View Full Version : States' Rights and Gun Bans...
GeorgiaBoy
01-15-13, 18:19
Alright, let me preface this with the fact that I am deeply saddened to hear about NY's new ban and how those members we have in NY will soon be criminals because of that ban.
That being said, I think it would be beneficial if we hear opinions of our members' (especially those who are proponents of states' rights) opinions on whether or not individual states have the right to control gun ownership within their state boundaries.
As a states' rightist, I have felt increasingly lately that I don't have much of a problem with individual sates implementing their own forms of gun control, even gun control most of us see as truly radical.
Why? Because the fact of the matter is, there are actually very few states that support strict gun control. New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts to name the worst. Those states combined have a population of over 80 million people, a fourth of the U.S. population. Yet, there are 30+ states that have very lenient gun laws, with very pro-gun populations. Quite some diversity.
Allowing extremely anti-gun states to implement their own radical gun laws to make their citizens happy, yet leave the rest of the U.S. alone, would solve a lot of these problems with Federal legislation. 80 million people is a big voice, but they shouldn't force their views on guns to the rest of the states.
Yeah, yeah, McDonald v. Chicago... the Second Amendment applies to the states under the 14th A. This doesn't mean that the 2A will no longer to apply to states that wish to implement radical gun control.. they won't be allowed to create total bans. Just allowed create their same stupid AWB's and mag restrictions. That is A LOT better than federal legislation that rules over the entire country.
Let the radical states have their gun laws, but leave the free states alone.
Any opinions? Please.. keep them civil
montanadave
01-15-13, 18:49
Montana passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA) in 2009 and it was signed into law by Governor Schweitzer (a Democrat) on April 15, 2009. The law stipulated that firearms manufactured in Montana which stayed in state were not subject to federal firearms regulations.
The law, with an effective date of October 1, 2012, was immediately challenged by federal authorities. The ATF sent a letter to all FFL holders in Montana asserting federal law supersedes state law, thus the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, along with all of their attendant regulations, were all still in force.
A lawsuit was filed in federal court in support of the MFFA and seeking to prevent federal regulations from being enforced with regard to those firearms covered by the MFFA. The Montana Shooting Sports Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation joined in the lawsuit, which was subsequently dismissed by a federal judge in 2010 "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim." An appeal of that dismissal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act)
In the current 2013 Montana state legislature, there are several bills being drafted to prevent enforcement of any new federal gun-control measures, whether by executive order or legislation. Specifics on these measures are currently unavailable but I suspect there will renewed interest in getting them introduced quickly following the announcement of the Obama administration's proposals tomorrow.
If state's rights groups carry the day, I see an intense "balkanization" of the United States based on such issues as gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc. The designation of "radical state" versus "free state" will largely be defined by which of the aforementioned issues (and others) is most dear to your heart.
I mostly agree. If Nebraska went as full f-ing retard as shitholes like New York or Illinois, I'd leave. I personally believe that was the true intent of states rights, so you can live around mostly like minded people.
The weather here sucks & it's pretty boring, I won't argue that, but to me there is no job or scenery that could make me happy enough to live without my rights.
Belmont31R
01-15-13, 19:03
The Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states in the McDonald case thus the 2nd has to be adhered to by the states. The 14th Amendment was written to apply the BOR to the states so states could not do things like authorize slavery following the Civil War.
Later on the Supreme Court gutted the 14th and ruled the 14th Amendment does not apply the BOR to the states. Since then they have had to go case by case, amendment by amendment, and incorporate them to the state. Even then there are parts of each Amendment which have not been incorporated. This is why there are different burdens of proof for things like civil cases vs. criminal cases. One reason things like speeding tickets are considered civil fines so the states don't have to have the same burden of proof to get you to pay up and find you guilty as they would in a criminal case.
When the Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd to the states in the McDonald case they did not set the level of scrutiny which is what the courts use to apply to the case being heard on how far a right can be restricted (since they have also ruled no right is absolute). Under strict scrutiny, which is what we should hope for, the government would have to show the highest level of reason as to why a restriction of a right should be allowed.
Keep in mind the 14th Amendment which first incorporated the BOR to the states was passed by a 3/4ths majority which is what is required to pass a constitutional amendment. Thus the states themselves agreed to it at the time. The only way to take that authority back is to pass another amendment, with a 3/4ths majority, repealing the 14th Amendment, and taking a case to court to get current precedent repealed.
GeorgiaBoy
01-15-13, 19:04
If state's rights groups carry the day, I see an intense "balkanization" of the United States based on such issues as gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc. The designation of "radical state" versus "free state" will largely be defined by which of the aforementioned issues (and others) is most dear to your heart.
I don't disagree Dave.
However, I find a mild form "balkanization" already occurs amongst certain states. Right now, certain states have gay marriage legal. Others are trying to legalize certain drugs illegal under FEDERAL law. Some already have strict gun laws.
What I see by allowing states more freedoms is to keep with the "Don't tell me what to do, I won't tell you what to do" mantra. The citizens of New York and California shouldn't be forcing their views on guns on me in Georgia. Conversely, I should't be able to force them to have the same free gun laws that we have, if they don't want them.
In the end, the main goal here is to limit federal legislation that affects all states.
Belmont31R
01-15-13, 19:08
Montana passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA) in 2009 and it was signed into law by Governor Schweitzer .....
It's unfortunate but the Commerce Clause was intended to only apply to commerce between the states not commerce within a state. I'm sure you know, but SCOTUS ruled commerce within a state is under Federal control as well because it effects interstate commerce. A bunch of BS but that case came with their 1939 string of terror rubber stamping SS, NFA, and a bunch of other shitty cases where they gave the Fed gov a host of powers not granted to them by the Constitution.
Then to top if off, SCOTUS would rather decide constitutionality of law based on what previous SCOTUS judges have said not what the Constitution says. Deplorable.
Alaskapopo
01-15-13, 19:15
Alright, let me preface this with the fact that I am deeply saddened to hear about NY's new ban and how those members we have in NY will soon be criminals because of that ban.
That being said, I think it would be beneficial if we hear opinions of our members' (especially those who are proponents of states' rights) opinions on whether or not individual states have the right to control gun ownership within their state boundaries.
As a states' rightist, I have felt increasingly lately that I don't have much of a problem with individual sates implementing their own forms of gun control, even gun control most of us see as truly radical.
Why? Because the fact of the matter is, there are actually very few states that support strict gun control. New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts to name the worst. Those states combined have a population of over 80 million people, a fourth of the U.S. population. Yet, there are 30+ states that have very lenient gun laws, with very pro-gun populations. Quite some diversity.
Allowing extremely anti-gun states to implement their own radical gun laws to make their citizens happy, yet leave the rest of the U.S. alone, would solve a lot of these problems with Federal legislation. 80 million people is a big voice, but they shouldn't force their views on guns to the rest of the states.
Yeah, yeah, McDonald v. Chicago... the Second Amendment applies to the states under the 14th A. This doesn't mean that the 2A will no longer to apply to states that wish to implement radical gun control.. they won't be allowed to create total bans. Just allowed create their same stupid AWB's and mag restrictions. That is A LOT better than federal legislation that rules over the entire country.
Let the radical states have their gun laws, but leave the free states alone.
Any opinions? Please.. keep them civil
My opinion. While I could live with a compromise saying the Feds would back off and get rid of all federal gun control and the states would have all the power. However I live in a very pro gun state. Thats not so good for New York.
Also the bill of rights is there to protect everyone from the federal, state and local government. It is supposed to ensure that no one has less rights anywhere in the USA. Would it be right if we let states take away the freedom of speech or religion. I bet most of us wold say no. So there can be no compromise we need to win this battle.
Pat
Most if not all States have State Constitutions. I would assume all of them mirror the U.S. Constitutions with slight differences (more amendments ect.)
All of those Constitutions have the 2nd amend. within them. As seen in the Texas State Constitution in Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Your pro-ban stance is wrong again. I guess since you've tried the "states can do that" arguement and it failed, maybe you should move on to your next bullshit arguement.
We get it, you are loving this. Now go stand in line to be the first to register.
GeorgiaBoy
01-15-13, 19:22
My opinion. While I could live with a compromise saying the Feds would back off and get rid of all federal gun control and the states would have all the power. However I live in a very pro gun state. Thats not so good for New York.
Also the bill of rights is there to protect everyone from the federal, state and local government. It is supposed to ensure that no one has less rights anywhere in the USA. Would it be right if we let states take away the freedom of speech or religion. I bet most of us wold say no. So there can be no compromise we need to win this battle.
Pat
Pat,
While I would rather see no laws passed anywhere, the fact is, its a pipe dream. There are a LOT of Americans out there who want tougher gun laws. And a LOT of those Americans live in just a few concentrated states.
The Second Amendment is a far more controversial right than the First. So I think the slippery slope argument you mentioned wouldn't go as well because I don't think even the liberals would wish to do that to the freedom of religion/speech.
I don't see it as a compromise. I see it as giving them what they want, to do it in their own states, and leave the rest of the country alone. Otherwise, we all will be victims to THEIR agendas.
GeorgiaBoy
01-15-13, 19:23
Most if not all States have State Constitutions. I would assume all of them mirror the U.S. Constitutions with slight differences (more amendments ect.)
All of those Constitutions have the 2nd amend. within them.
Your pro-ban stance is wrong again. I guess since you've tried the "states can do that" arguement and it failed, maybe you should move on to your next bullshit arguement.
We get it, you are loving this. Now go stand in line to be the first to register.
I asked for this discussion to remain civil, J-Dub.
I am being civil. I am not expressing my true disgust for your provocateur-esque postings.
You have made it clear you WANT registration and/or all semiautos to be NFA items.....on m4carbine no less. That leads me to believe you are a provocateur.
Canonshooter
01-15-13, 19:26
In the end, the main goal here is to limit federal legislation that affects all states.
While that would make sense to us, that is not how Progressives think - and right now they are on a huge roll.
The Battle for the 2A is on now, in every state.
It's unfortunate but the Commerce Clause was intended to only apply to commerce between the states not commerce within a state. I'm sure you know, but SCOTUS ruled commerce within a state is under Federal control as well because it effects interstate commerce. A bunch of BS but that case came with their 1939 string of terror rubber stamping SS, NFA, and a bunch of other shitty cases where they gave the Fed gov a host of powers not granted to them by the Constitution.
Then to top if off, SCOTUS would rather decide constitutionality of law based on what previous SCOTUS judges have said not what the Constitution says. Deplorable.
...and decisions like that are the reason states need to take a stand and tell the feds where to shove their intrusive unconstitutional Bureaus, Administrations, Commissions, Agencies, et al.
The states need to take a stand and make it abundantly ****ing clear that they maintain a high level of sovereignty, and that if forced to they will exercise it. We've lost the states' rights battle, inch by miserable inch, for 200-some years, we need to start winning it, in yards and not inches.
New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts to name the worst. Those states combined have a population of over 80 million people, a fourth of the U.S. population. Yet, there are 30+ states that have very lenient gun laws, with very pro-gun populations. Quite some diversity.
....80 million people is a big voice, but they shouldn't force their views on guns to the rest of the states.
Flawed assumption is that 100% of these 80 mil are anti gun. There is a large pro gun population in Illinois and California, I know that from personal experience. They can't and won't win because they have to deal with same or larger number of antis, a ton of indifferent, and, above all, entrenched anti-gun political establishments; that doesn't mean their numbers are insignificant.
By the same token, there are enough anti gun people in pro gun states, just not enough to change status quo.
Alaskapopo
01-15-13, 19:59
Pat,
While I would rather see no laws passed anywhere, the fact is, its a pipe dream. There are a LOT of Americans out there who want tougher gun laws. And a LOT of those Americans live in just a few concentrated states.
The Second Amendment is a far more controversial right than the First. So I think the slippery slope argument you mentioned wouldn't go as well because I don't think even the liberals would wish to do that to the freedom of religion/speech.
I don't see it as a compromise. I see it as giving them what they want, to do it in their own states, and leave the rest of the country alone. Otherwise, we all will be victims to THEIR agendas.
I think we can on a national level block the most important parts of the proposed gun regulations namely being a new AWB and a magazine capacity limit. Personally I am all for background checks that include information on the mentally ill. Frankly if your dangerous if you don't take medication then you should not own a gun. I am also for having to do back ground checks on private sales. I don't see that as gun control rather as people control to just keep people who are otherwise forbidden from owning guns to get them.
Pat
Voodoochild
01-15-13, 21:01
Everyone simmer down now or I will start passing out knife hands. Either keep it civil or step out of this conversation and go get some fresh air.
FlyingHunter
01-15-13, 21:03
[QUOTE=Alaskapopo;1506922]I think we can on a national level block the most important parts of the proposed gun regulations namely being a new AWB and a magazine capacity limit.
I hope you are right Pat.
Along the same lines as states rights - several sheriffs have publicly stated they will: Not support the 2A infringements BUT also state they will block federal action within their counties.
Example Here: (and God Bless the courage of this Sheriff)
http://www.kval.com/politics/Sheriff-to-VP-I-wont-enforce-any-new-gun-laws-187043401.html
Alaskapopo
01-15-13, 21:13
[QUOTE=Alaskapopo;1506922]I think we can on a national level block the most important parts of the proposed gun regulations namely being a new AWB and a magazine capacity limit.
I hope you are right Pat.
Along the same lines as states rights - several sheriffs have publicly stated they will: Not support the 2A infringements BUT also state they will block federal action within their counties.
Example Here: (and God Bless the courage of this Sheriff)
http://www.kval.com/politics/Sheriff-to-VP-I-wont-enforce-any-new-gun-laws-187043401.html
I think one of the best defenses to federal legislation is to have state legislation making it illegal for state and local LEO's to enforce federal law. There are not enough federal cops to do what they want to do.
Pat
My major problem with the whole concept of incorporation of the BOR is this:
The first 8 Amendments deal with the natural rights of man. The Framers, and more importantly those who voted to ratify the Constitution believed that all humans were born with rights that predates all governments. The right of self defense is one of those.
The BOR does not grant rights, but FORBIDS the Fed government from infringing on them.
That being said, if our rights are given to us by God, why should ANY government at any level be able to interfere with them? This concept contradicts the theory of Natural Rights.
Also, there is a valid argument that the 14th Amendment was never legally passed to begin with.
Most if not all States have State Constitutions. I would assume all of them mirror the U.S. Constitutions with slight differences (more amendments ect.)
All of those Constitutions have the 2nd amend. within them. As seen in the Texas State Constitution in Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Your pro-ban stance is wrong again. I guess since you've tried the "states can do that" arguement and it failed, maybe you should move on to your next bullshit arguement.
We get it, you are loving this. Now go stand in line to be the first to register.
This is simply not true. There are states that do not offer 2A protection in them.
PA is very strongly worded "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.", many others are very weak, and if memory serves there are a couple or few, that don't mention it at all.
This is one of the best brief synapses of 2A on a state level I've found.
http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm
Alright, let me preface this with the fact that I am deeply saddened to hear about NY's new ban and how those members we have in NY will soon be criminals because of that ban.
That being said, I think it would be beneficial if we hear opinions of our members' (especially those who are proponents of states' rights) opinions on whether or not individual states have the right to control gun ownership within their state boundaries.
As a states' rightist, I have felt increasingly lately that I don't have much of a problem with individual sates implementing their own forms of gun control, even gun control most of us see as truly radical.
Why? Because the fact of the matter is, there are actually very few states that support strict gun control. New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts to name the worst. Those states combined have a population of over 80 million people, a fourth of the U.S. population. Yet, there are 30+ states that have very lenient gun laws, with very pro-gun populations. Quite some diversity.
Allowing extremely anti-gun states to implement their own radical gun laws to make their citizens happy, yet leave the rest of the U.S. alone, would solve a lot of these problems with Federal legislation. 80 million people is a big voice, but they shouldn't force their views on guns to the rest of the states.
Yeah, yeah, McDonald v. Chicago... the Second Amendment applies to the states under the 14th A. This doesn't mean that the 2A will no longer to apply to states that wish to implement radical gun control.. they won't be allowed to create total bans. Just allowed create their same stupid AWB's and mag restrictions. That is A LOT better than federal legislation that rules over the entire country.
Let the radical states have their gun laws, but leave the free states alone.
Any opinions? Please.. keep them civil
I'll agree with you. At least right now, I have a plethora of places to escape to. If we were talking about a federal ban, not so much.
It really sucks that my family settled in this terrible state full of assholes. But I'm in the process of rectifying this
Reinstitute States' Militias.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 05:16
Reinstitute States' Militias.
We have that with the National Guard.
Pat
GeorgiaBoy
01-17-13, 12:56
Flawed assumption is that 100% of these 80 mil are anti gun. There is a large pro gun population in Illinois and California, I know that from personal experience. They can't and won't win because they have to deal with same or larger number of antis, a ton of indifferent, and, above all, entrenched anti-gun political establishments; that doesn't mean their numbers are insignificant.
By the same token, there are enough anti gun people in pro gun states, just not enough to change status quo.
Well, the numbers weren't exactly meant to convey an actual number of people who are pro or anti gun. They were meant to demonstrate how many people are locked up in just 5 or 6 states, out of 50.
I can agree that a lot of states are split either way in regards to gun rights, and its just a matter of simply democracy on who has the larger voice. But those splits are often set in stone for the most part; depending on the states' culture and heritage. I don't think we will ever see California, New York, or Illinois swing pro-gun as a majority ever again. So it makes sense to allow them to keep their laws, but not infringe on the rest of the states.
The Second Amendment, IMO, sets a Federal restriction on infringing on gun rights. However, states in their autonomy and their own Constitutions should be able to decide how they wish to express their rights.
I am very much pro state's rights on subjects not directly covered by the bill of rights. For example, I don't think the states should have the power to outlaw a religion or speach or limit gun ownership. On education, gay mariage or drugs? tenth amendment all the way.
Abortion is another matter, as it concerns the rights of the unborn child (and I'm an atheist.)
The problem is that the anti gun mentality doesn't exist on a live and let live basis. CA, NY, IL, MA, and NJ simply cannot let PA, TX, FL, et al. live as they want to, it's not in their nature. Nannys want to control people, it's what they do. Fat people want food, drunks want alcohol, mosquitoes like biting.
brickboy240
01-17-13, 15:13
Yes, but we SHOULD have states where the left runs everything and states where the right runs everything.
That way, if you dig higher taxes, gov meddling, strict gun laws, govt run healthcare and other left features...you go live there.
The rest of us can live where WE find it tolerable.
No need in all this in-fighting. the people in NY should be able to ban any guns they like or whatever and states like TX can live as they wish.
If you ask me....the in-fighting IS the big problem.
I am a huge believer in you go your way and I will go mine and we leave each other alone.
-brickboy240
GeorgiaBoy
01-17-13, 15:24
the people in NY should be able to ban any guns they like or whatever
-brickboy240
I disagree with that, but the rest I fully agree with.
Yes, but we SHOULD have states where the left runs everything and states where the right runs everything.
That way, if you dig higher taxes, gov meddling, strict gun laws, govt run healthcare and other left features...you go live there.
The rest of us can live where WE find it tolerable.
No need in all this in-fighting. the people in NY should be able to ban any guns they like or whatever and states like TX can live as they wish.
If you ask me....the in-fighting IS the big problem.
I am a huge believer in you go your way and I will go mine and we leave each other alone.
-brickboy240
The problem is they ruin their state, then move to a free state and dilute the voting pool with their asinine ideas.
We have that with the National Guard.
Pat
The national guard is hardly independant of the federal government.
brickboy240
01-17-13, 15:39
While that might be true for some, I know several yankee transplants here in TX that are as Libertarian as they come. They might talk funny and might not have been born here but some of them pretty muhc have the Texas way of thinking even if they are from NY, MI or IL.
Some come here and carry on their leftist ways but I have no way of knowing that is the majority.
-brickboy240
Yes, but we SHOULD have states where the left runs everything and states where the right runs everything.
That way, if you dig higher taxes, gov meddling, strict gun laws, govt run healthcare and other left features...you go live there.
The rest of us can live where WE find it tolerable.
No need in all this in-fighting. the people in NY should be able to ban any guns they like or whatever and states like TX can live as they wish.
If you ask me....the in-fighting IS the big problem.
I am a huge believer in you go your way and I will go mine and we leave each other alone.
-brickboy240
That's not one republic, that's two, so you're talking secession. You can phrase it any way you like, but that's the idea you're supporting. Second, you're proposing two nations; one for the very liberal and one for the very conservative. What about the people that aren't completely liberal or completely conservative? This, btw, is probably most of the population in the U.S. What happens to them? Do they get 1/3 of the U.S. as well? And since we're on this path, are certain states assigned to varying degrees of each category?
brickboy240
01-17-13, 16:01
Lets be honest...
Most of those "in the middle" are just liberals that are too scared to admit it. The "middle" gives us losers like McCain and Romney...I have little use for those people.
Why shouldn't we live apart?
Where is the merit in this constant beating each other over the head with how we should live? Is either side EVER happy with compromise? Did you vote for a conservative candidate with the hope that, 'gee...I hope Senator elect X goes to DC and gets along with Democrats."
I fail to see merit in any of that...it is largely a waste of time.
Also, wouldn't you agree American is already pretty much balkanized?
I say we go our way and they go theirs. See you around...hope you make it. I realize that scares some people but to others THAT is truly being free.
-brickboy240
We have that with the National Guard.
Pat
National guard is under federal control. I believe he meant a military unit similar to the NG, but at the sole direction of a state's governor. No possibility for the unit to be called into action for the Feds. Similar to the TX State Guard, but armed and equipped like the NG.
xrayoneone
01-17-13, 17:26
This is simply not true. There are states that do not offer 2A protection in them.
PA is very strongly worded "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.", many others are very weak, and if memory serves there are a couple or few, that don't mention it at all.
This is one of the best brief synapses of 2A on a state level I've found.
http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm
Minnesota and California state constitutions have no 2A type wording in them.
GeorgiaBoy
01-17-13, 17:59
Georgia constitution allows the GA to regulate arms through law...
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne."
The Second Amendment, IMO, sets a Federal restriction on infringing on gun rights. However, states in their autonomy and their own Constitutions should be able to decide how they wish to express their rights.
So why then stop at states, since we agree that even entrenched states are heterogeneous? What about counties? Cities?
I don't see this as a Federal issue vs state autonomy. Being safe in your life and being able to resist oppression are basic human rights of every citizen of this country regardless of location, geographic and administrative borders should not matter.
Georgia constitution allows the GA to regulate arms through law...
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne."
Still can't infringe on 2A... Fla has identical language in theirs.
GeorgiaBoy
01-17-13, 19:30
I don't see this as a Federal issue vs state autonomy. Being safe in your life and being able to resist oppression are basic human rights of every citizen of this country regardless of location, geographic and administrative borders should not matter.
No, it shouldn't. But neither you or I can change the views of nearly half of Americans when it comes to guns. So its either sit and allow their voice to overpower our's and force the will of select states on the rest of the nation, or let them have their own draconian rules and leave everyone else alone. It isn't a matter of "government taking away rights". These people WANT to give up their rights. So let them do it, but don't allow them to force me to give them up along side them.
I am very much pro state's rights on subjects not directly covered by the bill of rights
Agreed...see post #19
--------
Pennsylvania's Constitution has the best language regarding the right to bear arms in my opinion:
“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
Article 1, Section 21.
The laws also say:
18 PA. STAT. ANN. §6120 (2011) No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth
This has kept the dopes in Philadelphia from screwing the rest of us. NY should have had such laws. It drives the libs in Philly nuts that they have to honor carry permits from outside counties as well as open carry (with a permit)
No, it shouldn't. But neither you or I can change the views of nearly half of Americans when it comes to guns. So its either sit and allow their voice to overpower our's and force the will of select states on the rest of the nation, or let them have their own draconian rules and leave everyone else alone. It isn't a matter of "government taking away rights". These people WANT to give up their rights. So let them do it, but don't allow them to force me to give them up along side them.
I pretty much lost you here. On state vs state level, the respective laws dont matter, CA cant do anything about NV etc. How's "letting" them have their draconian rules will prevent them from trying to overpower our voice and impose their will on the rest? They'll still try on a federal level and should they become successful, it is fed vs states and I am betting my money on who has more money...
In other words, I see zero practical gains in allowing anti states to circumvent 2A with state-level legislation.
Texas:
Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
Lets be honest...
Most of those "in the middle" are just liberals that are too scared to admit it. The "middle" gives us losers like McCain and Romney...I have little use for those people.
Why shouldn't we live apart?
Where is the merit in this constant beating each other over the head with how we should live? Is either side EVER happy with compromise? Did you vote for a conservative candidate with the hope that, 'gee...I hope Senator elect X goes to DC and gets along with Democrats."
I fail to see merit in any of that...it is largely a waste of time.
Also, wouldn't you agree American is already pretty much balkanized?
I say we go our way and they go theirs. See you around...hope you make it. I realize that scares some people but to others THAT is truly being free.
-brickboy240
So, your position is either you're with me or against me. Mitt Romney is a businessman/entrepreneur, family man, religious man. He believes that capitalism/competition will work the economy out. Is this not correct? That's the definition of a conservative; however, he is also pro gun control, so on that one issue you're saying he's a liberal. That's too confining of a definition for me. So one has to agree with the entire doctrine in order to be conservative? IMO, that doesn't allow for any individualism. People are individuals. Their POV on issues won't always fall in line with one side or the other. This is what I was trying to say earlier, there are no shades of gray in your system.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but if not I'll agree to disagree with you because I don't think it takes into account the majority of people in this country who are neither ultra conservative nor ultra liberal. As I said earlier, to me there's a middle ground where most reside.
xrayoneone
01-17-13, 21:09
I agree with you 100% Striker. The great Ronnie and both Bushes were also for gun control. 1986, 1989 bans happened under Republicans. Jr stated he would sign a renewed AWB.
Moral of the story is you cannot trust any politicians but I'd prefer a successful business and family man over the Golem we have now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.