National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced - Page 22
Page 22 of 25 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 243

Thread: National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Bikenut:
    "Oh.. and for those who support the actual right to bear arms please do NOT support any bill or law.. including HR 38.. that requires people to first get permission to carry concealed from the government whether that be Mommy State, or Daddy Fed."

    So you're saying you don't have a Concealed Carry permit, or that you Conceal Carry Illegally?
    I am not saying, nor am I suggesting, either one. It is you who thinks that a person has to prove his worthiness by being able to qualify for a concealed carry permit.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J. C. Watts

  2.   
  3. #212
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    It appears to me your entire post is filled with whining, bitching, moaning, and hateful comments just because some folks do not agree with your position.
    Not any more than that whiny Mike Stone feller. Maybe even through all his BS, you don't say nothing about him because he's on the opposing side perhaps?
    I was replying to freethink... not mikestone967. Your opinion of mikestone967 or his credibility is of no importance to me.

    My position on anything is always framed by what I say within my responses and not framed by things I never said in responses I never made.

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Oh.. and for those who support the actual right to bear arms please do NOT support any bill or law.. including HR 38.. that requires people to first get permission to carry concealed from the government whether that be Mommy State, or Daddy Fed.
    How so? I believe I've asked this before, not to you, I don't think and I don't think I've ever got a straight answer besides all this Commerce Clause BS and Supremacy Clause nonsense but how is it this requires permits? Only certain states are the ones who require their residents to have a permit. Why do people keep saying "the federal government" will take control of all this when all it seems to me that they want to do is just merely make these childish, dumbarse states recognize other states permits? Oh wait, somebody already said something along the lines of this bill would possibly "pave the way" for the federal government to take it over in the future. You know, saying something will happen before it has or ever even will.

    I've been closely reading throughout this discussion and I just can't seem to jump on the paranoid train. Yes, I would like to see nationwide carry without permits but, I think that's all just wishful thinking.

    Another question I've had (that I don't think has been answered), how will this legislation affect the free carry states? Is that why this is causing such an uproar with the opposers? I ask because you've said we need to be pushing for nationwide constitutional carry. I actually agree. I just don't see that happing with states like California.
    "We the people" gave the federal government the power to regulate/control us in only very specific and limited ways through the Constitution. It is the Constitution that rules the government... not the other way around.

    The Commerce Clause isn't BS but would be where the federal government would get the power to regulate carry permits. The Supremacy Clause isn't BS either but would be where the federal government gets the power to force it's regulations upon all the states.

    Folks who oppose any national reciprocity bill based in the Commerce Clause are saying that there is a danger that the federal government will end up with control of carry permits if a national reciprocity law based in the Commerce Clause is enacted because of the federal government's past history of using the Commerce Clause as a basis for the power to make laws that regulate. That would be making a prediction of the federal government's future actions based upon the history of the federal government's actions in the past. To ignore the lessons of the past is to repeat mistakes made over and over again.

    A very simplistic example would be:
    If your kid (federal government) took your electric drill (commerce clause) and drilled holes (made laws) in the side of your car (regulating how stuff is transported and sold across state lines) last week would you be inclined to just hand that same kid the drill (power to regulate) while he is standing next to your motorcycle (carry permit) today?

    Elections have consequences so imagine what Hillary or her future ilk would have done/could do with the power to regulate carry permits across the entire nation? That is the kind of danger we who oppose any national reciprocity bills are warning of.

    And supporters of the actual right to bear arms have proven in the past few years that getting rid of the infringement called carry permits isn't just wishful thinking by getting their states to do away with the carry permit requirement. What would happen to those states if Daddy Fed institutes national reciprocity? The restrictive states would complain until Daddy Fed established a whole new set of standards that ALL states would have to adhere to just for everything to be "fair" across the board. And Daddy Fed would have already established it's power to institute those regulations/standards by setting the precedent of having already passed a law regulating how the states accept the permits from other states.

    In short... once Daddy Fed regulates something, anything in any way.. even just a small way, then the precedent of Daddy Fed being able to regulate that something, regulate it in big ways too, has been set. That is the danger being warned of.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J. C. Watts

  4. #213

    National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I was replying to freethink... not mikestone967. Your opinion of mikestone967 or his credibility is of no importance to me.

    My position on anything is always framed by what I say within my responses and not framed by things I never said in responses I never made.
    I know you were replying to freethink. I never ever once said you where replying to the fecal matter known as mikestoner967.

    My question however that you failed to answer was simply in the first part of this post. Its not my fault you went off assuming I didn't know who you were replying to. It's also not my fault you assume I care about the no importance to you about stoner's credibility towards him or my opinion of him. Clear now, perhaps? How about answering the question instead of going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what I'm asking you?

    "We the people" gave the federal government the power to regulate/control us in only very specific and limited ways through the Constitution. It is the Constitution that rules the government... not the other way around.
    I understand that.

    The Commerce Clause isn't BS but would be where the federal government would get the power to regulate carry permits.
    Wasn't saying the Commerce Clause was bullpoo, I was merely saying I didn't see and have yet to see what it has to do with telling the states from a federal level that want to be arseholes about reciprocity.

    The Supremacy Clause isn't BS either but would be where the federal government gets the power to force it's regulations upon all the states.
    Again, stop taking things I say so literally. I wasn't saying the supremacy clause was bullpoo just as I wasn't saying the Commerce clause is either. Just wondering still..... what they have to do with making a few states that are being butts about reciprocity.

    Folks who oppose any national reciprocity bill based in the Commerce Clause are saying that there is a danger that the federal government will end up with control of carry permits if a national reciprocity law based in the Commerce Clause is enacted because of the federal government's past history of using the Commerce Clause as a basis for the power to make laws that regulate. That would be making a prediction of the federal government's future actions based upon the history of the federal government's actions in the past. To ignore the lessons of the past is to repeat mistakes made over and over again.
    Well, for starters, the government is pretty much going to do as they damn well please but still, I don't think assuming... is the right way to go.

    A very simplistic example would be:
    If your kid (federal government) took your electric drill (commerce clause) and drilled holes (made laws) in the side of your car (regulating how stuff is transported and sold across state lines) last week would you be inclined to just hand that same kid the drill (power to regulate) while he is standing next to your motorcycle (carry permit) today?
    None of this makes a lick of sense to me.

    Elections have consequences so imagine what Hillary or her future ilk would have done/could do with the power to regulate carry permits across the entire nation? That is the kind of danger we who oppose any national reciprocity bills are warning of.
    Exactly. Doesn't matter who's president. As i said, the gooberment is gonna do what they want. Even if Trump manages to win another term, there's always gonna be the threat of some douchewad liberal politician who wants to follow what ole Hillary wanted.

    I just don't see how this bill will open up Pandora's box to something the gooberment already has the power to do in the first place.

    And supporters of the actual right to bear arms have proven in the past few years that getting rid of the infringement called carry permits isn't just wishful thinking by getting their states to do away with the carry permit requirement. What would happen to those states if Daddy Fed institutes national reciprocity? The restrictive states would complain until Daddy Fed established a whole new set of standards that ALL states would have to adhere to just for everything to be "fair" across the board. And Daddy Fed would have already established it's power to institute those regulations/standards by setting the precedent of having already passed a law regulating how the states accept the permits from other states.
    So. Let them complain.

    In short... once Daddy Fed regulates something, anything in any way.. even just a small way, then the precedent of Daddy Fed being able to regulate that something, regulate it in big ways too, has been set. That is the danger being warned of.
    I don't buy that.

  5. #214
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I was replying to freethink... not mikestone967. Your opinion of mikestone967 or his credibility is of no importance to me.

    My position on anything is always framed by what I say within my responses and not framed by things I never said in responses I never made.
    I know you were replying to freethink. I never ever once said you where replying to the fecal matter known as mikestoner967.

    My question however that you failed to answer was simply in the first part of this post. Its not my fault you went off assuming I didn't know who you were replying to. It's also not my fault you assume I care about the no importance to you about stoner's credibility towards him or my opinion of him. Clear now, perhaps? How about answering the question instead of going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what I'm asking you?
    Reread my response above to understand that I explained my position on things is articulated in the posts I actually make and there is nothing to be inferred by posts I do not make. Unless you wish to attempt to diminish my credibility by ascribing meanings to things I never did say?

