What would you do? regarding the gun laws in your state..... - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: What would you do? regarding the gun laws in your state.....

  1. #11
    Although it doesn't always seem like it, especially right now, the last 20 years or more has seen a lot of traction made in most areas of our gun laws. More states that have shall issue concealed carry laws for example. Better laws for defending yourself, etc.

    But yes, right now, we are being hit with some of the most extreme attempts to roll that progress back, and almost completely disarm us. And yes, most of us are too busy to keep track of what's going on, let alone do much about it. But we should. Because one day we'll wake up and we'll be living in a different Amerika than the America we were born in.

    I do what I can; teach, spread the word, vote, and donate to the organizations that are doing something. Hopefully that helps.

    a

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by CoolClownFish View Post
    One of my biggest fears are that the Government will decide that "We" don't have anymore rights and that "They" (Our Current Dictatorship) are the only ones who will. I say Dictatorship because when our Government forces us to buy a product or service (ObamaCare) We are no longer free to make our own decisions. This in my book is a dictatorship and our rights as "Free" Americans are already gone.

    This will force all of us sheeple to take a side. Side A is live that way under dictatorship and Side B is to remove our current Government and start a new. I have a problem picturing either one but I can see it wont be pretty for either side.
    The only thing for certain is death and taxes. When it comes to PPACA, the rules soon enough will be the same as with life insurance. People with pre-existing conditions pay a much higher price, if even, the life insurance deems them eligible. Pretty sure this is why the grocery stores started the loyalty card program. Eventually everyone who is not eating healthy and is obese will pay a much higher premium than someone who is eating healthy. If we can believe the statistics of 3 out of 4 Americans are overweight or obese. Then it looks like the health insurance companies have hit the lottery.
    I found this from ~ The Washington Post~
    The health reform law does include some protections for affordability. It requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer their workers a benefit plan that costs less than 9.5 percent of their income. If they do not, they will face thousands of dollars in federal penalties.

    There also will be new penalties for not purchasing coverage: In 2014, there will be a $95 tax penalty for not buying insurance coverage. That will rise to $695 by 2016.
    I agree, someone has to take out the trash....

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    We already have the one law that is necessary for gun control. It is called the 2nd Amendment where it says you may control the arms you have by keeping them and bearing them if you so please. In my mind everything else on the books violates it and should be eliminated.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  5. Almost every time someone quotes the 2nd Amendment, they only quote half of it.

    The full text is:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Do you really believe that you are part of a well regulated Militia because you own a gun?

    How exactly are you maintaining the security of a Free State?

    What is a Free State anyway? Free from what, Government interference, or outside influences, or both? We can't have the same weapons the military does, so while we can put up some sort of fight, we're not going to snuff out a military dictatorship in this country, even if all gun owners could work together in a crisis.

    Define Arms. The text doesn't say firearms, though the term had been in use for over 100 years when the amendment was written. It doesn't even say guns. Maybe they meant pitchforks? Or should we all be allowed to park a tank on our front lawn to deter intruders?

    Firearms have come a long way since the late 1700s when this line was being penned. Did the framers of the amendment anticipate breech-loading, automatic machine guns, or hollow-point bullets? How would Thomas Jefferson view an AK-47?


    So every firearms regulation since that short sentence was written has been trying to reduce the potential carnage caused by a sloppy amendment.


    Just by being on this forum and reading this thread you've shown a degree of responsibility towards your ownership guns, and I have guns and don't want to be forced to give them up, but maybe we need to think again about how that well regulated militia is regulated? Should gun owners train regularly, say a twice a year mandatory visit to a range with a qualified instructor on hand, to qualify as part of a well regulated Militia?

    Americans have guns, that's a part of America which people have to accept, and 99.9% of gun owners are sensible, sane, responsible individuals. It's how we identify and control the remaining 0.1% that causes all the concern and frustration, and I hope that's true of both Republicans and Democrats.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Western South Dakota
    Posts
    1,021
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Do you really believe that you are part of a well regulated Militia because you own a gun?
    WE are the militia. The militia is all of us who stand ready.

    "regulated", in the meaning of the time, meant properly functioning, trained.

    As has been stated many times, the first two clauses there are explanatory, justifying the need, the right, of the people to keep and to bear arms. Those arms need to be current with the technology, not limited to flintlock muskets.
    Never argue with a red-haired witch. It wastes your breath and only delays the inevitable. --the collected sayings of Wiz Zumwalt

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    I wish the hypocrites who put forth that tired old crap about the founding fathers not knowing about the firearms of the future means the right to bear arms should be limited to flintlocks would put that same flawed reasoning to the right to free speech means communication should be limited to quill pens and paper. No printing presses, no Kindles, no cell phones.. no TV... and especially no internet available where the right to free speech can be used to bash the right to keep and bear arms.

    But the thing is... every argument against the 2nd Amendment always boils down to someone who thinks they are more important, more special, more intelligent, than other people wanting to be in control of who is "allowed" to have a gun, where guns are "allowed" to be, what kind of guns are "allowed" to have, how guns are carried is "allowed"........

    But make no mistake... the opposite of "allowed" is NOT allowed. And it is the NOT allowed that the elitist anti gunner really wants to be in control of.

    Sad to say there is also the gun owning anti gunner "lite" who wants to be in control of anyone and anything they don't think should be "allowed" too.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by 9mm in Eugene View Post
    -snip-
    So every firearms regulation since that short sentence was written has been trying to reduce the potential carnage caused by a sloppy amendment.-snip-
    Yes indeed... every firearms regulation since that short sentence called the 2nd Amendment was penned has been used to try to reduce the carnage that "shall not be infringed" has wreaked upon the designs and goals of every elitist wannabe tyrant, large and small, that knew it stood in the way of them being able to control the common man.

    I guess that Amendment wasn't so sloppy after all.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by 9mm in Eugene View Post
    Almost every time someone quotes the 2nd Amendment, they only quote half of it.

    The full text is:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Do you really believe that you are part of a well regulated Militia because you own a gun?

    How exactly are you maintaining the security of a Free State?

    What is a Free State anyway? Free from what, Government interference, or outside influences, or both? We can't have the same weapons the military does, so while we can put up some sort of fight, we're not going to snuff out a military dictatorship in this country, even if all gun owners could work together in a crisis.

    Define Arms. The text doesn't say firearms, though the term had been in use for over 100 years when the amendment was written. It doesn't even say guns. Maybe they meant pitchforks? Or should we all be allowed to park a tank on our front lawn to deter intruders?

    Firearms have come a long way since the late 1700s when this line was being penned. Did the framers of the amendment anticipate breech-loading, automatic machine guns, or hollow-point bullets? How would Thomas Jefferson view an AK-47?


    So every firearms regulation since that short sentence was written has been trying to reduce the potential carnage caused by a sloppy amendment.


    Just by being on this forum and reading this thread you've shown a degree of responsibility towards your ownership guns, and I have guns and don't want to be forced to give them up, but maybe we need to think again about how that well regulated militia is regulated? Should gun owners train regularly, say a twice a year mandatory visit to a range with a qualified instructor on hand, to qualify as part of a well regulated Militia?

    Americans have guns, that's a part of America which people have to accept, and 99.9% of gun owners are sensible, sane, responsible individuals. It's how we identify and control the remaining 0.1% that causes all the concern and frustration, and I hope that's true of both Republicans and Democrats.
    Do you even know what the militia is? Who comprises the militia? Do you understand the context and meaning of regulated?

    You do realise we, gun owners, outnumber our military at least 20 to 1. Estimated 55,000,000 households with at least one firearm against 2,300,000 in the armed forces (we outnumber even more if you take out the 850k reserves included). I'm pretty sure if people didn't share your horrible mentality that our Rights are sloppy we wouldn't be losing our fight for free states.

    I can't wait for the next Thomas Jefferson to fight for the freedom of this country. They will share their views that security in the United States is the armed populace with the best weapons and training available (regulated).

    Arms: Weapons.

    Define slave.

    Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I wish the hypocrites who put forth that tired old crap about the founding fathers not knowing about the firearms of the future means the right to bear arms should be limited to flintlocks would put that same flawed reasoning to the right to free speech means communication should be limited to quill pens and paper.
    Saw a picture that said if the right to bear arms meant weapons of the day, free speech should be limited to the Old English they used back then, too!

    That actually wouldn't be all that bad... people would need to have grammar skills and be intelligible!
    Modern Whig
    "Government is not meant to burden Liberty but rather to secure it." -T.J. O'Hara

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by 9mm in Eugene View Post
    -snip-
    Just by being on this forum and reading this thread you've shown a degree of responsibility towards your ownership guns, and I have guns and don't want to be forced to give them up, but maybe we need to think again about how that well regulated militia is regulated? Should gun owners train regularly, say a twice a year mandatory visit to a range with a qualified instructor on hand, to qualify as part of a well regulated Militia?
    Obligatory condescending reference to also owning guns in hopes of establishing a common ground and "fitting in" while arrogantly pushing an anti gun pro control agenda........................ FAIL.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast