LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI'm afraid you are correct. It is a rotten shame that someone has t get arrested to verify our clearly defined Constitutional Right.Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX
Maybejim
I suspect that if you lived in and anti-rights state like Kalifornia you might not feel the same. But we are for the vast most part on the same page.
Maybejim
Life Member NRA
Life Member CRPA
Life Member SASS
What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears
| |  |
Maybejim
I'm afraid you are correct. It is a rotten shame that someone has t get arrested to verify our clearly defined Constitutional Right.
Maybejim
Life Member NRA
Life Member CRPA
Life Member SASS
What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears
So am I getting this right, you think that a fellon should be able to get out of prison and go right to the local gun shop and get a gun? I think that some checks are well worth it. Yes they can go get a gun off the street illegally. If fellons could buy a gun from a shop it would just put the blame on shop owners. I think some checks are justifiable.
Maybejim
I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence that that would be a problem. I certainly do know that the 10 (11) day wait to pick up a gun in Kalifornia has served no useful purpose. Since instant check is available and isn't required in some states if you have a Carry permit (which shouldn't be required), I wouldn't have a big objection to the instant check (paid for out of the General tax fund not by a tax on the gun owner).
The CDC in spite of being extremely anti-gun were not able to find any evidence of any gun control laws reducing crime or violence and honest researchers have consistently found reduced crime after gun control laws are dropped.
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services
The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.
The three strikes law has routinely been associated with reduced crime. Most crime is done by a relatively small number of criminals. Lock'em up and keep them locked up preferably at hard labor to earn their keep and you reduce crime.
Make committing a felony with a gun suffer a severe penalty. Stop penalizing law abiding citizens and punishing them for utilizing their Constitutionally guaranteed Right.
Maybejim
Life Member NRA
Life Member CRPA
Life Member SASS
What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears
As always there are multiple ways to approach a problem. Mine would be rather than punishing people who have "paid their debt to society" I would make the debt a lot more years - maybe life for violent felonies. Problem solved.
Maybejim
As always there are multiple ways to approach a problem. Mine would be rather than punishing people who have "paid their debt to society" I would make the debt a lot more years - maybe life for violent felonies. Problem solved.I wouldn't have a problem with that. Unfortunately in Kalifornia they are turning a whole bunch of criminals out early and there is big pressure to reduce sentences to save money. They don't give much thought to the ultimate costs to society but they want to save in the essentials rather than in the fluff and the overpaid "public servants".As always there are multiple ways to approach a problem. Mine would be rather than punishing people who have "paid their debt to society" I would make the debt a lot more years - maybe life for violent felonies. Problem solved.
Maybejim
Life Member NRA
Life Member CRPA
Life Member SASS
What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears
Okay i'm a little lost on this one! What do we do if we agree & hubby & I do ! We'd like very much to carry state to state with out the worry if we can or what we have to do with our weapon in that state ect! Some times looking up the state your going to on line isn't always up to date on the laws! We were warned about this when we took our CCW class! Tn does honor many states. Has to the laws thats where it really gets confusing! Plus we like to travel by motorcycle has often has possible! Yes we would be able to lock them up in a hard bag or trunk if need be!
So who is it we need to write or e-mail!
There is a federal permit but there is no way you or I could ever get one. I have a cousin that has one because he has some high up connections but even he says that once it expires after 7 years, he'll never be able to get it renewed. I'm assuming they're for certain types of law enforcement & government officials.
If you are given the honour of being made an honourary U.S. Marshall or perhaps an honourary Chief of Police or Sheriff (hmmm... Steven are you listening?) you probably fall under the LEOSA provisions of Federal Law unless or until your appointment is withdrawn, no?
Personally, I believe that all rights come with responsibilities and penalties. A convicted felon should lose some privileges FOR LIFE regardless of having paid 'their debt' to society. Two that immediately come to mind are (a) the right to bear arms; and (b) the right of free association. I DO NOT wish a felon, regardless of how long he has served, to have the right to bear arms nor to be with anyone that bears arms (knowingly). Period. Makes perfect sense to me but that's just me. Yes, you've paid your debt to society... but you have also lost some of your privileges as a result of your misdeeds. We are not talking about misdemeanors here.
I believe in the right to bear arms under the second amendment. But with every right there comes a certain amount of common sense and it is a shame that our politicians, when given an inch, try to take a mile, else this would work out perfectly. I do NOT want whackos and total losers to be walking around armed. Disagree? That's fine. You have never had a whacko stick a gun in your face and tell you that he hates the colour of your car and so on. I, my friends, have. It is the reason I decided to carry and the reason that I decided that if you are going to carry you need to carry "hot" but safe (and that is my nemesis for the past five years... nontheless, I carry hot now at all times).
Last but not least, as I have probably stated earlier, I believe strongly that if you are the recipient of a "permit" (let's not argue about permits at this point) to carry concealed in any state that you should be permitted to carry in ALL states, territories and possessions of the USA. Period. Oh. Not period. I believe the law needs to be irregardless of your present residence (i.e. I am working outside of the US and therefore cannot visit, for instance, several states because I cannot qualify for a non-resident license... I must be a U.S. CITIZEN (no problem) PLUS a US RESIDENT. Duh? So, if I travel in retirement without having a permanent base of operations I have problems. So the law, IMHO, needs to apply to ALL US CITIZENS, regardless of residence (who are part of, after all, "We the People", no?) excepting whackos and felons. Am I making ANY sense here at all?
That seems to be almost exactly what the law that was proposed and lost by 2 stinkin votes would have done for us.
And the crime rate would continue to drop in many nasty areas. As one who travels by car all over the USA, it pains me to travel in areas where I am unable to protect myself and my family, especially having come literally nose to nose and toes to toes with at least one whacko with a gun (Orlando Florida). And I have found myself in a whole lot of BAD BAD areas courtesy of GPS shortest route and not knowing. And in a whole lot of places and situations where one would be almost positive of their security only to discover that you are in the presence of scumbags looking for excitement or to 'protect their honour' (i.e. "don't disrespect me or my friends").
Don't know if it's just me because I travel by car so much (8+ weeks of the year; going to be 6 months of the year shortly), but my impression is that we are falling prey to undesirables. I have been through neighborhoods that I was through ten years ago where I would no longer get out of the car. In fact, we were in a spot once again recently where I made a phone call to a friend we were going to visit (in Ohio) and was told "get back in the car, drive ten minutes in ANY direction and call me back". Geez, talking about a change in neighborhoods!
Get active and write letters, plus emails, plus faxes, plus phone calls to every NAY on that list. We have email fax so it is a breeze for us. And a mail merge is a piece of cake. The phone calls are intimidating. The responses are 'canned' and generic. Thanks and bugger off essentially. I did get one "you can be assured we have researched the bill and will give it our full support if it comes back up.
Maybejim
II would agree with most of what you have said but...always a but. I have a problem with government deciding who is the whacko and/or total loser. Other than being a convicted felon I don't think the government is capable of making that determination. That is the basis of "may" issue which becomes a political game of friend of someone "important" most often. Since there is no evidence that allowing anyone who can legally own a gun, carry that gun, that should be the standard. And of course any citizen who is not a felon or certifiable should be allowed to own a gun.do NOT want whackos and total losers to be walking around armed. Disagree?
Maybejim
Life Member NRA
Life Member CRPA
Life Member SASS
What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears
