the minority dissent because it fits your gun grabbing world view.
And no matter how you stomp your feet and cry it's not going to change the fact that Stevens was dead wrong and still is.
Just like you.
You are not the king who gets to implement your own fantasy of what the Constitution permits and does not permit.
You're the only one around here trying to mandate governmental control of a free people against their will.
That is acting like a King.
-
Go back to the original topic of the thread and try again on how registration doesn't impact keeping your arms.
@thackney according to Jazzy...registration never leads to confiscation.
-
[...] your willingness to thumb your nose at the law.
It would not be law, but rather, color of law.
-
Who you don't care about is the community of your fellow Americans, [...]
You and your fellows are in no 'community' that includes me in the slightest...
[...] and the Constitution that provides for our miracle of self-governance under the rule of law.
This is not the rule of law.
-
The reasonable regulation of firearms does not constitute unlawful infringement.
We say it does. End of discussion.
You're gonna have to arm up your government to put their guns to our heads to attempt to force compliance with your "laws".
It's that simple.
We have a history of defying 'laws' from tyrants that infringe upon our inalienable and Natural Rights. Whether that be one tyrant 3,000 miles away, or 3 thousand tyrants one mile away.
That is what registration is getting at - to create the effective conditions for documented transfers and dispositions of firearms, by assigning each firearm to its lawful owner.
BULLSHIT. As the original news items that started this thread illustrate - confiscation and imprisonment for merely possessing them is the goal.
I view your government as no less than the NKVD or the SS or the Gestapo, so disarming us is the first step to a mass grave. Do the math.
You are not the king who gets to implement your own fantasy of what the Constitution permits and does not permit.
Says the person pretending to be king and lecturing us about what you say the Constitution permits and what rights can be reasonably regulated into a privilege granted by the whim of government bureaucrats after we jump through enough hoops, pay enough fees and endure all the red tape. Then MAYBE, we can exercise our "rights' under strict government limitations.
If at all.
So no. Pound sand Turkey.
Arm up. Come and take 'em.
We be waiting.
-
If the Peoples' elected representatives decide to require Constitutionally-permissible firearms registration, then respect for the nation, IMO, morally obligates you and me to comply.
Nope. The only way you will ever know how many guns I own, and where they all are, is to come and see for yourself. You will in no way impose upon me that very same crap you've imposed on yourself and found an incredible failure.
Why won't you reject that which already provably doesn't work where you are? Why do you insist upon imposing your idiocy upon me? Chicago, as an example, has some of the strictest gun laws and is among the most violent places in the nation. You can't get guns registered in a 250 square mile area... How the hell do you think it is going to work across the nation?
-
I was wondering when you were going to start up with this nonsense. Took a little longer than I anticipated. Thank goodness I've had some masturbatory fantasies to keep me busy in the meantime.
As soon as anyone blows out his prevarications with the obvious black and white 'shall not be infringed' JH starts in with the Heller wiggling. Like clockwork.
-
As soon as anyone blows out his prevarications with the obvious black and white 'shall not be infringed' JH starts in with the Heller wiggling. Like clockwork.
Or the "Predicate Clause." This is literally playing ridiculous games with grammar in an attempt to twist the meaning of the plainly written text. Right up there with the on-line grammar police we see every day.
-
Oh, the term idiot is quite apt. Two centuries of court precedents establish that the reasonable regulation of firearms is not unlawful infringement. Yet you continue to reside in Cloudcuckooland.
Like I already stated.... that you have the nerve to call anyone "else" an idiot (or whatever insult Cloudcuckooland is supposed to imply) is hilarious. Un-self-aware much?
-
Or the "Predicate Clause." This is literally playing ridiculous games with grammar in an attempt to twist the meaning of the plainly written text. Right up there with the on-line grammar police we see every day.
We only THINK we know what plain english means. Thank goodness for lawyers to tell us how wrong we are.
-
(or whatever insult Cloudcuckooland is supposed to imply)
Aristophanes. From his play The Birds.
-
Oh, the term idiot is quite apt. Two centuries of court precedents establish that the reasonable regulation of firearms is not unlawful infringement. Yet you continue to reside in Cloudcuckooland.
2 Centuries? Courts didn't bother with it till after the Civil War.
-
We only THINK we know what plain english means. Thank goodness for lawyers to tell us how wrong we are.
The 2A is notorious for not being written in plain English.
-
The 2A is notorious for not being written in plain English.
@Jazzhead
The 2nd is quite plain. Straightforward and easy to understand.
Unless you're trying to twist it to mean something different.
-
I was wondering when you were going to start up with this nonsense. Took a little longer than I anticipated. Thank goodness I've had some masturbatory fantasies to keep me busy in the meantime.
@RoosGirl
You dont say.
-
I was wondering when you were going to start up with this nonsense. Took a little longer than I anticipated. Thank goodness I've had some masturbatory fantasies to keep me busy in the meantime.
8888forgot
:beer:
-
8888forgot
:beer:
@driftdiver
@roamer_1
Now boys, you'll have to read back through Jazz's comments to see what I've been accused of fantasizing about.
-
@driftdiver
@roamer_1
Now boys, you'll have to read back through Jazz's comments to see what I've been accused of fantasizing about.
Get yo mama to read through that.... :whistle:
-
@driftdiver
@roamer_1
Now boys, you'll have to read back through Jazz's comments to see what I've been accused of fantasizing about.
@RoosGirl
Oh I know exactly what's goin on... I was just pokin fun...
-
Get yo mama to read through that.... :whistle:
Did I speel somthin rong?
-
@driftdiver
@roamer_1
Now boys, you'll have to read back through Jazz's comments to see what I've been accused of fantasizing about.
(http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/aint-nobody-got-time-for-that1.jpg)
-
We only THINK we know what plain english means. Thank goodness for lawyers to tell us how wrong we are.
I told one of these guys last night I wasn't going to argue with him. He told me to STFU.... *****rollingeyes*****
I guess even I didn't understand my own words.
-
Did I speel somthin rong?
U dindo nuffin rong....
-
I told one of these guys last night I wasn't going to argue with him. He told me to STFU.... *****rollingeyes*****
I guess even I didn't understand my own words.
****drummer
-
The 2A is notorious for not being written in plain English.
@Jazzhead
Hey Jazz...bite me you wannabe tyrant. Have you worked up the stones to volunteer to go on your no knock raids yet? If not, STFU and go haunt another thread without spewing your statist drivel.
-
Yes, and that's a disgrace. There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.
I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude.
@Jazzhead
And we despise your statist ass...so there’s that.
-
If the Peoples' elected representatives decide to require Constitutionally-permissible firearms registration, then respect for the nation, IMO, morally obligates you and me to comply.
Wrong.
At that point your government will have totally nullified what little moral authority it has left, having made itself a despotic tyranny attempting to impose itself upon what remains of a free people. We don't care if your elected reps decide to do what they did to shove ObamaCare on the country and declare it 'legal'. In fact, we don't care if 90% of the country votes to become Communist and demands we abolish speech, religion, press and arms. At the point any of that happens, we no longer consent to be governed by such a system.
It will at that time, become our sole duty to refuse and resist compliance by every and all means at our disposal.
The radical Leftists that put Obama into power estimated back in 1980 that 30 million Americans would refuse to go along with their plans and would have to be exterminated - as in killed and dumped in mass graves.
How many of us are you willing to kill to see your utopian vision of gun registration and confiscation realized?
You better count the cost - because when you get your wish - we got nothing left to lose and you will have rued the day you ever put this stupid notion of yours into the public eye.
-
Folks it is real easy, jut Add Jazzhead tot he "ignore" list. Life is much more pleasant that way.
-
Folks it is real easy, jut Add Jazzhead tot he "ignore" list. Life is much more pleasant that way.
No. Then he gets to spout his bullshit unchallenged. That will not stand.
-
No. Then he gets to spout his bullshit unchallenged. That will not stand.
Saying " bite me" is your idea of a challenge?
-
Saying " bite me" is your idea of a challenge?
@Jazzhead
At this point yes, because you’ve proven yourself too damn stupid or too damn intellectually dishonest to have a conversation with. You come into EVERY 2A thread there is and spout the same bullshit over and over and over and over. And this despite your bulkshit being debunked over and over and over. So go sell it on DU. But here? Bite me. Until you agree to volunteer to put your own ass on the line taking people’s guns who won’t comply with your bullshit, you deserve and will receive the respect due a tyrant: NONE
-
Saying " bite me" is your idea of a challenge?
@Jazzhead
I'd say your constant repetition of the gun control talking points lack the depth of 'bite me'.
Gun control doesn't work. Everywhere its tried has increased violence and crime. But you refuse to even address those facts.
But then it's not really about the children or safety. It's about control.
-
Folks it is real easy, jut Add Jazzhead tot he "ignore" list. Life is much more pleasant that way.
He provides this board a solid by offering himself up as our resident Leftist kickbag, Gojo mat and paper target.
It is good he offers himself up for sparring and combat practice because he provides us all the talking points and directional argumentation that the radical Leftists are intending to project upon lesser informed peoples so as to prey upon their ignorance with emotional-sounding rhetoric to garner their desired utopia.
-
The Constitution is words on a page.
It is the mindset. The thought process. The spirituality (that uplifting freedom embodiment). That put those words on the page...
Put into action.
That is ALL that matters.
The people who put those words on the page weren't emigrants.
They were refugees.
Who made a stand.
I stand with them.
-
And for those morons who would try and convince us that registration of our guns will NOT lead to confiscations and the wholesale banning of our right to possess them - all one needs to do is listen to what those in GOVERNMENT tell us that they intend to do:
A Democratic congressman “went there†Thursday. (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/3/eric-swalwell-calls-mandatory-buyback-all-military/)
In an editorial in USA Today, Rep. Eric Swalwell proposed a mandatory buyback of all “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons†without any “grandfather clause†for existing weapons or any deference to the Second Amendment — the sort of forced-confiscation plan that gun-rights advocates have warned about and gun-controllers have hotly denied they seek.
The California Democrat called reinstating the federal assault-weapons ban from the 1990s a good beginning, “but it would not affect weapons already possessed.â€
“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons,†Mr. Swalwell said.
Swalwell is a puke. :3:
-
The Constitution is words on a page.
It is the mindset. The thought process. The spirituality (that uplifting freedom embodiment). That put those words on the page...
Put into action.
That is ALL that matters.
The people who put those words on the page weren't emigrants.
They were refugees.
Who made a stand.
I stand with them.
Thanks Fred.
-
It is good he offers himself up for sparring and combat practice because he provides us all the talking points and directional argumentation that the radical Leftists are intending to project upon lesser informed peoples so as to prey upon their ignorance with emotional-sounding rhetoric to garner their desired utopia.
Are you at all capable of self-criticism? Listen to yourself - you claim to refute my arguments by beating your chest in masturbatory bloodlust. You aren't posting arguments, you're writing resistance porn. Just wait 'til I "come after you" - you'll shoot me dead. And I'm a coward because I won't come after your guns so you can water your tree.
Go ahead and water your tree, out here on a public discussion board so all can see how nucking futs you are *****rollingeyes*****
-
Are you at all capable of self-criticism? Listen to yourself - you claim to refute my arguments by beating your chest in masturbatory bloodlust. You aren't posting arguments, you're writing resistance porn. Just wait 'til I "come after you" - you'll shoot me dead. And I'm a coward because I won't come after your guns so you can water your tree.
Go ahead and water your tree, out here on a public discussion board so all can see how nucking futs you are *****rollingeyes*****
You're really in a masturbatory mood today.
-
Are you at all capable of self-criticism?
Not to you.
Just wait 'til I "come after you" - you'll shoot me dead.
Good. You showcase that you are able to comprehend the concept of consequences. Heed them.
Or not.
At minimum you have been warned.
And I'm a coward because I won't come after your guns so you can water your tree.
You have already admitted your cowardice elsewhere when you affirmed your desire to send out agents of the state to confiscate guns, in whom you said you pray riddle me with bullet holes so they can go home 'safe' to their families at night.
The fact you are a coward is already known.
Go ahead and water your tree, out here on a public discussion board so all can see how nucking futs you are *****rollingeyes*****
And here I thought you understood the concept of consequences.
Apparently not.
-
New is pretty, but nearly all suppressors work even better with some fluid. I know several that normally dump water in the factory-made type then dump out before using. Those droplets absorb more sound than straight air/metal.
http://www.advanced-armament.com/06-What-is-a-WetDry-suppressor_df_40.html (http://www.advanced-armament.com/06-What-is-a-WetDry-suppressor_df_40.html)
Thanks, your post made the thread worth reading so far. Interesting info there. @thackney
SHTF hypothetical question....I was wondering if you used a light (clean) oil in said oil filter, would it increase likelihood of a fire at the end of the muzzle? Again hypothetical question only of course. Article mentioned something about possibility of being explosive.
-
Read what I wrote. I said "Constitutionally permissible firearms registration".
Odd, the right to defend oneself comes from God, the Constitution only reaffirms that it will not infringe on that right. I will not give in to a government attempt to curtail a gift from God.
-
Thanks, your post made the thread worth reading so far. Interesting info there. @thackney
SHTF hypothetical question....I was wondering if you used a light (clean) oil in said oil filter, would it increase likelihood of a fire at the end of the muzzle? Again hypothetical question only of course. Article mentioned something about possibility of being explosive.
Most oils are hard to ignite. You won't ignite motor oil by touching it with a match for a second.
But if you keep firing it with a suppressor, that suppressor is going to get hot. Water helps as it evaporates with the heat, cooling the suppressor (a little, it is still heating up). The oil would eventually ignite if used over and over without cooling back down.
So first shot, okay. 10 shots in 10 seconds, maybe okay? 50 shots in under a minute - Oh look! My gun is a flame thrower!
-
Odd, the right to defend oneself comes from God, the Constitution only reaffirms that it will not infringe on that right. I will not give in to a government attempt to curtail a gift from God.
Straw man. Your natural right to defend yourself and your home isn't at stake or at issue here. What you don't necessarily have a right to do is buy guns off the back of trucks in undocumented transactions, or amass arsenals in secret. Registration serves a similar purpose for guns as it does for cars - to assign a gun to its lawful owner for liability purposes, and to provide a basis for documented transfers and dispositions.
Like you, I oppose laws that limit the number or kind of guns you can own. I understand it's your hobby, and that's fine. But it is entirely reasonable to require that you register your ownership and buy and sell your guns on the up-and-up.
You have the right to defend yourself. And the community has the right to protect itself from an unregulated market in guns. And you do NOT have the right to be a law unto yourself, and to pick and choose which of the community's laws you will ignore.
-
And you do NOT have the right to be a law unto yourself, and to pick and choose which of the community's laws you will ignore.
And an oppressive government, as viewed by a significant enough size of its population, will eventually fail.
Gun Registration has been failing in liberal New York, California and Canada (well, already failed in Canada, they gave up).
To ignore reality of the general population of this topic is very foolish. This would have stronger push-back than Prohibition.
-
You have the right to defend yourself. And the community has the right to protect itself from an unregulated market in guns. And you do NOT have the right to be a law unto yourself, and to pick and choose which of the community's laws you will ignore.
@Jazzhead
Firearms are one of these most regulated products available in the marketplace.
Does Occupy, BLM, or Antifa have the right to be a law unto itself? I've never seen you speak out against them.
-
Most oils are hard to ignite. You won't ignite motor oil by touching it with a match for a second.
But if you keep firing it with a suppressor, that suppressor is going to get hot. Water helps as it evaporates with the heat, cooling the suppressor (a little, it is still heating up). The oil would eventually ignite if used over and over without cooling back down.
So first shot, okay. 10 shots in 10 seconds, maybe okay? 50 shots in under a minute - Oh look! My gun is a flame thrower!
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BczhT1ByrXA#)
-
This would have stronger push-back than Prohibition.
That's preposterous. Prohibition banned the sale of alcohol. Firearms registration doesn't affect your ability to own a gun - only that you take responsibility for it.
-
Firearms registration doesn't affect your ability to own a gun - only that you take responsibility for it.
No matter how many times you say it, it's still not true.
-
Does Occupy, BLM, or Antifa have the right to be a law unto itself? I've never seen you speak out against them.
Consider it done. Occupy, BLM and Antifa don't have the right to be laws unto themselves. And neither do you.
You've never "seen me speak out against them" because, as far as I can recall, no members here have defended or asserted Occupy's, BLM's or Antifa's "right" to ignore the law. But the theme of this entire selfish thread is F*ck-the-Community - even to the point of threatening bloodshed.
-
That's preposterous. Prohibition banned the sale of alcohol. Firearms registration doesn't affect your ability to own a gun - only that you take responsibility for it.
When you see liberal areas like California and New York with significant non-compliance, how do you think it will be received in Texas and Kentucky?
You have your opinion. But you continue to ignore the original topic of the thread. It most certainly limits gun ownership and leads to confiscation.
-
That's preposterous. Prohibition banned the sale of alcohol. Firearms registration doesn't affect your ability to own a gun - only that you take responsibility for it.
@Jazzhead
Now you know thats just a false argument. Each and everyone of us is already responsible if we misuse a firearm, knife, pillow, car, or our own hands.
What you want is to make it more difficult for people to own a firearm. Which is where the phrase 'shall not infringe' comes into play.
-
Consider it done. Occupy, BLM and Antifa don't have the right to be laws unto themselves. And neither do you.
You've never "seen me speak out against them" because, as far as I can recall, no members here have defended or asserted Occupy's, BLM's or Antifa's "right" to ignore the law. But the theme of this entire selfish thread is F*ck-the-Community - even to the point of threatening bloodshed.
@Jazzhead
Of course I don't until the government makes an unjust law.
You still have never addressed the question of how your proposed changes would make the world safer. We have a multitude of real world examples where the very changes you propose result in more crime, more deaths and a less safe world.
-
@Jazzhead
Of course I don't until the government makes an unjust law.
You still have never addressed the question of how your proposed changes would make the world safer. We have a multitude of real world examples where the very changes you propose result in more crime, more deaths and a less safe world.
@driftdiver good luck on getting a straight answer out of him. I've asked numerous times how one more gun law on the books in addition to the 16K already in place would change things...and I've gotten nothing that remotely resembles a straight answer.
-
@driftdiver good luck on getting a straight answer out of him. I've asked numerous times how one more gun law on the books in addition to the 16K already in place would change things...and I've gotten nothing that remotely resembles a straight answer.
@txradioguy
Yeah I know, but I like to keep putting it out there for the lurkers.
-
@txradioguy
Yeah I know, but I like to keep putting it out there for the lurkers.
LOL! Same here :beer:
-
What you want is to make it more difficult for people to own a firearm. Which is where the phrase 'shall not infringe' comes into play.
Wrong. Infringement means the law denies you the right. Such as D.C.'s law (addressed in Heller) effectively banning handgun ownership that stripped ordinary citizens of their right to defend their homes. Reasonable regulation - even regulation that may inconvenience you - is perfectly legal, as has been found in case after case, including Heller itself.
Registration does not make it more difficult for you to own a firearm, it is merely a device for identifying that you are the person who has legal responsibility for it. Does registration deny you the ability to own a car? Of course not. The argument is absurd.
-
Wrong. Infringement means the law denies you the right. Such as D.C.'s law (addressed in Heller) effectively banning handgun ownership that stripped ordinary citizens of their right to defend their homes. Reasonable regulation - even regulation that may inconvenience you - is perfectly legal, as has been found in case after case, including Heller itself.
Registration does not make it more difficult for you to own a firearm, it is merely a device for identifying that you are the person who has legal responsibility for it. Does registration deny you the ability to own a car? Of course not. The argument is absurd.
@Jazzhead
uh nope, you lefties argue that requiring a govt issued ID in order to vote is an infringement. Using that yard stick we shouldn't even have to show a drivers license let alone succumb to a background check to purchase a firearm.
Again, how would registration accomplish whatever goal you have in mind. Please provide an example of where registration has accomplished said goal.
-
@driftdiver good luck on getting a straight answer out of him. I've asked numerous times how one more gun law on the books in addition to the 16K already in place would change things...and I've gotten nothing that remotely resembles a straight answer.
I've been responsive time and again. You just won't accept my answer, and rather than address the substance you just claim I've been non-responsive.
Registration is a device for assigning a firearm to the person who is legally responsible for it, and for establishing the basis for documented transfers and dispositions. If your firearm is registered to you, you will be deterred from selling it off the back of a truck.
-
@Jazzhead
uh nope, you lefties argue that requiring a govt issued ID in order to vote is an infringement.
Liar. I have always supported the requirement of an ID to vote. It is in no way an infringement of the right to vote.
-
I've been responsive time and again. You just won't accept my answer, and rather than address the substance you just claim I've been non-responsive.
Registration is a device for assigning a firearm to the person who is legally responsible for it, and for establishing the basis for documented transfers and dispositions. If your firearm is registered to you, you will be deterred from selling it off the back of a truck.
@Jazzhead
Except that doesn't work, or at least it hasn't in the dozens of places its been tried.
Regardless you are punishing law abiding citizens and infringing on their rights. INFRINGE learn it.
-
Wrong. Infringement means the law denies you the right. Such as D.C.'s law (addressed in Heller) effectively banning handgun ownership that stripped ordinary citizens of their right to defend their homes. Reasonable regulation - even regulation that may inconvenience you - is perfectly legal, as has been found in case after case, including Heller itself.
Registration does not make it more difficult for you to own a firearm, it is merely a device for identifying that you are the person who has legal responsibility for it. Does registration deny you the ability to own a car? Of course not. The argument is absurd.
Does registration of a car keep people from using a car in a manner that they shouldn't? Does it keep the car in safe working order? Does it keep people from stealing the car? If I let someone borrow my car and they used the car to run over someone would I be responsible for that death? No. No. No. No. Registration allows the county to tax the use of my car to pay for road maintenance.
-
...Registration does not make it more difficult for you to own a firearm, it is merely a device for identifying that you are the person who has legal responsibility for it. Does registration deny you the ability to own a car? Of course not. The argument is absurd.
Really? Try telling that to Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann. The guy who tried to follow California's screwed up laws and ended up having ALL his weapons seized. You know, the original topic of the thread you keep ignoring.
-
PS Registration of my car does not deter me from selling it off the back of a truck to some guy whose had his license taken for DUI and isn't supposed to be driving.
-
I've been responsive time and again. You just won't accept my answer, and rather than address the substance you just claim I've been non-responsive.
Registration is a device for assigning a firearm to the person who is legally responsible for it, and for establishing the basis for documented transfers and dispositions. If your firearm is registered to you, you will be deterred from selling it off the back of a truck.
No you haven't been responsive. You've obfuscated...you've offered straw man arguments as a reply.
It's a very simple question to answer. Here I'll offer it again.
The U.S. at all levels of government has approximately 16,000 laws regarding the regulation and use of guns on the books as of today.
What difference is one new law or regulation going to do to stop illegal gun violence that the other 16,000 haven't?
-
PS Registration of my car does not deter me from selling it off the back of a truck to some guy whose had his license taken for DUI and isn't supposed to be driving.
And he doesn't have to register it, unless he drives it on the public roads.
-
@Jazzhead
Except that doesn't work, or at least it hasn't in the dozens of places its been tried.
It works in the case of automobile registration. Almost all transfers of ownership, and dispositions, are documented.
-
PS Registration of my car does not deter me from selling it off the back of a truck to some guy whose had his license taken for DUI and isn't supposed to be driving.
Yes, it does. Such transactions are very uncommon. That's because a car that is registered to you remains your legal responsibility. Documenting the transfer relieves you of that responsibility. Registration has been very effective in curbing the black market.
-
It works in the case of automobile registration. Almost all transfers of ownership, and dispositions, are documented.
Apples and oranges. Most vehicles are on a public street every week. Most firearms spend most of the year in storage.
-
...Registration has been very effective in curbing the black market.
Oh yeah, almost no cars or trucks ever get stolen...
In the United States, a car is stolen every 45 seconds. California has consistently led the United States in motor vehicle thefts, both in total vehicles stolen and thefts per capita.
https://pocketfinder.myshopify.com/blogs/news/how-many-cars-are-stolen-each-year
-
It works in the case of automobile registration. Almost all transfers of ownership, and dispositions, are documented.
@Jazzhead
How does it work to reduce crime?
Ask the 24 year old mother here in Tampa who was run over while pushing her baby across the street. Two young guys were street racing. Both driving properly registered cars.
But you've let on what your real goal is. Documentation. Yep, govt control and future confiscation.
-
Oh yeah, almost no cars or trucks ever get stolen...
In the United States, a car is stolen every 45 seconds. California has consistently led the United States in motor vehicle thefts, both in total vehicles stolen and thefts per capita.
https://pocketfinder.myshopify.com/blogs/news/how-many-cars-are-stolen-each-year
@thackney
To be fair most of those cars stolen in CA end up in Mexico. In the case of Firearms the federal govt does it themselves.
-
Really? Try telling that to Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann. The guy who tried to follow California's screwed up laws and ended up having ALL his weapons seized. You know, the original topic of the thread you keep ignoring.
INVAR conveniently left out a link in his opening post. But if the authorities seized both Mr. Kirschenmann's legal firearms as well as the illegal ones, then I agree an injustice was done, and quite possibly an unconstitutional infringement. But wait until the case plays out before jumping to the absurd conclusion that registration amounts to confiscation. This is America, where the rule of law means something.
-
It works in the case of automobile registration. Almost all transfers of ownership, and dispositions, are documented.
Does car registration save lives?
-
It works in the case of automobile registration. Almost all transfers of ownership, and dispositions, are documented.
What difference is one new law or regulation going to do to stop illegal gun violence that the other 16,000 haven't?
-
INVAR conveniently left out a link in his opening post. But if the authorities seized both Mr. Kirschenmann's legal firearms as well as the illegal ones, then I agree an injustice was done, and quite possibly an unconstitutional infringement. But wait until the case plays out before jumping to the absurd conclusion that registration amounts to confiscation. This is America, where the rule of law means something.
@Jazzhead
How does registration reduce crime? You've said it lets the govt track firearms. How does that reduce crime? Because an owner would be less likely to let their property be stolen? Like gun owners line up for that.
No you want to punish the law abiding and the victims while ignoring the criminal.
-
What difference is one new law or regulation going to do to stop illegal gun violence that the other 16,000 haven't?
@txradioguy
The right person just hasn't been in charge of those laws. yeah thats the answer
-
INVAR conveniently left out a link in his opening post. But if the authorities seized both Mr. Kirschenmann's legal firearms as well as the illegal ones, then I agree an injustice was done, and quite possibly an unconstitutional infringement. But wait until the case plays out before jumping to the absurd conclusion that registration amounts to confiscation. This is America, where the rule of law means something.
Since in every country where that registration was successful done, eventual confiscation of many of the firearms, is certainly reason to expect it once again.
In others like Canada, the government eventually realized registration was a failure itself.
-
@txradioguy
The right person just hasn't been in charge of those laws. yeah thats the answer
@driftdiver that always seems to be the Liberal answer to why failed programs implemented by other leftist regimes will work this time.
-
@Jazzhead
How does registration reduce crime? You've said it lets the govt track firearms. How does that reduce crime? Because an owner would be less likely to let their property be stolen? Like gun owners line up for that.
No you want to punish the law abiding and the victims while ignoring the criminal.
Does registration "punish" the law-abiding car owner? It's an imposition, an inconvenience, but not a punishment, and certainly not an unconstitutional "infringement".
C'mon, sir, the community does have an interest in curbing the black market in guns.
-
INVAR conveniently left out a link in his opening post.
The title was a hot link in his post. It does not show it has been modified.
The text include information of the confiscation. How is he part of your refusal to answer until asked several times?
-
C'mon, sir, the community does have an interest in curbing the black market in guns.
Registration would grow the black market in guns. I believe many of the posters on this thread would move to illegal trade if registration was required.
-
Since in every country where that registration was successful done, eventual confiscation of many of the firearms, is certainly reason to expect it once again.
In others like Canada, the government eventually realized registration was a failure itself.
America is not "every other country". We have a Constitution with a Second Amendment and a guarantee against seizure of property without just compensation, or the due process of law.
The answer cannot be that you have the "right" to decide for yourself which laws you will ignore. That is anarchy.
-
Does registration "punish" the law-abiding car owner? It's an imposition, an inconvenience, but not a punishment, and certainly not an unconstitutional "infringement".
C'mon, sir, the community does have an interest in curbing the black market in guns.
The auto registration canard always comes out eventually, even though it's been proven many times it's not analogous. My question about auto registration is: Has that prevented one theft of an auto?
-
Registration would grow the black market in guns. I believe many of the posters on this thread would move to illegal trade if registration was required.
That's a rather startling admission that folks here are not fundamentally law-abiding.
I don't believe it.
-
Does registration work?
Gun laws in Brazil. In Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the minimum age for gun ownership being 25. It is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence, and a special permit granting the right to do so is granted to certain groups, such as law enforcement officers.
According to most sources, Brazil possesses high rates of violent crimes, such as murders and robberies; depending on the source (UNDP or World Health Organization), Brazil's homicide rate is 20-30 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants according to the UNODC, placing Brazil in the top 20 countries by intentional homicide (source wiki)
They had nearly 60,000 murders in Brazil last year.
America has about 5,500 firearm murders.
Then there's Chicago, Baltimore, DC, California. All lead the US in murders but also strictly control firearms.
It sorta worked in England and Australia, in the sense it reduced gun crime. However, other forms of violent crime went up by over 80%
-
That's a rather startling admission that folks here are not fundamentally law-abiding.
I don't believe it.
@Jazzhead
Believe it.
An armed populace is essential to freedom. If your govt doesn't trust its citizens to be armed then you should fear that govt.
-
America is not "every other country". We have a Constitution with a Second Amendment and a guarantee against seizure of property without just compensation, or the due process of law.
And over and over and over, we see that guarantee broken. No way I'll ever agree to expand that power for the government in firearms.
The answer cannot be that you have the "right" to decide for yourself which laws you will ignore. That is anarchy.
Consent of the governed. It is clear to me (but I understand not you) that this topic would never receive consent for a very large portion of the governed.
And anarchy is not the only other option. Isn't it clear to you yet the population has greatly pushed back on gun control laws even BEFORE the laws are cast. That is part of legal political process.
-
So much guff and bravado. All of which will evaporate like the morning dew if registration ever becomes law.
-
America is not "every other country". We have a Constitution with a Second Amendment and a guarantee against seizure of property without just compensation, or the due process of law.
The answer cannot be that you have the "right" to decide for yourself which laws you will ignore. That is anarchy.
@Jazzhead
So its ok to confiscate them as long as a law is passed and people are paid a pittance for their property.
Once again you reveal yourself and your agenda.
BTW, every single day you decide which laws you are going to abide by. Every single day, every single one of us goes through that same process.
-
America is not "every other country". We have a Constitution with a Second Amendment and a guarantee against seizure of property without just compensation, or the due process of law.
The answer cannot be that you have the "right" to decide for yourself which laws you will ignore. That is anarchy.
http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/news/2018/05/04/congressman-calls-for-confiscation-of-assault-weapons.aspx (http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/news/2018/05/04/congressman-calls-for-confiscation-of-assault-weapons.aspx)
-
That's a rather startling admission that folks here are not fundamentally law-abiding.
I don't believe it.
Yeah, the folks that pushed Prohibition thought that crap too.
We are fundamentally law-abiding. That is why we take larger risks get carry permits and the like. But there is a limit to how much we will accept. It is foolish to ignore history and believe otherwise.
-
So much guff and bravado. All of which will evaporate like the morning dew if registration ever becomes law.
@Oceander
I would invite you to personally start the process.
-
@Oceander
I would invite you to personally start the process.
/snicker
Guff and bravado. Tell me, did you refuse to buy Obamacare-compliant insurance, and did you pay the Obamacare penalty, or did you dutifully sign up for qualifying insurance?
-
So much guff and bravado. All of which will evaporate like the morning dew if registration ever becomes law.
So how do explain the wide-spread failures of existing gun registration laws in California and New York?
It is ignorant to claim those isolated situations that won't be repeated by more freedom cherishing states.
-
When you see liberal areas like California and New York with significant non-compliance, how do you think it will be received in Texas and Kentucky?
You have your opinion. But you continue to ignore the original topic of the thread. It most certainly limits gun ownership and leads to confiscation.
Here in Texas if there ever was a federal mandate on registration, I think you would see a universal "blissful ignoring" all the way from legislators to local law enforcement. Jaywalking would see more enforcing.
-
So much guff and bravado. All of which will evaporate like the morning dew if registration ever becomes law.
My state will require registration of a certain popular firearm beginning next month. So we'll soon see how accurate your forecast is, at least among the Californian members here.
I'm thinking the Oracle of Delphi has nothing to worry about.
-
So how do explain the wide-spread failures of existing gun registration laws in California and New York?
It is ignorant to claim those isolated situations that won't be repeated by more freedom cherishing states.
Failure in what way? That people have not registered? Have lawbreakers been caught and prosecuted? Then the law is working as intended.
I simply doubt that most of the cockerels here have the courage of their own words.
-
/snicker
Guff and bravado. Tell me, did you refuse to buy Obamacare-compliant insurance, and did you pay the Obamacare penalty, or did you dutifully sign up for qualifying insurance?
Strawman. Most of the population already had insurance before the Obamacare rules. Most adults understand the need for insurance.
-
America is not "every other country". We have a Constitution with a Second Amendment and a guarantee against seizure of property without just compensation, or the due process of law.
The answer cannot be that you have the "right" to decide for yourself which laws you will ignore. That is anarchy.
The DOJ is currently and has been confiscating assets of people acused of drug crimes prior to trial, ie without due process of law. It's already happening. But you are trying to convince us that in the case of firearms that won't happen. I'm sure you can understand why several of us are telling you to take your gun registration and go pound sand.
-
Failure in what way? That people have not registered? Have lawbreakers been caught and prosecuted? Then the law is working as intended.
I simply doubt that most of the cockerels here have the courage of their own words.
You think 20% known non-compliance is a success rate? What number of unknown handguns do you think exists on top of the legally purchased ones that greatly added to that rate?
-
When registration leads to confiscation and prosecution like in CA (does anybody remember the original topic?), it will be said to have "worked."
-
Failure in what way? That people have not registered? Have lawbreakers been caught and prosecuted? Then the law is working as intended.
I simply doubt that most of the cockerels here have the courage of their own words.
Sure thing buddy. I can tell you with 99.9% certainty, that any attempt to register guns in my state of Texas will fail miserably.
Lot's of lake accidents the past 20 years. (As if any would ever ask) :silly:
-
@thackney
To be fair most of those cars stolen in CA end up in Mexico....
But they are registered. How could they possibly cross the tightly controlled border? Surely firearms would be as strictly controlled even if easier to hide.
-
Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry. Thomas Jefferson
I can find dozens more.
Henry David Thoreau had something to say about civil disobedience.
-
Henry David Thoreau had something to say about civil disobedience.
So did Benjamin Franklin.
-
Strawman. Most of the population already had insurance before the Obamacare rules. Most adults understand the need for insurance.
Not a straw man. Did you refuse to cooperate with the law? No. You went along with it.
You’ll go along with gun registration, too, if for no other reason than that you’re too scared to face a perp-walk.
-
Sure thing buddy. I can tell you with 99.9% certainty, that any attempt to register guns in my state of Texas will fail miserably.
Lot's of lake accidents the past 20 years. (As if any would ever ask) :silly:
Doubt it would be that high. And most of the refuseniks won’t be the desk jockeys here.
-
/snicker
Guff and bravado. Tell me, did you refuse to buy Obamacare-compliant insurance, and did you pay the Obamacare penalty, or did you dutifully sign up for qualifying insurance?
@Oceander
No, I provide my own insurance. Which I purchased because having decent insurance is necessary in the current medical environment. I used to carry catastrophic insurance only which met my needs at the time.
At no time did I buy insurance because the govt said I had to. Nor did I buy it through a marketplace.
And since the only insurance you can buy now is obamacare compliant I guess my policy probably meets that definition. At a much greater cost I might add.
as for Bravado, I've personally seen where people don't have freedom. I have done my part to protect our freedoms from those who wish to take it away and will continue to do so.
-
Not a straw man. Did you refuse to cooperate with the law? No. You went along with it.
You are ignoring I made no changes and had no action related to it.
You’ll go along with gun registration, too, if for no other reason than that you’re too scared to face a perp-walk.
Go ahead and believe as you like. I'll do what I believe necessary. I have great fear of being disarmed.
-
@Oceander
No, I provide my own insurance. Which I purchased because having decent insurance is necessary in the current medical environment. I used to carry catastrophic insurance only which met my needs at the time.
At no time did I buy insurance because the govt said I had to. Nor did I buy it through a marketplace.
And since the only insurance you can buy now is obamacare compliant I guess my policy probably meets that definition. At a much greater cost I might add.
as for Bravado, I've personally seen where people don't have freedom. I have done my part to protect our freedoms from those who wish to take it away and will continue to do so.
Exactly. You complied, simply because the government gave you the right incentives.
If you become subject to a registration law, you’ll bend over and take it as well, with similar incentivization.
-
Not a straw man. Did you refuse to cooperate with the law? No. You went along with it.
You’ll go along with gun registration, too, if for no other reason than that you’re too scared to face a perp-walk.
@Oceander
No, I think what you would see is more of an active approach are eliminating those who are attacking our freedom and our rights.
-
Not a straw man. Did you refuse to cooperate with the law? No. You went along with it.
You’ll go along with gun registration, too, if for no other reason than that you’re too scared to face a perp-walk.
Calling another man a coward?
Those used to be called Fighting Words.
-
Exactly. You complied, simply because the government gave you the right incentives.
If you become subject to a registration law, you’ll bend over and take it as well, with similar incentivization.
@Oceander
The govt didn't GIVE me diddly. I worked for money and I paid for a product.
As for registration. Like I said, if you're so confident why don't you start the process personally. Or would you rely on the GOVT and their guns to attack law abiding citizens to fuel your utopian fantasy?
-
Calling another man a coward?
Those used to be called Fighting Words.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Funny how he's hiding behind the govt but calling other people cowards.
The tree of liberty needs to be watered.
-
If you become subject to a registration law, you’ll bend over and take it as well, with similar incentivization.
King George had similar thoughts, as have other tyrants. In the end, most results did not go their way. Some are still in progress.
You believe Canada is more freedom cherishing that Americans? Is that why their gun registration failed and the government gave up?
You believe with that recent history we will jump at compliance here?
Good luck with that:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1z6o1GIEsQE/hqdefault.jpg)
-
@Oceander
No, I provide my own insurance. Which I purchased because having decent insurance is necessary in the current medical environment. I used to carry catastrophic insurance only which met my needs at the time.
At no time did I buy insurance because the govt said I had to. Nor did I buy it through a marketplace.
And since the only insurance you can buy now is obamacare compliant I guess my policy probably meets that definition. At a much greater cost I might add.
as for Bravado, I've personally seen where people don't have freedom. I have done my part to protect our freedoms from those who wish to take it away and will continue to do so.
Your situation is very similar to mine. Although I went without any health insurance at all from between 2012 and 2015. At +50 years old thats a big deal.
I will not publicly say anything regarding my personal intent to comply with upcoming guns laws, though. In spite of the obvious baiting.
-
So States Ban Bump Stocks. Now How Do They Enforce the Law?
Bump stock owners tell their legislators to FOAD . . .
Under New Jersey’s new bump-stock ban, which was approved in January, residents were supposed to destroy or turn in their bump stocks by mid-April.
So far, New Jersey State Police say, they have not received a single one.
It’s hard to know for sure, but Americans could own as many as 520,000 bump stocks, according to estimates from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Many of the devices are untraceable, in part because they don’t have serial numbers.
New Jersey is not the only state having trouble enforcing its ban. In Massachusetts, where residents had until February to surrender their bump stocks, State Police received just three devices. The Bay State’s ban, which passed in November, is a felony.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/05/daniel-zimmerman/472495/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/05/daniel-zimmerman/472495/)
:whistle:
-
Doubt it would be that high. And most of the refuseniks won’t be the desk jockeys here.
I don't know what liberal lovin' hell hole you live in, but apparently you don't know that much about Texas.
-
I don't know what liberal lovin' hell hole you live in, but apparently you don't know that much about Texas.
He doesn't understand a damn thing about the resolve of a Texan either.
-
Not a straw man. Did you refuse to cooperate with the law? No. You went along with it.
.
Ohh? I purposely didn't check the IRS box on medical coverage to see what would happen.
Golly geez.... Nothing yet.
-
I don't know what liberal lovin' hell hole you live in, but apparently you don't know that much about Texas.
Or even New Jersey according to @txradioguy post. 100% non-compliance.
Amazing how government control mentality folks ignore reality and recent history.
-
Your situation is very similar to mine. Although I went without any health insurance at all from between 2012 and 2015. At +50 years old thats a big deal.
I will not publicly say anything regarding my personal intent to comply with upcoming guns laws, though. In spite of the obvious baiting.
@skeeter
Probably wise, which is not something I'm usually accused of.
The left has pushed their agenda unhindered for decades. No more, I am going to speak out and push back on these scum who want to destroy America.
-
Or even New Jersey according to @txradioguy post. 100% non-compliance.
Amazing how government control mentality folks ignore reality and recent history.
@thackney
So we cannot register illegal immigrants because there are too many of em. Isn't that what the left tells us? when there's probably about 20 million of em.
There are about 100 million gun owners and approximately 300 million firearms.
-
Amazes me that some believe Rights can be Regulated.
Or we need to dive into a 'Predicate Clause'.
But then actually being able to Read and Understand the English Language is a dying art.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe)
It's only 4 words.
Those who can't understand the plain as day term "Infringe" have no business in this or any other argument as they're functional illiterates.
-
@skeeter
Probably wise, which is not something I'm usually accused of.
The left has pushed their agenda unhindered for decades. No more, I am going to speak out and push back on these scum who want to destroy America.
Admirable. But ill advised in my state - just making it easy for them at this point.
There is a time and place.
-
Exactly. You complied, simply because the government gave you the right incentives.
If you become subject to a registration law, you’ll bend over and take it as well, with similar incentivization.
As you are so fond of saying of others when they make personal observations about you, you don't know shit from Shinola what the members of this forum are going to do if faced with mandatory gun registration.
-
As you are so fond of saying of others when they make personal observations about you, you don't know shit from Shinola what the members of this forum are going to do if faced with mandatory gun registration.
Another thread where the mood needs to be lightened a bit with a joke. Why does NJ have the most toxic waste dumps and CA have the most lawyers? NJ got to pick first.
-
Another thread where the mood needs to be lightened a bit with a joke. Why does NJ have the most toxic waste dumps and CA have the most lawyers? NJ got to pick first.
You know what happens when a lawyer takes Viagra? He get's taller.
-
As you are so fond of saying of others when they make personal observations about you, you don't know shit from Shinola what the members of this forum are going to do if faced with mandatory gun registration.
:bigsilly:
Touched a nerve, eh? Do you have the courage of your own words, let alone your convictions?
Don’t be pathetic by trying to answer. It’s a rhetorical question for you to consider when you look at yourself in the mirror, because the only public answer is that, of course, you have the courage of your convictions.
-
Another thread where the mood needs to be lightened a bit with a joke. Why does NJ have the most toxic waste dumps and CA have the most lawyers? NJ got to pick first.
It should by NY, not CA, in the classic rendition of the joke.
What do you get when you cross a lawyer with a pig?
Nothing. There are some things even pigs won’t do.
:bigsilly:
-
Another thread where the mood needs to be lightened a bit with a joke. Why does NJ have the most toxic waste dumps and CA have the most lawyers? NJ got to pick first.
Why are medical experimenters planning to shift from using rats to lawyers?
Because there are more lawyers than rats, and it’s too easy to get emotionally attached to a rat.
-
:bigsilly:
Touched a nerve, eh? Do you have the courage of your own words, let alone your convictions?
Don’t be pathetic by trying to answer. It’s a rhetorical question for you to consider when you look at yourself in the mirror, because the only public answer is that, of course, you have the courage of your convictions.
You didn't pick a nerve (you can't), because I care very little about what you have to say. But I am getting bored with your act of pretending to know how others think around here, so I'm going to call you on your extra-idiotic comments. Especially when you demonstrate your enormous hypocrisy.
If you call for firearm registration, and you don't volunteer to do the canvassing yourself, you are beyond a hypocrite, you are a coward too. Meh.
-
If you call for firearm registration, and you don't volunteer to do the canvassing yourself, you are beyond a hypocrite, you are a coward too. Meh.
@Cyber Liberty I have the distinct feeling he'd be the neighborhood snitch tot he authorities letting them know who wasn't in compliance.
-
It should by NY, not CA, in the classic rendition of the joke.
What do you get when you cross a lawyer with a pig?
Nothing. There are some things even pigs won’t do.
:bigsilly:
We're telling jokes, why aren't you?
-
It works in the case of automobile registration. Almost all transfers of ownership, and dispositions, are documented.
LOL! Not even close!
-
During the mid-1980s dairy farmers decided there was too much cheap milk at the supermarket. So the government bought and slaughtered 1.6 million cows. How come the government never does anything like this with lawyers?
-
So much guff and bravado. All of which will evaporate like the morning dew if registration ever becomes law.
Registration of firearms was mandated where I once lived, followed shortly by the banning of any possession of firearms or knives over 14" in a residence.
I refused to comply. Even when the village Ordinance posse showed up on my doorstep to do their "inspection". I refused them entry and told them to get a warrant instead of flashing a village ordinance in my face. They came back with a hefty fine, which I refused to pay to this day.
It was the final straw that got us to move from that place to where a little bit more freedom existed.
You are dismissing the mindset we have that if this kind of bullshit is attempted on a national scale, then the government has nefarious intents towards us. Given history, a disarmed people are eventually bulldozed into mass graves by their own government. So - since that is our mindset of what registration and confiscation will lead to - it's pretty presumptuous to assume we are just going to comply with the mechanisms for our own enslavement and annihilation.
-
During the mid-1980s dairy farmers decided there was too much cheap milk at the supermarket. So the government bought and slaughtered 1.6 million cows. How come the government never does anything like this with lawyers?
Because they don't kill their own.
-
Because they don't kill their own.
Never thought of that. The DC swamp it tits high in shysters, some are even lawyers.
-
Or would you rely on the GOVT and their guns to attack law abiding citizens to fuel your utopian fantasy?
Wait just a sec - by your own admission you're not law-abiding. How are you in your demand to pick and choose the laws you'll follow any different than the illegal aliens that you scream must be rounded up and deported?
-
Yes, it does. Such transactions are very uncommon. That's because a car that is registered to you remains your legal responsibility. Documenting the transfer relieves you of that responsibility. Registration has been very effective in curbing the black market.
No, that is not true. Not in the least. Last year, a truck my son sold FOUR YEARS before got involved in a hit and run, and was later found abandoned. The cops inquired of my son, who was the last owner, but that is as far as it went. That truck was driving around for four years, untitled, uninsured, and with fictitious plates.
Like with your gun grabbing registration, all that automotive registration does is keep honest folks honest.
-
Wait just a sec - by your own admission you're not law-abiding. How are you in your demand to pick and choose the laws you'll follow any different than the illegal aliens that you scream must be rounded up and deported?
Back to that non sequitur again counselor?
-
@Cyber Liberty I have the distinct feeling he'd be the neighborhood snitch tot he authorities letting them know who wasn't in compliance.
I'm sure there will be plenty of snitches and busybodies. These idiots are going to get people killed when the authorities decide to start playing hardball with gun owners.
Trayvon Martin made the mistake of thinking Zimmerman would be a compliant pushover and take the beating, and look where that got him.
-
Registration of firearms was mandated where I once lived, followed shortly by the banning of any possession of firearms or knives over 14" in a residence.
I refused to comply. Even when the village Ordinance posse showed up on my doorstep to do their "inspection". I refused them entry and told them to get a warrant instead of flashing a village ordinance in my face. They came back with a hefty fine, which I refused to pay to this day.
It was the final straw that got us to move from that place to where a little bit more freedom existed.
You are dismissing the mindset we have that if this kind of bullshit is attempted on a national scale, then the government has nefarious intents towards us. Given history, a disarmed people are eventually bulldozed into mass graves by their own government. So - since that is our mindset of what registration and confiscation will lead to - it's pretty presumptuous to assume we are just going to comply with the mechanisms for our own enslavement and annihilation.
You have contempt for the nation you live in if you claim the right to selectively ignore the law. You don't want freedom, you want license. So don't holler about illegal aliens - you're just as morally compromised.
-
C'mon, sir, the community does have an interest in curbing the black market in guns.
Your registration scheme will do *nothing* to stop black market, or even street trading. Nothing at all. Just as it does nothing to curb gun trade in your town right now.
-
Wait just a sec - by your own admission you're not law-abiding.
You haven't been paying much attention to this discussion. None of us are law-abiding because we are under such a ridiculous load of defined "crimes" that it's impossible to live without breaking some.
I'm not saying if or how I am not law-abiding. It's for me to know and others to find out. I want it to be a surprise.
-
You have contempt for the nation you live in if you claim the right to selectively ignore the law. You don't want freedom, you want license. So don't holler about illegal aliens - you're just as morally compromised.
Hardly. Your apples and oranges non sequitur argument comparing illegal aliens and American citizens saying they will not comply with any government mandate that violates the Constitution have nothing to do with each other in any way shape or form.
And it's really hypocritical of you to try and make that argument when you selectively pick and choose when you like and dislike judicial over reach from the bench.
-
Those who can't understand the plain as day term "Infringe" have no business in this or any other argument as they're functional illiterates.
You mean like Justice Scalia? Read his Heller opinion - reasonable regulation of the market for firearms is not unconstitutional infringement.
-
That's a rather startling admission that folks here are not fundamentally law-abiding.
I don't believe it.
BELIEVE IT. I will not comply.
all of the state of Montana will not comply. The whole Rocky Mountain West will not comply. Not a single chance in hell.
-
Your registration scheme will do *nothing* to stop black market, or even street trading. Nothing at all. Just as it does nothing to curb gun trade in your town right now.
@roamer_1 it's that false Liberal belief that restricting gun ownership by law abiding citizens somehow correlates to stopping violent gun crimes committed by gang bangers drug dealers and stone cold killers.
-
You mean like Justice Scalia? Read his Heller opinion - reasonable regulation of the market for firearms is not unconstitutional infringement.
How about you read the majority opinion instead of relying on Stevens minority dissent.
You keep reading into what Scalia said in Heller things that aren't there.
But then you know that because we pointed that out to you a month ago.
-
Wait just a sec - by your own admission you're not law-abiding. How are you in your demand to pick and choose the laws you'll follow any different than the illegal aliens that you scream must be rounded up and deported?
"Civil Disobedience" is as American as apple pie. People aren't going to turn out into the streets in protest, or start shooting government drones. They will simply refuse to comply.
-
You mean like Justice Scalia? Read his Heller opinion - reasonable regulation of the market for firearms is not unconstitutional infringement.
And we greatly disagree on reasonable. Look at the Canada, New York, etc gun registration. We are not alone. We are not some fringe extremest group. This is a common attitude.
-
You mean like Justice Scalia? Read his Heller opinion - reasonable regulation of the market for firearms is not unconstitutional infringement.
What difference is one new law or regulation going to do to stop illegal gun violence that the other 16,000 haven't?
-
Wait just a sec - by your own admission you're not law-abiding. How are you in your demand to pick and choose the laws you'll follow any different than the illegal aliens that you scream must be rounded up and deported?
Citizens are under no obligation to follow unconstituional mandates. No matter how stupid you want us to be, we know, through various real life examples, what registration leads to. You go register your own guns and then mind your own damn business.
-
But then actually being able to Read and Understand the English Language is a dying art.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe)
Read the obsolete meaning - the meaning, of course, understood by the Founders. A right is "infringed" when it is "defeated". Regulation, including registration, does not arise to infringement unless and until it denies the right. Like the DC handgun ban overturned in Heller.
Requiring you to register your firearms and transfer/dispose of them in documented transactions is not "infringement". If you refuse to comply, then suffer the consequences of a lawbreaker.
-
/snicker
Guff and bravado. Tell me, did you refuse to buy Obamacare-compliant insurance
YES
and did you pay the Obamacare penalty
NO.
or did you dutifully sign up for qualifying insurance?
NO.
-
BELIEVE IT. I will not comply.
all of the state of Montana will not comply. The whole Rocky Mountain West will not comply. Not a single chance in hell.
@roamer_1
Heck try it in Florida and you're likely to be fed to the crabs or wild hogs.
-
YES
NO.
NO.
Very good. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing your responses, you are one in a million.
-
Citizens are under no obligation to follow unconstituional mandates.
That may be so, but you are not the arbiter of constitutionality. What arrogant selfishness! The reasonable regulation of firearms ownership, including registration, has been upheld as Constitutional as a matter of law, time after time after time.
What gives you the right to pick and choose what laws you will follow?
-
That may be so, but you are not the arbiter of constitutionality. What arrogant selfishness! The reasonable regulation of firearms ownership, including registration, has been upheld as Constitutional as a matter of law, time after time after time.
What gives you the right to pick and choose what laws you will follow?
What difference is one new law or regulation going to do to stop illegal gun violence that the other 16,000 haven't?
-
You have contempt for the nation you live in if you claim the right to selectively ignore the law.
Damn straight. If this "nation" decides it must abolish, infringe upon or regulate an inalienable right into a government-granted privilege as you are demanding it do - then it is no longer a government that I consent to be governed by. I will do my duty by defying the tyranny you intend to impose using your government.
You don't want freedom, you want license.
Actually, that is precisely what you intend to do with our inalienable rights - by requiring us to get government permission to exercise a right, after jumping through all kinds of arbitrary requirements before we receive permission under strict and limited government parameters.
I want freedom from petty meddling tyrants like you, and my guns ensure that people like you do not get to impose your ideas upon us without a significant risk to life and limb for those idiots stupid enough to try and enforce your ideas.
So don't holler about illegal aliens - you're just as morally compromised.
Says the creep who lectures us about the moral righteousness of forcing businesses to bake homosexual wedding cakes.
-
@roamer_1 it's that false Liberal belief that restricting gun ownership by law abiding citizens somehow correlates to stopping violent gun crimes committed by gang bangers drug dealers and stone cold killers.
I know it @txradioguy ... They live in a world where saying it makes it so... MAGIC, ain't it?
:silly: :silly: :silly:
:beer:
-
You go register your own guns and then mind your own damn business.
That's damn well right.
:amen:
-
@roamer_1
Heck try it in Florida and you're likely to be fed to the crabs or wild hogs.
I don't know about all of FL, but I know folks in the panhandle that'd say that's right.
-
Very good. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing your responses, you are one in a million.
I am not going to be forced to pay for what I am never going to use.
-
I know it @txradioguy ... They live in a world where saying it makes it so... MAGIC, ain't it?
:silly: :silly: :silly:
:beer:
The statists believe if you pass an odious law, people will obey it. There's no dissuading them from this opinion, and I've been trying for years. :shrug:
"Civil Disobedience" is as American as Apple Pie.
-
Hardly. Your apples and oranges non sequitur argument comparing illegal aliens and American citizens saying they will not comply with any government mandate that violates the Constitution have nothing to do with each other in any way shape or form.
And it's really hypocritical of you to try and make that argument when you selectively pick and choose when you like and dislike judicial over reach from the bench.
You've become incomprehensible. The issue isn't compliance with unconstitutional mandates. Registration of firearms ownership is perfectly Constitutional. You demand the right to pick and choose which of the community's laws you will ignore. You're no better than the illegal aliens you decry. Your moral authority is zilch.
-
I am not going to be forced to pay for what I am never going to use.
May the Lord bless you with good health, then. Because if you get sick, you'll be demanding the community attend to your welfare.
-
What gives you the right to pick and choose what laws you will follow?
Inevitably, this (http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/).
-
Inevitably, this (http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/).
Jazzy would have been the Tory Loyalist arguing that the King's edicts were 'lawful' and that the Founders were indeed the treasonous rebels and malcontents that deserved to die a traitor's death for darling to defy King and parliament's legal and binding 'laws' of their 'community'.
He willfully chooses to forget that our forbears shot and killed agents of the Authority who were sent to confiscate the arms of the people they intended to subjugate and force into compliance with English Law. And since God saw fit to grant our forbears the victory over those agents of the government attempting to enforce 'the law', I maintain that defying to the point of armed resistance, the 'authority' of men that seeks to do as Jazzy wants the State to do - is of the highest righteous and moral duty for the gift of liberty that came from God.
Especially since it is crafty and evil people who seek to usurp an inalienable right as within their authority to regulate and abolish as they see fit.
-
Registration of firearms ownership is perfectly Constitutional.
No it's not. And you pretending otherwise will never make it so.
You demand the right to pick and choose which of the community's laws you will ignore. You're no better than the illegal aliens you decry.
Actually I AM better because unlike the illegal aliens you love and defend I didn't break federal law to get into this country then demand the same rights and protections of people who came here according to the law.
If the community makes a law that violates the Constitution...we have a moral obligation as a people to stand up against it and say this is wrong. Our whole American experience and uniqueness is based on people...in this case the Colonists standing up and saying to the English King we will not abide by your immoral and what we believe is illegal actions against us and we're not going to take it anymore. Either repeal these unjust laws or face a revolt.
To hear you act as a special pleader for the statist left...had you been in the Colonies in 1775...you'd have ridiculed the Colonists for daring to stand up to the Crown.
Your moral authority is zilch.
Your hypocrisy on the "which rules I'll follow" thing is stunning.
-
May the Lord bless you with good health, then. Because if you get sick, you'll be demanding the community attend to your welfare.
What difference is one new law or regulation going to do to stop illegal gun violence that the other 16,000 haven't?
-
The statists believe if you pass an odious law, people will obey it. There's no dissuading them from this opinion, and I've been trying for years. :shrug:
"Civil Disobedience" is as American as Apple Pie.
@Cyber Liberty
That's right... And there's plenty of white likker pretty near within a stone's throw of where I am that'll prove that point.
And this thread made up my mind.
I have never been much for AK's AR's and the like - I have found no real need for em for my purposes. It seems, from the tenor of some hereon, that I was wrong about that.
But this thread is the one that broke the camel's back.
I am gonna start buying em up. Including making some over-sized banana clips, and the little machiney gizmos that give em the rat-a-tat-tat.
Made a phone call this morning to begin that process.
-
I know it @txradioguy ... They live in a world where saying it makes it so... MAGIC, ain't it?
:silly: :silly: :silly:
:beer:
@roamer_1 Indeed it is Magic...sleight of hand and a bunch of smoke and mirrors to fool the audience.
-
Jazzy would have been the Tory Loyalist arguing that the King's edicts were 'lawful' and that the Founders were indeed the treasonous rebels and malcontents that deserved to die a traitor's death for darling to defy King and parliament's legal and binding 'laws' of their 'community'.
He willfully chooses to forget that our forbears shot and killed agents of the Authority who were sent to confiscate the arms of the people they intended to subjugate and force into compliance with English Law. And since God saw fit to grant our forbears the victory over those agents of the government attempting to enforce 'the law', I maintain that defying to the point of armed resistance, the 'authority' of men that seeks to do as Jazzy wants the State to do - is of the highest righteous and moral duty for the gift of liberty that came from God.
Especially since it is crafty and evil people who seek to usurp an inalienable right as within their authority to regulate and abolish as they see fit.
After years of abuse, it was the act that was the final straw. Very little else would motivate a significant amount of the population to final take up arms and say "ENOUGH!"
-
May the Lord bless you with good health, then. Because if you get sick, you'll be demanding the community attend to your welfare.
Nope. Been there done that. your 'community' damn near killed me. I can die on my own just fine - I don't need the help.
-
If the community makes a law that violates the Constitution...we have a moral obligation as a people to stand up against it and say this is wrong.
We expect a Soldier to refuse to follow illegal and unconstitutional orders. I fail to see how I, a civilian, am to be more or less compliant with illegal orders than you are, @txradioguy. I don't think there is any daylight between our positions.
-
I maintain that defying to the point of armed resistance, the 'authority' of men that seeks to do as Jazzy wants the State to do - is of the highest righteous and moral duty for the gift of liberty that came from God.
That's right. Good post.
-
We expect a Soldier to refuse to follow illegal and unconstitutional orders. I fail to see how I, a civilian, am to be more or less compliant with illegal orders than you are, @txradioguy. I don't think there is any daylight between our positions.
@Cyber Liberty
No there's not. They mesh perfectly.
If I'm told by a superior officer to do something that is clearly illegal or in violation of the UCMJ...the Constitution or Geneva Conventions...I have the right to refuse to comply with that order and there will be no punishment for doing so.
-
Actually I AM better because unlike the illegal aliens you love and defend I didn't break federal law to get into this country then demand the same rights and protections of people who came here according to the law.
When have I defended illegal aliens for breaking the community's laws? The question is why do you condemn them when you brag about your own moral righteousness in breaking the community's laws?
Seems to me you're the one who should be counting on amnesty for lawbreaking.
-
@Cyber Liberty
No there's not. They mesh perfectly.
If I'm told by a superior officer to do something that is clearly illegal or in violation of the UCMJ...the Constitution or Geneva Conventions...I have the right to refuse to comply with that order and there will be no punishment for doing so.
By that same token, I believe I have the obligation to refuse to comply with an unconstitutional civilian order. And, yes, it's incumbent on every one of us, as free people, to determine what is constitutional. That really cheeses some people off, but I don't care.
-
Made a phone call this morning to begin that process.
And btw... if anybody's interested, I will be buying em off the back of a truck
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/24/70/1b/24701b804e8c06aa40e32346a9a9b62c.png)
-
When have I defended illegal aliens for breaking the community's laws?
You have clearly stated here a couple weeks ago that you believe illegal aliens should have the same legal protections as a citizen who has never broken the laws of the country much less snuck illegally across a sovereign border of another nation.
The question is why do you condemn them when you brag about your own moral righteousness in breaking the community's laws?
Because one is actually a violation of U.S. federal law (illegal entry)...they other is masturbatory fantasy by gun grabbers like yourself.
All we've said is IF that happens THIS is what we'll do. There is no mandatory federal gun registration of legally owned firearms...yet.
So you are getting your silk panties in a twist over nothing.
Seems to me you're the one who should be counting on amnesty for lawbreaking.
No the left/you want amnesty...just like the left/you want amnesty.
Open borders and a defenseless society is the lefts fantasy.
-
That may be so, but you are not the arbiter of constitutionality. What arrogant selfishness! The reasonable regulation of firearms ownership, including registration, has been upheld as Constitutional as a matter of law, time after time after time.
What gives you the right to pick and choose what laws you will follow?
We, the people...
Call me selfish, that's fine, but I'm also right. You go play with your list of gun owners.
-
By that same token, I believe I have the obligation to refuse to comply with an unconstitutional civilian order. And, yes, it's incumbent on every one of us, as free people, to determine what is constitutional. That really cheeses some people off, but I don't care.
888high58888
-
When have I defended illegal aliens for breaking the community's laws? The question is why do you condemn them when you brag about your own moral righteousness in breaking the community's laws?
Seems to me you're the one who should be counting on amnesty for lawbreaking.
What difference is one new law or regulation going to do to stop illegal gun violence that the other 16,000 haven't?
-
@Cyber Liberty
That's right... And there's plenty of white likker pretty near within a stone's throw of where I am that'll prove that point.
And this thread made up my mind.
I have never been much for AK's AR's and the like - I have found no real need for em for my purposes. It seems, from the tenor of some hereon, that I was wrong about that.
But this thread is the one that broke the camel's back.
I am gonna start buying em up. Including making some over-sized banana clips, and the little machiney gizmos that give em the rat-a-tat-tat.
Made a phone call this morning to begin that process.
I reached that point a year ago. I really like my levers for fun. I've got a bolt 30-06 for reaching out when I want to. Last year I bought my first AR. Put a night scope on it. I'm really looking hard at suppressing. I have put it off for a while hoping on some legislative action but that hasn't got far.
My cost justification came with some damage from hogs. I went with 7.69x39. I don't really think that is gun if I need more than 150 yards.
I've thought hard about buy some basic receivers for cash. I want to make sure my kids have that option any time into the future.
-
When have I defended illegal aliens for breaking the community's laws? The question is why do you condemn them when you brag about your own moral righteousness in breaking the community's laws?
Seems to me you're the one who should be counting on amnesty for lawbreaking.
We aren't breaking the community's laws.
We are giving reason why such laws should not be passed. We have shown how poorly they are being followed in this area when they are passed.
-
I reached that point a year ago. I really like my levers for fun. I've got a bolt 30-06 for reaching out when I want to. Last year I bought my first AR. Put a night scope on it. I'm really looking hard at suppressing. I have put it off for a while hoping on some legislative action but that hasn't got far.
My cost justification came with some damage from hogs. I went with 7.69x39. I don't really think that is gun if I need more than 150 yards.
I've thought hard about buy some basic receivers for cash. I want to make sure my kids have that option any time into the future.
@thackney
I bought a Henry 45-70 lever. Love it but will have reload as its a tad expensive to shoot.
You might look at the AR-10 which shoots a .308 for hog.
-
@thackney
I bought a Henry 45-70 lever. Love it but will have reload as its a tad expensive to shoot.
You might look at the AR-10 which shoots a .308 for hog.
I have a 44 mag, combined with the steel but plate. I'm sad to say more than once I've jacked rounds back out because I didn't want more pounding.
I felt like the .308 was too much duplication of my 30-06. And when it comes to playing the 7.62x39 can be bought at 17¢ a round, sometimes better.
-
I reached that point a year ago. I really like my levers for fun. I've got a bolt 30-06 for reaching out when I want to. Last year I bought my first AR. Put a night scope on it. I'm really looking hard at suppressing. I have put it off for a while hoping on some legislative action but that hasn't got far.
My cost justification came with some damage from hogs. I went with 7.69x39. I don't really think that is gun if I need more than 150 yards.
I've thought hard about buy some basic receivers for cash. I want to make sure my kids have that option any time into the future.
My next rig was gonna be a reach-out-and-touch-someone rig... something in a 50BMG... more my style... And really, offensively or defensively, that's where I would be best applied. And that's why them little rattle-guns never meant much to me.
But considering the liberal tenor, if they won't quit pushing, I can see the need for something quick and up close.
And they ain't gonna quit pushing.
-
@thackney
I bought a Henry 45-70 lever. Love it but will have reload as its a tad expensive to shoot.
I love my 45/70. Open sights and a mountain sling. 9 chances out of 10, that's the one I walk off with if I am headed into the brush.
45/70 is very popular in the Rockies and AK... Look to buy ammo out here. I bet you'll find it cheaper.
-
When have I defended illegal aliens for breaking the community's laws? The question is why do you condemn them when you brag about your own moral righteousness in breaking the community's laws?
Seems to me you're the one who should be counting on amnesty for lawbreaking.
I have always and always will obey laws rooted in the Constitution.
But I'll always refuse to be a 'Good German'.
The founders never intended for the citizens to mindlessly follow the government's edicts. They did their damndest to make it clear which rights 'We The People' possess and where they come from, and trusted 'We The People' to know when a tyrant might come along and attempt to usurp them.
The 2A is so clear in its intent that if you cannot see it then by that logic neither the rest of BOR, nor the Constitution, are worth the parchment they're written on. They are playthings of the legal community.
-
What a lark.
If gun registration is mandated by law, you’ll meekly register your weapons, just like everyone else, your bluster notwithstanding.
You project too much, counselor.
-
Yes, and that's a disgrace. There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.
I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude.
No one is talking about anything but resisting an attempt to infringe on a fundamental Civil and Constitutional Right. If people want to violently impose that infringement, self-defense is justifiable.
It is a crime to conspire to or act to interfere with the civil rights of American Citizens, and especially ironic that the Civil Right being discussed exists for the express purpose of resisting government tyranny. Any law which so egregiously violates the Constitution is void of authority.
-
That's preposterous. Prohibition banned the sale of alcohol. Firearms registration doesn't affect your ability to own a gun - only that you take responsibility for it.
If I own a firearm, I already take responsibility for it. Where do you get off implying otherwise? I don't magically get more responsible as a person because there is a buttload of paperwork somewhere and paying additional fees giving someone else a blueprint for taking what I and other firearm owners in my community may possess. That is the only end result of registration schemes that aren't just a documentation of state-issued weapons to a militarized populace.
It doesn't matter if I make the gun or purchase it, I still am responsible for what I do with it.
-
These 60 hour weeks are killing me. This last one was 60 hours in 4 days. But I digress.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-58HoTHWQk#)
-
Consider it done. Occupy, BLM and Antifa don't have the right to be laws unto themselves. And neither do you.
You've never "seen me speak out against them" because, as far as I can recall, no members here have defended or asserted Occupy's, BLM's or Antifa's "right" to ignore the law. But the theme of this entire selfish thread is F*ck-the-Community - even to the point of threatening bloodshed.
Get a D@mned clue. We ARE the community in question. What do you think gives you or 535 people 2000 miles away the right to dictate to us our Rights? Approximately 1.5% of the country is "Gay", 13% is Black, there are 55 million who can claim to be 'Hispanic', but the 57% (source) (http://news.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx) who own guns have no rights? Guess again.
-
It works in the case of automobile registration. Almost all transfers of ownership, and dispositions, are documented.
I really think you have no clue how many vehicles are on the road with no registration, no insurance, etc. One of my vehicles was struck by such a fellow, who had a name better pronounced with a non-english accent, with no registration, no title, no license plates, a hinky ID, and last registered in Indiana a couple of years prior. The stupid cop didn't check the fellow for DUI, and did not cite him for leaving the scene of the accident (a grandkid witnessed the accident aand followed the vehicle, then called it in). None of the existing laws did shit to stop my vehicle from being damaged (thankfully, no people were), nor did I ever receive any compensation from the perp, who promptly disappeared from town.
There are more vehicles like that one on the road than we'd care to imagine.
And plenty of them are being driven by the illegals you so often defend.
-
INVAR conveniently left out a link in his opening post. But if the authorities seized both Mr. Kirschenmann's legal firearms as well as the illegal ones, then I agree an injustice was done, and quite possibly an unconstitutional infringement. But wait until the case plays out before jumping to the absurd conclusion that registration amounts to confiscation. This is America, where the rule of law means something.
But the illegal firearm is a Felony and possession of a firearm by a felon is illegal. That's the trap. Create a paperwork offense to base other charges on. This is a man who tried to comply with the law, and ended up being hauled off.
Let those who have ears to hear, hear.
-
Hear, hear here.
-
Get a D@mned clue. We ARE the community in question.
I would add a bit about this damnable 'community' verbiage, @Smokin Joe ...
It reads to me as a dirty word.
The beauty of the American system is in its Federalism - That folks of one kind can be one place, and folks that are else-wise another. That is an aggregate of individualism and independence.
The limiting nature of the Constitution was intentional in ONLY giving to the fed that which it must necessarily NEED to govern. The Lion's share was left to the several states to govern, and ultimately to the people. That again bespeaks an individualism and independence, as does most of the state constitutions I am familiar with.
This national 'community' that @Jazzhead is so in love with is the very tool being used to oppose that individualism and independence, where our rights and liberty reside... There is no 'community' 3000 miles away, able to dictate terms.
And talk about such a thing deserves no dang credit at all.
-
Meanwhile, some heartwarming gun news out of Oklahoma:
Oklahoma City Police
â€Verified account @OKCPD
11m11 minutes ago
âš ï¸ ALERT: The only confirmed fatality is the suspect. He was apparently shot-to-death by an armed citizen. Three citizens were injured, two of whom were shot. A large number of witnesses are detained. There is no indication of terrorismat this point.
8 replies 165 retweets 105 likes
Another tweet from OCPD:Oklahoma City Police
â€Verified account @OKCPD
5m5 minutes ago
Lake Hefner shooting update: A man walked into the Louie’s restaurant and opened fire with a gun. Two people were shot. One person has been taken to a hospital with serious injuries. A bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him.
ABC News story (https://abcnews.go.com/US/multiple-people-injured-restaurant-shooting-oklahoma-city-police/story?id=55424657&cid=social_twitter_abcn)
-
@driftdiver that always seems to be the Liberal answer to why failed programs implemented by other leftist regimes will work this time.
Yeah, they've been spewing that line for a hundred years and at least as many millions of dead people.
-
Does registration "punish" the law-abiding car owner? It's an imposition, an inconvenience, but not a punishment, and certainly not an unconstitutional "infringement".
C'mon, sir, the community does have an interest in curbing the black market in guns.
An imposition and an inconvenience ARE an infringement. That there is no Constitutional prohibition on that infringement renders your comparison weasel words. Really. I would have expected something less disingenuous.
-
Registration would grow the black market in guns. I believe many of the posters on this thread would move to illegal trade if registration was required.
Um.....Not to speak of. :nometalk:
-
America is not "every other country". We have a Constitution with a Second Amendment and a guarantee against seizure of property without just compensation, or the due process of law.
The answer cannot be that you have the "right" to decide for yourself which laws you will ignore. That is anarchy.
Except for that Civil Asset Forfeiture thingy where people are routinely relieved of cash and desirable property with no more Due Process than a law which says the State can seize that property. Where are those protections?
-
Yeah, they've been spewing that line for a hundred years and at least as many millions of dead people.
Oh, Joe. They have been spewing that line since "kingship" was granted by the gods to man.
My point in an earlier post is that if you don't understand the Spirit behind the Constitution you need to sit down and STFU.
Anyone who gets up on a soapbox and fires away with trigger words like "guns" and "control" needs to have that box shot out from under their feet. Swept away, that box is. To our Gain, in the Tides of war. (lame laundry soap reference).
-
That's a rather startling admission that folks here are not fundamentally law-abiding.
I don't believe it.
Who isn't law-abiding? If the Government places illegal infringements on the RKBA, it is our Duty, as Americans, to resist those illegal laws. At present, such laws do not exist in most of the country, nor will they.
-
/snicker
Guff and bravado. Tell me, did you refuse to buy Obamacare-compliant insurance, and did you pay the Obamacare penalty, or did you dutifully sign up for qualifying insurance?
Yes, no, and no.
-
Oh, Joe. They have been spewing that line since "kingship" was granted by the gods to man.
My point in an earlier post is that if you don't understand the Spirit behind the Constitution you need to sit down and STFU.
Anyone who gets up on a soapbox and fires away with trigger words like "guns" and "control" needs to have that box shot out from under their feet. Swept away, that box is. To our Gain, in the Tides of war. (lame laundry soap reference).
But Fred, they're 'pod' people.....
-
Meanwhile, some heartwarming gun news out of Oklahoma:
(http://rlv.zcache.com/i_love_happy_endings_sticker-r914f68b90c6247bf8257bca576d72f0c_v9waf_8byvr_512.jpg)
-
Who isn't law-abiding? If the Government places illegal infringements on the RKBA, it is our Duty, as Americans, to resist those illegal laws. At present, such laws do not exist in most of the country, nor will they.
Exactly what is law-abiding? I work on the north side of the big town and live 13 miles south of it. I almost spilled my beer three times because of other stupid drivers--trying to fight through the traffic--just so I could get the hell home.
I swear that if you are caught with a cell phone that has a charged battery in it in the front area of your car you should be registered as deregistered and several confiscations commence.
-
But Fred, they're 'pod' people.....
I suppository you are correct.
-
Exactly. You complied, simply because the government gave you the right incentives.
If you become subject to a registration law, you’ll bend over and take it as well, with similar incentivization.
Incentive, schmincentive.
The Government's new laws caused my insurance provider to quit offering health insurance in my state. I had a plan before the ACA that suited my needs. After the ACA, insurance became completely unaffordable. So no, not only did the government provide no incentive for me to have insurance, but they did away with the insurance I had, just like millions of other Americans. https://ballotpedia.org/Health_insurance_policy_cancellations_since_Obamacare (https://ballotpedia.org/Health_insurance_policy_cancellations_since_Obamacare)
Essentially,, the government did away with our insurance, then wanted to fine us.
-
I suppository you are correct.
HA! I seen what you did there...
Hiya Fred! :seeya:
-
I had health insurance through my employer until obamacare wiped that out. January 1, 2015. I refuse to buy insurance. It is a fear-mongering effing scam. I claim the exemption on my taxes that it is considered to be unaffordable and that exemption has not been questioned.
I have a monthly blood draw to check my various med levels and organ functions. My last visit at that MD was $54. That included the visit, the supplies for the draw, and the tests.
The high price of healthcare is complete horseshit. Complete horseshit. Same with gun control and any variations thereof.
-
Exactly what is law-abiding? I work on the north side of the big town and live 13 miles south of it. I almost spilled my beer three times because of other stupid drivers--trying to fight through the traffic--just so I could get the hell home.
I swear that if you are caught with a cell phone that has a charged battery in it in the front area of your car you should be registered as deregistered and several confiscations commence.
Most (the overwhelming majority) of idiot drivers I have seen (The wife and I have a contest for the Idiot driver du jour) have been obviously using their phone. Thankfully, I have decades in the saddle as a motorcyclist, so defensive driving is deeply ingrained. I don't drink, but if I was spilling beverages over that lunacy, I'd be upset, too.
-
HA! I seen what you did there...
Hiya Fred! :seeya:
You seen it? I kinda figured ya for a leg man. But an assman... :whistle:
-
Most (the overwhelming majority) of idiot drivers I have seen (The wife and I have a contest for the Idiot driver du jour) have been obviously using their phone. Thankfully, I have decades in the saddle as a motorcyclist, so defensive driving is deeply ingrained. I don't drink, but if I was spilling beverages over that lunacy, I'd be upset, too.
I'm kidding about the beer, Joe. My point is that anyone driving a car is operating a potentially deadly weapon and their attention to that operation is required.
-
You seen it? I kinda figured ya for a leg man. But an assman... :whistle:
Well if them kids could be talked into taking them Tide Pods as a suppository, they'd be a whole lot less popular. Except a guy with his pants off screaming though your party like Lawrence Welk's bubble machine might be a conversation starter... :shrug:
-
LOL! Not even close!
Years ago I bought an old pickup. The paperwork was all there, the original title and notarized bills of sale for six title transfers, none of which had been registered with the State. I was amazed at how fast the title transfers were conducted and the paperwork went through at the DMV when I got all that caught up and current (antique vehicle) tags.
-
And from my limited experience, a very large percentage of gun "owners" know exactly, EXACTLY, what they OWN.
No guns don't stop the crazy from doing bad shit.
-
Well if them kids could be talked into taking them Tide Pods as a suppository, they'd be a whole lot less popular. Except a guy with his pants off screaming though your party like Lawrence Welk's bubble machine might be a conversation starter... :shrug:
DON'T pop the bubbles! :terror:
-
During the mid-1980s dairy farmers decided there was too much cheap milk at the supermarket. So the government bought and slaughtered 1.6 million cows. How come the government never does anything like this with lawyers?
LOL! You EVER see a cheap lawyer?
-
LOL! You EVER see a cheap lawyer?
Cheap, yes. Inexpensive, no.
-
DON'T pop the bubbles! :terror:
Now that is funny. It just Dawned on me that I use a bit of dish soap in my weedkiller sprayer.
-
Cheap, yes. Inexpensive, no.
And cheap ain't what you want when that date is in court.
-
When have I defended illegal aliens for breaking the community's laws? The question is why do you condemn them when you brag about your own moral righteousness in breaking the community's laws?
Seems to me you're the one who should be counting on amnesty for lawbreaking.
The very presence of an illegal alien within these borders is a prima facie violation of the law. Invaders have no rights.
-
And btw... if anybody's interested, I will be buying em off the back of a truck
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/24/70/1b/24701b804e8c06aa40e32346a9a9b62c.png)
:beer:
-
I have a 44 mag, combined with the steel but plate. I'm sad to say more than once I've jacked rounds back out because I didn't want more pounding.
I felt like the .308 was too much duplication of my 30-06. And when it comes to playing the 7.62x39 can be bought at 17¢ a round, sometimes better.
https://www.bestolin.com/best-rifle-recoil-pad-reviews/ (https://www.bestolin.com/best-rifle-recoil-pad-reviews/)
Relatively inexpensive recoil solution.
-
I would add a bit about this damnable 'community' verbiage, @Smokin Joe ...
It reads to me as a dirty word.
The beauty of the American system is in its Federalism - That folks of one kind can be one place, and folks that are else-wise another. That is an aggregate of individualism and independence.
The limiting nature of the Constitution was intentional in ONLY giving to the fed that which it must necessarily NEED to govern. The Lion's share was left to the several states to govern, and ultimately to the people. That again bespeaks an individualism and independence, as does most of the state constitutions I am familiar with.
This national 'community' that @Jazzhead is so in love with is the very tool being used to oppose that individualism and independence, where our rights and liberty reside... There is no 'community' 3000 miles away, able to dictate terms.
And talk about such a thing deserves no dang credit at all.
That distinction, between a Federal Government and a National Government, is lost on far too many, far too often.
-
Now that is funny. It just Dawned on me that I use a bit of dish soap in my weedkiller sprayer.
Does that really work?
-
Does that really work?
Yes. The soap sticks and fixes the herbicide to the leaves of the plant you are spraying. My spraying is 99.95% dandelions. So I turn down the spray so it is single plant specific.
A single shot weapon, with the right ammunition, combined with that ultimate desire to kill, is highly effective.
-
That distinction, between a Federal Government and a National Government, is lost on far too many, far too often.
@roamer_1
One of the perks of civilization. Civilization--aka--urbanization. Large groups of people being schooled to all swim in the same direction.
-
Yes. The soap sticks and fixes the herbicide to the leaves of the plant you are spraying. My spraying is 99.95% dandelions. So I turn down the spray so it is single plant specific.
A single shot weapon, with the right ammunition, combined with that ultimate desire to kill, is highly effective.
You are tragically unhip; you're supposed to make tea out of those dandelions!
-
You are tragically unhip; you're supposed to make tea out of those dandelions!
No... Coffee. Tea is from the leaf and bud... Coffee is the roasted root. and I am partial to it... Won't never be no herbicide on my lawn... That's right.
-
@roamer_1
One of the perks of civilization. Civilization--aka--urbanization. Large groups of people being schooled to all swim in the same direction.
That explains why country Conservative folks are like herding cats...
-
Straw man. Your natural right to defend yourself and your home isn't at stake or at issue here. What you don't necessarily have a right to do is buy guns off the back of trucks in undocumented transactions, or amass arsenals in secret. Registration serves a similar purpose for guns as it does for cars - to assign a gun to its lawful owner for liability purposes, and to provide a basis for documented transfers and dispositions.
But it is entirely reasonable to require that you register your ownership and buy and sell your guns on the up-and-up.
You have the right to defend yourself. And the community has the right to protect itself from an unregulated market in guns. And you do NOT have the right to be a law unto yourself, and to pick and choose which of the community's laws you will ignore.
I see why most here have put you on ignore. You do have a right to accumulate as many guns/ammo as you deem appropriate. The fellow had 230 rounds of ammo, I have 10s of thousands rounds of ammo and want more. Heck, some 22 ammo comes in boxes of more than 500 and California thinks that is an arsenal. Some trips the the shooting range we uses more than 500-1000 rounds, good grief.
Defending oneself is more than just sitting at home, defending also means from a run away government. As described in the Federalist Papers (29), we are not just to be allowed pea shooters.
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
If going up against an army, you can sure as hell bet my thousands of rounds are just joke, yet you want to limit it. Yet team me up with like minded freedom loving citizens (like most other posters in this thread), we do make a formidable group to not be pushed around.
Private sales are another area we fully disagree. My elderly neighbor died, he left a widow that was sweet as honey (good Christian lady). We went to church together and we watched over her. When she got to age she was having trouble with her health, she called me down and asked if I wanted to purchase some of her late husband's guns (she had no children). I liked an old 20 gauge duck gun and just an old plinker 10-22. Gave her 100 bucks for each. You would have her purchase a gun license to sell them. Nope, she knew me, that I was no felon (against the law to sell to a known felon) and money and weapons exchanged hands. None of the damn government's business.
Most gun folks know that if someone is wanting to buy a gun and you don't know them, that you can go to a gun shop and do a ffl check on the sale (hope I got the abbreviation right). You can not do over state line sales without using a ffl, but making it hard for widows to get rid of their guns is BS in my opinion. If a widow woman does not know the value of her guns, she needs to impress the help a a church member (what I suggest anyhoo).
And the community has the right to protect itself from an unregulated market in guns.
Not at the expense of legal citizens which infringe on the second and God. Shall not be infringed. Right now even the licensing of gun rights (CC permits) by Sheriffs is unconstitutional in my opinion. Renting the right that is guaranteed. Constitutional Carry should be the right of the people in every state.
-
https://www.bestolin.com/best-rifle-recoil-pad-reviews/ (https://www.bestolin.com/best-rifle-recoil-pad-reviews/)
Relatively inexpensive recoil solution.
@Smokin Joe
Thank you sir.
I've considered them, but honestly I love the look without them. When I want to play shoot it, I load it up with 44 special. Someday, I'll take a hog with it, using the mags.
Once in a while, my mind gets stronger than my shoulder and I load the tube up with 44 mags just at the range table. I've always wonder why I did that before the tube is empty, regardless if the bullets come out the end, or jacked out still in the cartridge.
Also I have nearly the same gun in 357/38. It is better for play and the one my kids always reach for.
-
Does that really work?
In the greater Houston area, adding a surfactant makes a huge difference in the ability of herbicides to stick the plants. It will make a real difference with any hard water.
http://www.randylemmon.com/lawns/gardenline-surfactants.html (http://www.randylemmon.com/lawns/gardenline-surfactants.html)
Soap is something everyone has and makes it easy to add. There are others that do even better:
(http://www.randylemmon.com/img/lawn/126x215-hi-yield.jpg)
-
You are tragically unhip; you're supposed to make tea out of those dandelions!
When I was teenage, baling hay, the farmer I worked for made dandelion wine. Along with half a dozen other types.
He also had a permit for his still to make his own alcohol; he had a Farmall tractor that ran on gasoline. He would proudly show me the permit and state: "You will notice there is nothing in this permit that says I cannot keep my still clean enough to drink out of."
Dinners were fun after the baling was done.
-
I would add a bit about this damnable 'community' verbiage, @Smokin Joe ...
It reads to me as a dirty word.
The beauty of the American system is in its Federalism - That folks of one kind can be one place, and folks that are else-wise another. That is an aggregate of individualism and independence.
The limiting nature of the Constitution was intentional in ONLY giving to the fed that which it must necessarily NEED to govern. The Lion's share was left to the several states to govern, and ultimately to the people. That again bespeaks an individualism and independence, as does most of the state constitutions I am familiar with.
This national 'community' that @Jazzhead is so in love with is the very tool being used to oppose that individualism and independence, where our rights and liberty reside... There is no 'community' 3000 miles away, able to dictate terms.
And talk about such a thing deserves no dang credit at all.
I do not support gun regulation at the national level. Like you, I agree that our federal system is a core strength; we are a confederation of sovereign states, and the "community" that should be setting the rules regarding gun use and ownership has historically been, should remain, the several states.
The community can further be defined at the local level. Here, some states forbid localities from establishing their own rules for firearms, while others allow local communities the ability to do so. As for me, I have no objection to my town being able to set its own rules, consistent of course with the Constitution.
Ironically, the biggest push for trumping state/local rules is coming these days from conservatives pushing national concealed carry reciprocity. It is "conservatives" who want to strip states and localities of authority to decide who may carry in the public square. IMO, a true conservative must be opposed to such a national rule, in name of federalism and states' rights.
-
I do not support gun regulation at the national level.
I think that is wise.
Like you, I agree that our federal system is a core strength; we are a confederation of sovereign states, and the "community" that should be setting the rules regarding gun use and ownership has historically been, should remain, the several states.
Yes, within the limits of the Constitution(s).
The community can further be defined at the local level. Here, some states forbid localities from establishing their own rules for firearms, while others allow local communities the ability to do so. As for me, I have no objection to my town being able to set its own rules, consistent of course with the Constitution.
With that limit, yes... (but wary) Very small town politics can be used against individuals, like homeowner associations, etc. While closer to the individuals seems like a good idea, abuse is too common.
Ironically, the biggest push for trumping state/local rules is coming these days from conservatives pushing national concealed carry reciprocity.
Not all of us. The Fed that can tell New York to accept Texas Gun permits is the same Fed that can tell Texas with that permit comes all of California's requirements.
It is "conservatives" who want to strip states and localities of authority to decide who may carry in the public square. IMO, a true conservative must be opposed to such a national rule, in name of federalism and states' rights.
There are definitely folks on both sides of the aisle that want to use the feds to beat the locals into their preferred view. My preferred view is from a distance.
-
I do not support gun regulation at the national level. Like you, I agree that our federal system is a core strength; we are a confederation of sovereign states, and the "community" that should be setting the rules regarding gun use and ownership has historically been, should remain, the several states.
@Jazzhead
No, you have been hawking for a national registry and a national imposition requiring gun insurance... That has not a damn thing to do with several states.
The community can further be defined at the local level. Here, some states forbid localities from establishing their own rules for firearms, while others allow local communities the ability to do so. As for me, I have no objection to my town being able to set its own rules, consistent of course with the Constitution.
Neither do I. What I do have a problem with is you imposing your 'sensibilities' upon me. You've already got your way where you are. Knock yourself out. You have no right at all to impose it upon me.
Ironically, the biggest push for trumping state/local rules is coming these days from conservatives pushing national concealed carry reciprocity. It is "conservatives" who want to strip states and localities of authority to decide who may carry in the public square. IMO, a true conservative must be opposed to such a national rule, in name of federalism and states' rights.
Bullshit. CCW is a license. JUST LIKE a driver's license or a marriage license. Reciprocity - the very same reciprocity with which y'all imposed homo marriage and demanded recognition by the various states - THAT reciprocity demands it. Karma's a bitch.
-
Guns? What guns? :laugh:
-
Citizens are under no obligation to follow unconstituional mandates. No matter how stupid you want us to be, we know, through various real life examples, what registration leads to. You go register your own guns and then mind your own damn business.
Forget it. The guy is clueless on any differences between a citizen and a non-citizen of this country. He also cannot fathom differences between an existing law and a hypothetical one.
-
My opinions are mixed on the CCW issue. First, correctly and Constitutionally, I should need no license to carry, concealed or openly anywhere in the US, its territories, or possessions.
As a practical matter, though, no one in that town in Oklahoma or Kansas might know me or my intent (another reason to carry concealed, imho), and that might make some of the locals nervous. That permit should indicate to LEOs and others that I am not the sort of person inclined to criminal activity, i.e., that I am one of 'the good guys'. Unfortunately, it seems as if the hoplophobic indoctrination of even LEOs (who should be trained better) has even more scrutiny placed on a CCW holder than the average person, perhaps in hopes of scoring a weapon or weapons on some local technicality. For that reason, it is prudent to be familiar with and to keep up with changes to local firearm laws where one travels.
I do not need a CCW in my home state (ND went to Constitutional carry) to carry concealed, and the permit is a holdover from an earlier time. Yet, despite my feelings on the issue, I maintain it, if for no other reason than to have a second form of identification that indicates I am not the felonious type. In addition, my permit includes "other dangerous weapons", and I can carry a pretty wide variety of devices, from knucks to knives to batons, etc., which are proscribed for the average person. In that sense, I'm fine with having the permit. Let me note, though, that those devices are also items which fall under the broad spectrum definition of "arms", which are not restricted to firearms, even though that is the most common usage. Bows, arrows, spears, swords, and a host of other devices have been traditionally considered 'arms' as well, and the known world was conquered many times by those using such devices before the invention of gunpowder.
National CCW reciprocity should come under 'full faith and credit', or same-sex marriage licenses should not. You can't have it both ways. The former, in re: the RKBA is a stated Constitutional Right, an unalienable Right, and the latter is not specifically listed in the Constitution, and is prohibited by scripture (it's really hard to call something a "God-given Right" when it is declared abomination in scripture).
I have a simple enough solution, personally, I don't travel to states armed which don't grant reciprocity to my CCW--in fact, I don't travel to those states at all, if possible. I don't spend a dime there, so I don't support their tax systems or their way of life any more than is unavoidable. However, I must again note that according to the Constitution, those jurisdictions impose infringements on an enumerated and fundamental civil right. Practically, I have no desire to spend any time in such locations, much less prison time there, so they can sit on their rules and rotate for all I care, even though those rules are fundamentally and Constitutionally wrong.
However if those jurisdictions and the people in them can impose something like their ideations of morality upon mine in other forms, they should have to accept my fundamental, enumerated, unalienable Civil Right to be armed and leave me the hell alone. Anything less would be capricious and arbitrary enforcement of the Constitution. If the Constitution is Supreme law of the Land, in the absence of a severance clause, it should all apply to all, and not let some places pick and choose.
-
You've become incomprehensible. The issue isn't compliance with unconstitutional mandates. Registration of firearms ownership is perfectly Constitutional. You demand the right to pick and choose which of the community's laws you will ignore. You're no better than the illegal aliens you decry. Your moral authority is zilch.
You cannot discern any differences between a citizen and a non-citizen. Nor between an existing law and a hypothetical law.
That is a puke attempt on your part.
-
My opinions are mixed on the CCW issue. First, correctly and Constitutionally, I should need no license to carry, concealed or openly anywhere in the US, its territories, or possessions.
Great post @Smokin Joe , as always. :beer:
National CCW reciprocity should come under 'full faith and credit', or same-sex marriage licenses should not. You can't have it both ways. The former, in re: the RKBA is a stated Constitutional Right, an unalienable Right, and the latter is not specifically listed in the Constitution, and is prohibited by scripture (it's really hard to call something a "God-given Right" when it is declared abomination in scripture).
There's the hitch. But in fact, it is a whole lot more simple than it seems.
Like your driver's license, 'full faith and credit' does not apply equally in any event. Your competence must be assumed and granted (your DL allows you to drive in any state) but you are still beholden to the laws of the state or locality you are in.
That is what homo marriage broke - The state should be free to define it's requirements for its own license issuance, which must be obeyed within its sovereign borders, and the license holder must comply within that boundary... If a state defines 'one man and one woman', then any other form should by rights, be nullified... That doesn't change interstate actions = As an instance, an insurance company operating in a state that recognizes other marriage forms is free to recognize those marriages even across state lines for its purposes.
The same would apply wrt CCW. The license does not need to conform to any other state, as @thackney worries for... Rather, his CCW must be recognized, and should be reasonably allowed within the parameters of the state he is in. The fact of the CCW is forgone, even as his DL is... But in CA, that means something different from in TX, and he must meet that compliance.
-
Great post @Smokin Joe , as always. :beer:
There's the hitch. But in fact, it is a whole lot more simple than it seems.
Like your driver's license, 'full faith and credit' does not apply equally in any event. Your competence must be assumed and granted (your DL allows you to drive in any state) but you are still beholden to the laws of the state or locality you are in.
That is what homo marriage broke - The state should be free to define it's requirements for its own license issuance, which must be obeyed within its sovereign borders, and the license holder must comply within that boundary... If a state defines 'one man and one woman', then any other form should by rights, be nullified... That doesn't change interstate actions = As an instance, an insurance company operating in a state that recognizes other marriage forms is free to recognize those marriages even across state lines for its purposes.
The same would apply wrt CCW. The license does not need to conform to any other state, as @thackney worries for... Rather, his CCW must be recognized, and should be reasonably allowed within the parameters of the state he is in. The fact of the CCW is forgone, even as his DL is... But in CA, that means something different from in TX, and he must meet that compliance.
So, for example, New Jersey would have to honor the CCW, but you are limited to 10 rounds in the mag instead of the standard 15. Just means more magazines...instead of a Felony.
Which would really be "common sense". I have not become a criminal in anything but paperwork if I were to cross that border: my nature, my principles, would have remained unchanged crossing some artificial boundary, only the law changes. I am no more likely to commit murder or mayhem there than I am standing in my front yard at home, and that universal acceptance of my CCW would acknowledge the universal principles for conduct I had manitained and recognize that fact, rather than put me on the 'Group W Bench' with the mother rapers and father stabbers.
-
Nice Arlo reference @Smokin Joe
-
So, for example, New Jersey would have to honor the CCW, but you are limited to 10 rounds in the mag instead of the standard 15. Just means more magazines...instead of a Felony.
Which would really be "common sense". I have not become a criminal in anything but paperwork if I were to cross that border: my nature, my principles, would have remained unchanged crossing some artificial boundary, only the law changes. I am no more likely to commit murder or mayhem there than I am standing in my front yard at home, and that universal acceptance of my CCW would acknowledge the universal principles for conduct I had manitained and recognize that fact, rather than put me on the 'Group W Bench' with the mother rapers and father stabbers.
@roamer_1 @Smokin Joe
Hey! Can y’all dial it back with all that common sense logic, please?!? Good grief! Our resident gutless statist tyrant wannabe won’t be able to handle it. It’s not nearly “efficacious†or “reasonable†enough.
-
@roamer_1 @Smokin Joe
Hey! Can y’all dial it back with all that common sense logic, please?!? Good grief! Our resident gutless statist tyrant wannabe won’t be able to handle it. It’s not nearly “efficacious†or “reasonable†enough.
I wouldn't worry about that. When he gets in over his head he just goes back to an earlier position and starts over, as if nobody ever said anything.
-
So, for example, New Jersey would have to honor the CCW, but you are limited to 10 rounds in the mag instead of the standard 15. Just means more magazines...instead of a Felony.
Which would really be "common sense". I have not become a criminal in anything but paperwork if I were to cross that border: my nature, my principles, would have remained unchanged crossing some artificial boundary, only the law changes. I am no more likely to commit murder or mayhem there than I am standing in my front yard at home, and that universal acceptance of my CCW would acknowledge the universal principles for conduct I had manitained and recognize that fact, rather than put me on the 'Group W Bench' with the mother rapers and father stabbers.
That's right... And I think there should be tolerance in that - You should be treated as one of the good guys if there is some non-compliance, whether correctable or not. Confiscation does not transmit that attitude. An infraction made in ignorance should always be a teachable moment, rather than throwing the book.
A warning issued and the compliance resolved should be enough, even if you have to be followed to a UPS store and witnessed properly sending the firearm to a point out of state/city (as in the case of an illegal weapon). The courtesy should be extended wrt the license, and ignorance of the law assumed...
A second violation in a short period of time would be when to start treating the offender as defiant or criminal.
-
I wouldn't worry about that. When he gets in over his head he just goes back to an earlier position and starts over, as if nobody ever said anything.
I stopped talking to him for that very reason. I don't do circular arguments.
-
I stopped talking to him for that very reason. I don't do circular arguments.
Not much point in it after that. :shrug:
-
Hey! Can y’all dial it back with all that common sense logic, please?!? Good grief! Our resident gutless statist tyrant wannabe won’t be able to handle it. It’s not nearly “efficacious†or “reasonable†enough.
Heh heh...
:beer:
-
I wouldn't worry about that. When he gets in over his head he just goes back to an earlier position and starts over, as if nobody ever said anything.
Which should serve as a reminder and evidence of the fact that Jazzy is not here on this board to engage in discussion or conversation - he's here to push the Leftist agenda that he insists is the true 'conservative' position.
He is no different than the false teachers and false prophets whom lecture that Jesus was a Socialist and Chrislam is the path to salvation.
We know the true voice to follow - and Jazzy's positions 'aint even a shadow of what we know to be true.
Bullshit. CCW is a license. JUST LIKE a driver's license or a marriage license. Reciprocity - the very same reciprocity with which y'all imposed homo marriage and demanded recognition by the various states - THAT reciprocity demands it. Karma's a bitch.
Well again, the resident Leftist will tell us that some 'laws' are more equal than others, and that a minority of perverts can force us to bake homo wedding cakes with a government gun to our head is Constitutional, while the enumerated right to keep and bear arms can be reasonably regulated to the point of abolishment as long as 'the community' wants it to abolished.
Because you know, he is sick of us 'lawless' Conservatives calling for the refusal to comply with and open defiance of his ideas that he wants to make 'law'.
-
@roamer_1 @Smokin Joe
Hey! Can y’all dial it back with all that common sense logic, please?!? Good grief! Our resident gutless statist tyrant wannabe won’t be able to handle it. It’s not nearly “efficacious†or “reasonable†enough.
Unnnnnnnnnngh!
Sorry. The strain is too great, and Obamacare got rid of my insurance, so I can't afford the operation.
-
Well again, the resident Leftist will tell us that some 'laws' are more equal than others, and that a minority of perverts can force us to bake homo wedding cakes with a government gun to our head is Constitutional, while the enumerated right to keep and bear arms can be reasonably regulated to the point of abolishment as long as 'the community' wants it to abolished.
Because you know, he is sick of us 'lawless' Conservatives calling for the refusal to comply with and open defiance of his ideas that he wants to make 'law'.
Oh, heck no.
The liberals set the precedent wrt reciprocity.
If all the various states must accept the most liberal of marriage licenses, then all of the states must also accept the most liberal of CCW licenses... Which is, in fact, Constitutional carry... But since that is not technically an issued license, any issued CCW or classed weapons license must be accepted as a matter of reciprocity...
One state cannot nullify what another state allows any longer.
-
Oh, heck no.
The liberals set the precedent wrt reciprocity.
If all the various states must accept the most liberal of marriage licenses, then all of the states must also accept the most liberal of CCW licenses... Which is, in fact, Constitutional carry... But since that is not technically an issued license, any issued CCW or classed weapons license must be accepted as a matter of reciprocity...
One state cannot nullify what another state allows any longer.
Except they can and will, with big applause by Jazzy himself.
He specifically told us he does not want 'Texas styled gun culture' imposed in his little neck of Pennsylvania or whatever liberal-left bastion his hovel is. Yet he lectures us all on how San Francisco sexual behaviors must be imposed on the rest of us under the color of law and the premise of 'equal protection'.
Some laws are more equal than others in their eyes - and some perverted behaviors and hobbies are more goodly and better than others in their eyes.
-
Oh, heck no.
The liberals set the precedent wrt reciprocity.
If all the various states must accept the most liberal of marriage licenses, then all of the states must also accept the most liberal of CCW licenses... Which is, in fact, Constitutional carry... But since that is not technically an issued license, any issued CCW or classed weapons license must be accepted as a matter of reciprocity...
One state cannot nullify what another state allows any longer.
Your statement assumes integrity within the legislature and the judiciary. They have none.
-
Except they can and will, with big applause by Jazzy himself.
He specifically told us he does not want 'Texas styled gun culture' imposed in his little neck of Pennsylvania or whatever liberal-left bastion his hovel is. Yet he lectures us all on how San Francisco sexual behaviors must be imposed on the rest of us under the color of law and the premise of 'equal protection'.
Some laws are more equal than others in their eyes - and some perverted behaviors and hobbies are more goodly and better than others in their eyes.
@INVAR couldn't have said it better myself my friend.
You nailed it.
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,317068.msg1692737.html#msg1692737 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,317068.msg1692737.html#msg1692737)
-
Wrong.
At that point your government will have totally nullified what little moral authority it has left, having made itself a despotic tyranny attempting to impose itself upon what remains of a free people. We don't care if your elected reps decide to do what they did to shove ObamaCare on the country and declare it 'legal'. In fact, we don't care if 90% of the country votes to become Communist and demands we abolish speech, religion, press and arms. At the point any of that happens, we no longer consent to be governed by such a system.
It will at that time, become our sole duty to refuse and resist compliance by every and all means at our disposal.
And, this is why we need the 2A! It is an inalienable right!
-
And, this is why we need the 2A! It is an inalienable right!
Hadn't seen you here before. Welcome, and my Standard Greeting applies.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD94dVu8lqQ#)
-
Fingers crossed it never comes to a mandate...
-
Hadn't seen you here before. Welcome, and my Standard Greeting applies.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD94dVu8lqQ#)
Thank you for the welcome!!!
I am more of a lurker than a poster. This topic is a hot button to me. I hate that when we leave the state, we have to change our habits to please the gun control nazis south of us. Need to go check reciprocity for a few states since we will be taking a short rode trip soon. Illinois will be the worst. Although, if Jazzy is from PA, maybe it will be worse. Great.
-
Thank you for the welcome!!!
I am more of a lurker than a poster. This topic is a hot button to me. I hate that when we leave the state, we have to change our habits to please the gun control nazis south of us. Need to go check reciprocity for a few states since we will be taking a short rode trip soon. Illinois will be the worst. Although, if Jazzy is from PA, maybe it will be worse. Great.
Welcome to GBR.
Although I am also upset on the vagaries of the state gun laws I visit, in the big scheme of things, this is how it should be.
Keeping federalism strong in this country will keep this country stronger as weaker states succumb to those who have chosen freedom instead of stifling regulations.
Let California or New York lose valuable citizens who yearn for better places to live.
-
National CCW reciprocity should come under 'full faith and credit', or same-sex marriage licenses should not. You can't have it both ways. The former, in re: the RKBA is a stated Constitutional Right, an unalienable Right, and the latter is not specifically listed in the Constitution, and is prohibited by scripture (it's really hard to call something a "God-given Right" when it is declared abomination in scripture).
None of that is correct. Civil marriage is a form of contract, between two parties. Full faith and credit has always included one state permitting enforcement of a contract entered into in another state. A party married in New Jersey can move to Arkansas and be able to enforce the marriage contract, just like any other.
Now, Arkansas doesn't have to recognize the same rights and privileges to a civil marriage as New Jersey does. If Arkansas doesn't let a married couple deduct the cost of home renovations on a state income tax return, then that's the rule in Arkansas even if the deduction is available in New Jersey. Of course, the that local law must, as per the Constitution, afford equal protection. The deduction must be provided (or denied) to the parties to a marriage whether gay or straight.
States (and localities) have traditionally been sovereign with respect to public security and safety issues. If New Jersey won't allow concealed carry, then just try to understand that there is simply no tradition of full faith and credit extended to other states to allow their citizens to travel to New Jersey with concealed weapons.
You might try to argue that reciprocity is indicated by the natural and Constitutionally-protected right to travel. After all, that natural right lies behind why full faith and credit is extended to the enforcement of contracts, including marriage contracts. But again, public security and safety are traditionally local concerns, up to local rules and local law enforcement. You come to New Jersey, you play by its rules. You observe its speed limits, and you also obey its laws when carrying, or not carrying, a gun.
Capiche?
I have a simple enough solution, personally, I don't travel to states armed which don't grant reciprocity to my CCW--in fact, I don't travel to those states at all, if possible. I don't spend a dime there, so I don't support their tax systems or their way of life any more than is unavoidable. However, I must again note that according to the Constitution, those jurisdictions impose infringements on an enumerated and fundamental civil right. Practically, I have no desire to spend any time in such locations, much less prison time there, so they can sit on their rules and rotate for all I care, even though those rules are fundamentally and Constitutionally wrong.
That's an excellent policy. By all means, stay away. You'd make a poor neighbor with that kind of childish and selfish attitude. And, as far as the Constitutional and federalism goes, it is you that is fundamentally wrong.
-
That's an excellent policy. By all means, stay away. You'd make a poor neighbor with that kind of childish and selfish attitude. And, as far as the Constitutional and federalism goes, it is you that is fundamentally wrong.
Hey @Jazzhead
You worked up the guts to volunteer yet? Or are you still just another tyrant wannabe?
NO ONE HERE IS BUYING WHAT YOU’RE SELLING. Peddle it elsewhere statist.
Riddle me this:
Do you believe that any law passed by your “community†is inherently and unquestioningly valid?
Your comments elsewhere indicate yes.
Additionally, your own comments elsewhere indicate that as such, you are perfectly willing to fully empower the government, at the point OF A GUN, to enforce the law passed by your “communityâ€.
You have also intimated that we citizens are forbidden from resisting said laws.
Perhaps I shouldnt have said forbidden...probably should have used a word you’re more familiar with: verboten...because you would have made one hell of a Nazi. You are an enemy of the people and deserve ALL of the derision, ridicule and lack of respect we can muster. May posterity forget you were our countryman
-
Thank you for the welcome!!!
I am more of a lurker than a poster. This topic is a hot button to me. I hate that when we leave the state, we have to change our habits to please the gun control nazis south of us. Need to go check reciprocity for a few states since we will be taking a short rode trip soon. Illinois will be the worst. Although, if Jazzy is from PA, maybe it will be worse. Great.
I go around Illinois. Literally.
-
Although, if Jazzy is from PA, maybe it will be worse. Great.
@threadbender
PA is very gun-friendly except in the cities, especially Philly.
-
Although I am also upset on the vagaries of the state gun laws I visit, in the big scheme of things, this is how it should be.
Keeping federalism strong in this country will keep this country stronger as weaker states succumb to those who have chosen freedom instead of stifling regulations.
Let California or New York lose valuable citizens who yearn for better places to live.
And that, folks, is the true conservative position. I agree, @IsailedawayfromFR
-
None of that is correct. Civil marriage is a form of contract, between two parties. Full faith and credit has always included one state permitting enforcement of a contract entered into in another state. A party married in New Jersey can move to Arkansas and be able to enforce the marriage contract, just like any other.
Now, Arkansas doesn't have to recognize the same rights and privileges to a civil marriage as New Jersey does. If Arkansas doesn't let a married couple deduct the cost of home renovations on a state income tax return, then that's the rule in Arkansas even if the deduction is available in New Jersey. Of course, the that local law must, as per the Constitution, afford equal protection. The deduction must be provided (or denied) to the parties to a marriage whether gay or straight.
States (and localities) have traditionally be sovereign with respect to public security and safety issues. If New Jersey won't allow concealed carry, then just try to understand that there is simply no tradition of full faith and credit extended to other states to allow their citizens to travel to New Jersey with concealed weapons.
You might try to argue that reciprocity is indicated by the natural and Constitutionally-protected right to travel. After all, that natural right lies behind why full faith and credit is extended to the enforcement of contracts, including marriage contracts. But again, public security and safety are traditionally local concerns, up to local rules and local law enforcement. You come to New Jersey, you play by its rules. You observe its speed limits, and you also obey its laws when carrying, or not carrying, a gun.
Capiche?
Caipche? WTF do you think you are some wannabe Soprano?
I gotta contract for you, the ultimate contract. It begins We, The People.....
What about that contract?
Nevermind the strawmen of legitimately local issues. If the Government can impose upon all States the requirement to allow perversion, Then the card I carry which says I have been background checked and found to be of good enough character to carry a lethal weapon should indicate that in all jurisdictions, and be a valid permit. If my Driver's License is accepted in states which have subtly different rules concerning things like "right turn on red", then my CCW permit should also be accepted.
That's an excellent policy. By all means, stay away. You'd make a poor neighbor with that kind of childish and selfish attitude. And, as far as the Constitutional and federalism goes, it is you that is fundamentally wrong.
Selfish attitude? YES! Absolutely!
I am a selfish lout who wishes to secure the blessings of Liberty for himself, his family, his neighbors and his prosperity from those who would twist natural rights into wrongs and warp the even the most basic human relationships, those who call good evil and evil good. Bad neighbor? For the likes of you, certainly.
I gladly will refuse to spend any money in those jurisdictions which would deny me or mine our Constitutionally enumerated and God-Given Rights, especially while creating Rights for perversions out of thin air. I must note those jurisdictions aren't exactly flush with prosperity, but don't come here, don't flee in this direction, instead wallow in the cesspit you have created.
And if, by accident I must tread there I will shake the dust from my feet when I leave.
I would not enter a war zone without the means to defend myself, much less a town that has more murders on a Saturday morning than the entire State I live in has in a year. (There's a reason for that, but Reason has left the jurisdictions we speak of.)
Either my license to carry a firearm has full faith and credit, or your perverted pals' little piece of paper means nothing legally.
-
And that, folks, is the true conservative position. I agree, @IsailedawayfromFR
On balance, I agree too, @Jazzhead.
While mandated CCW reciprocity would be convenient, it rubs the Federalist in me the wrong way. I am also suspicious it would become a vehicle to strip the citizens of all states of Constitutional Carry by catering to the worst states, like CA and IL. I don't expect what works in my state to work in all others. BTW, even though we have Constitutional Carry in AZ, we also offer CCWs so permit holders can get that reciprocity. Most states already offer reciprocity for AZ CCWs. If I had a CCW, it would be honored in PA.
https://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html (https://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html)
-
Of course, the that local law must, as per the Constitution, afford equal protection. The deduction must be provided (or denied) to the parties to a marriage whether gay or straight.
It's going to be a real fun to watch that play out with the perverts that are now demanding 'equal protection' to marry their pets and worse.
You'd make a poor neighbor with that kind of childish and selfish attitude.
You make a piss-poor American, period.
-
On balance, I agree too, @Jazzhead.
While mandated CCW reciprocity would be convenient, it rubs the Federalist in me the wrong way.
Thanks, @Cyber Liberty . To me, one of the defining characteristics of American conservatism is respect for federalism, which in turn means respect for state sovereignty.
-
To me, one of the defining characteristics of American conservatism is respect for federalism, which in turn means respect for state sovereignty.
Unless the state overwhelmingly passes a law that says they will only recognize marriage when defined between one man and one woman. Then Federalism no longer matters. Then we have tyrants like you using the courts and government to tell a sovereign state that they have to recognize homosexual marriage and it's citizens can be forced to bake the damn cake or be punished for refusing to accept homosexuality as good and normal.
You have zero respect for federalism when it comes to shoving your Leftist bullshit on sovereign states that do not want it.
-
Thanks, @Cyber Liberty . To me, one of the defining characteristics of American conservatism is respect for federalism, which in turn means respect for state sovereignty.
Unless the State Constitution states that Marriage is only between one man and one woman. Like Alabama's did, and Roy Moore upheld.
-
I go around Illinois. Literally.
Aw, southern parts of it ain't so bad... If it weren't for falling in the river, it'd be hard to tell where Illinois ends and Missouri begins... If it weren't for Springfield and Chicago...
-
Aw, southern parts of it ain't so bad... If it weren't for falling in the river, it'd be hard to tell where Illinois ends and Missouri begins... If it weren't for Springfield and Chicago...
Michigan is pretty. Across the UP, across the bridge, and down the middle finger to the Ohio Turnpike, then East....to visit kinfolk out that way.
-
Michigan is pretty. Across the UP, across the bridge, and down the middle finger to the Ohio Turnpike, then East....to visit kinfolk out that way.
LOL! Point taken... But then you miss Indiana.
Farthest east I need to go for kin is Michigan and Tennessee... Most others are in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Mississippi... So for me, If I take the high line, I will be turning south after DesMoines and before Chicago.
Well, that ain't right. I prolly oughta stop and see my kin IN Chicago... Then over to Michigan, then Tennessee, then the most of em in Mississippi, Missouri, and Kansas, and then take a right at the Rockies and come on home. The new missus add to that, though most her kin are in the Missouri Ozarks... but she adds points south toward Texas, which suits me fine.
-
Michigan is pretty. Across the UP, across the bridge, and down the middle finger to the Ohio Turnpike, then East....to visit kinfolk out that way.
If you're hitting the OH Turnpike that way, you must be coming down I-75 to Toledo? Or is it via Lansing and I-69?
-
Hey @Jazzhead
You worked up the guts to volunteer yet? Or are you still just another tyrant wannabe?
NO ONE HERE IS BUYING WHAT YOU’RE SELLING. Peddle it elsewhere statist.
Riddle me this:
Do you believe that any law passed by your “community†is inherently and unquestioningly valid?
Your comments elsewhere indicate yes.
Additionally, your own comments elsewhere indicate that as such, you are perfectly willing to fully empower the government, at the point OF A GUN, to enforce the law passed by your “communityâ€.
You have also intimated that we citizens are forbidden from resisting said laws.
Perhaps I shouldnt have said forbidden...probably should have used a word you’re more familiar with: verboten...because you would have made one hell of a Nazi. You are an enemy of the people and deserve ALL of the derision, ridicule and lack of respect we can muster. May posterity forget you were our countryman
@INVAR @txradioguy @Cyber Liberty
Hmmm...I notice that @Jazzhead decided to tuck tail and run rather than make any reply...
-
I go around Illinois. Literally.
It would be next to impossible unless we added a couple days to our trip! We live in SE Wisconsin. lol But, we do go around Chicago and get through Illinois as quickly as possible. The only good thing about Illinois was how easy it is to get married. lol We didn't want to have to bring a bunch of paperwork so went to Waukegan.
-
@INVAR @txradioguy @Cyber Liberty
Hmmm...I notice that @Jazzhead decided to tuck tail and run rather than make any reply...
I wouldn't read too much into that...Jazz posts sporadically on weekends, I assume it's because he has a regular life......
-
Capiche? Someone needs to tighten their necktie.
-
If you're hitting the OH Turnpike that way, you must be coming down I-75 to Toledo? Or is it via Lansing and I-69?
South to Jackson, then east and south on lesser roads. Stayed in Toledo overnight.
-
Thanks, @Cyber Liberty . To me, one of the defining characteristics of American conservatism is respect for federalism, which in turn means respect for state sovereignty.
@Jazzhead
14th Amendment Sec 1, Clause 1.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
After the War of Secession, Since some folks STILL hadn't got the mssg. we straightened out that stuff with the Civil War Amendments.
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
IF States Rights were intended to be on a equal footing with Citizens Rights or Superior to Citizens Federal Rights the Opening Clause would need to state:
are Citizens of Both the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Right off the top Clause 1 establishes the Supremacy of Federal Citizenship (and it's Protections) over State Citizenship (and it's erosion BY State Tyrannies of/infringement upon, those Federal guarantees).
In Plain, unvarnished English, States have NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER, and NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to infringe, revoke, or otherwise limit Any Federally Guaranteed Individual Citizen's Rights.
-
@Jazzhead
And I am not in the slightest interested in any contrary Opinions issued as Case Law by the Courts.
Where Courts have refused to understand/uphold the Plain, Unequivocal Intent and Meaning of any of the Bill of Rights Supremacy over State Govt Regulations, their ruling is in error and in need of being overturned by SCOTUS, which, has not yet upheld in its entirety the actual Supreme Law of these United States.
-
In Plain, unvarnished English, States have NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER, and NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to infringe, revoke, or otherwise limit Any Federally Guaranteed Individual Citizen's Rights.
You are free to hold that opinion, sir, but if you do you should not call yourself a conservative. The states have traditionally remained sovereign with respect to the safety and security of their citizens. Guns can be registered, regulated, be made subject to safety and insurance regimes, and their use in the public square limited or even proscribed. That is the right of every state. The Constitution prohibits infringement - that is, denial - of the gun right, and requires that rights subject to legal sanction be afforded due process. Otherwise, our federal system leaves the regulation (or non-regulation) of the gun right to the several states.
-
@Jazzhead
I'm a Citizen.
I call myself a Conservatives as a matter of convenience, since it sometimes prevents Emo Screwheads from pulling the cork out of their own mouths and expecting to get away with;
1: Boring me.
2: Monopolizing the discussion in the hope of converting any bystanders to their way of 'Feeling' what's right and proper.
-
Unless the state overwhelmingly passes a law that says they will only recognize marriage when defined between one man and one woman. Then Federalism no longer matters. Then we have tyrants like you using the courts and government to tell a sovereign state that they have to recognize homosexual marriage and it's citizens can be forced to bake the damn cake or be punished for refusing to accept homosexuality as good and normal.
You have zero respect for federalism when it comes to shoving your Leftist bullshit on sovereign states that do not want it.
^^^ This!
-
You are free to hold that opinion, sir, but if you do you should not call yourself a conservative.
Says the Leftist that lectures and advocates for abortion, gun control and bans, homosexuality, state imposition upon private property, taxes, and every other Leftist agenda item out there. You have spewed it all on this board and argued for those things.
That you have the unmitigated gall to tell someone else that they should not call themselves a Conservative has the same bullshit weight as if Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama told him he may not call himself a Conservative.
Guns can be registered, regulated, be made subject to safety and insurance regimes, and their use in the public square limited or even proscribed.
No, they cannot. If and when they do, such government is null and void. All it is then is a tyranny that will have to use guns to force us into compliance - and then that will be when it is time to water the tree of liberty.
The Constitution prohibits infringement - that is, denial - of the gun right
Wrong. That is NOT what the Constitution says. The Constitution specifically says 'The Right of the people to keep and bear ARMS, Shall Not Be Infringed.' The right to carry, possess, own and have on our person - ARMS is an inalienable right the government has no authority to infringe upon with regulations, registration or other tyrannical schemes intended to disarm the populace.
You can argue your bullshit excuses and justifications for turning an inalienable right into a government-granted and regulated privilege to your heart's content. All it is to us, is a declaration of evil intents towards us - and the intent to war upon us.
-
Welcome to GBR.
Although I am also upset on the vagaries of the state gun laws I visit, in the big scheme of things, this is how it should be.
Keeping federalism strong in this country will keep this country stronger as weaker states succumb to those who have chosen freedom instead of stifling regulations.
Let California or New York lose valuable citizens who yearn for better places to live.
I continue to agree. I haven't seen anything that convinces me I want the federal government to enforce one states laws onto another. Fantasies that they would expand our freedoms in doing so is only fantasy.
-
I continue to agree. I haven't seen anything that convinces me I want the federal government to enforce one states laws onto another. Fantasies that they would expand our freedoms in doing so is only fantasy.
@IsailedawayfromFR @thackney
EXCEPT...for that pesky ol’ 10Th amendment which expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which states that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. And last I checked the 2A is an amendment, and thus part of, the constitution. Therefore according to the 10th, neither the states nor localities; should not be screwing with “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGEDâ€
But then again, I am just a lowly reader of plain ol English.
-
I continue to agree. I haven't seen anything that convinces me I want the federal government to enforce one states laws onto another. Fantasies that they would expand our freedoms in doing so is only fantasy.
As a matter of fact, I'd appreciate it if they quit. At least have some semblance of consistency with "full faith and credit".
-
@IsailedawayfromFR @thackney
EXCEPT...for that pesky ol’ 10Th amendment which expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which states that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. And last I checked the 2A is an amendment, and thus part of, the constitution. Therefore according to the 10th, neither the states nor localities; should not be screwing with “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGEDâ€
But then again, I am just a lowly reader of plain ol English.
So the case you espouse is not throttling down a state's laws. Instead, it is to disregard an unconstitutional law passed by a state.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR @thackney
EXCEPT...for that pesky ol’ 10Th amendment which expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which states that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. And last I checked the 2A is an amendment, and thus part of, the constitution. Therefore according to the 10th, neither the states nor localities; should not be screwing with “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGEDâ€
But then again, I am just a lowly reader of plain ol English.
Now I would be real happy with action at the Federal level that said "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed including requirements for permits".
I am in favor of Alaskan style carry, if you are legally allowed to own the gun, you are allowed to carry it, concealed or open.
-
Now I would be real happy with action at the Federal level that said "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed including requirements for permits".
I am in favor of Alaskan style carry, if you are legally allowed to own the gun, you are allowed to carry it, concealed or open.
:amen:
AZ = AK in this regard. In fact there are quite a few Constitutional Carry states nowadays.