    I, and I alone, will decide who I will respond to along with why and how I will respond to them. If your inability to control who and why I respond to irks you then so be it.

    -snip-

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    The Commerce Clause isn't BS but would be where the federal government would get the power to regulate carry permits. The Commerce Clause isn't BS but would be where the federal government would get the power to regulate carry permits.
    Wasn't saying the Commerce Clause was bullpoo, I was merely saying I didn't see and have yet to see what it has to do with telling the states from a federal level that want to be arseholes about reciprocity.
    That has been explained many times over by several posters throughout this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    The Supremacy Clause isn't BS either but would be where the federal government gets the power to force it's regulations upon all the states.
    Again, stop taking things I say so literally. I wasn't saying the supremacy clause was bullpoo just as I wasn't saying the Commerce clause is either. Just wondering still..... what they have to do with making a few states that are being butts about reciprocity.
    That has been explained by several posters many times over within this discussion.

    Because of the nature of internet communication I, and everyone else, has to take what is typed literally since there aren't any other hints or clues like body language or facial expressions to help with the intended meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Folks who oppose any national reciprocity bill based in the Commerce Clause are saying that there is a danger that the federal government will end up with control of carry permits if a national reciprocity law based in the Commerce Clause is enacted because of the federal government's past history of using the Commerce Clause as a basis for the power to make laws that regulate. That would be making a prediction of the federal government's future actions based upon the history of the federal government's actions in the past. To ignore the lessons of the past is to repeat mistakes made over and over again.
    Well, for starters, the government is pretty much going to do as they damn well please but still, I don't think assuming... is the right way to go.
    Predicting what is possible for the government to do based upon what the government has done in the past is always a wise thing to do.


    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    A very simplistic example would be:
    If your kid (federal government) took your electric drill (commerce clause) and drilled holes (made laws) in the side of your car (regulating how stuff is transported and sold across state lines) last week would you be inclined to just hand that same kid the drill (power to regulate) while he is standing next to your motorcycle (carry permit) today?
    None of this makes a lick of sense to me.
    Ok. How about:

    Since the federal government already took the commerce clause and made laws regulating how everything is transported and sold across state lines would you be inclined to trust that government with using the commerce clause to not make laws regulating everything about your carry permit?

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Elections have consequences so imagine what Hillary or her future ilk would have done/could do with the power to regulate carry permits across the entire nation? That is the kind of danger we who oppose any national reciprocity bills are warning of.
    Exactly. Doesn't matter who's president. As i said, the gooberment is gonna do what they want. Even if Trump manages to win another term, there's always gonna be the threat of some douchewad liberal politician who wants to follow what ole Hillary wanted.
    And that is what opponents of the current crop of national reciprocity bills are warning about. And that it would be foolish to support that.

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    I just don't see how this bill will open up Pandora's box to something the gooberment already has the power to do in the first place.
    The government doesn't yet have the power to regulate carry permits but the bill(s) in question give it that power but many folks are so enamored by the promise of a new and oh so special privilege of carrying across state lines they are blind to the possible unintended consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    And supporters of the actual right to bear arms have proven in the past few years that getting rid of the infringement called carry permits isn't just wishful thinking by getting their states to do away with the carry permit requirement. What would happen to those states if Daddy Fed institutes national reciprocity? The restrictive states would complain until Daddy Fed established a whole new set of standards that ALL states would have to adhere to just for everything to be "fair" across the board. And Daddy Fed would have already established it's power to institute those regulations/standards by setting the precedent of having already passed a law regulating how the states accept the permits from other states.
    So. Let them complain.
    The problem isn't that they will complain. The problem is that Daddy Fed will listen to those complaints and then institute more regulations to please those doing the complaining.


    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    In short... once Daddy Fed regulates something, anything in any way.. even just a small way, then the precedent of Daddy Fed being able to regulate that something, regulate it in big ways too, has been set. That is the danger being warned of.
    I don't buy that.
    History shows what I said to be true.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J. C. Watts

  6. #215

    National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Reread my response above to understand that I explained my position on things is articulated in the posts I actually make and there is nothing to be inferred by posts I do not make.
    Reread what? No matter how many times you do your little double-quote nonsense, you still didn't answer my question again but whatever, if you wish to deflect, that's fine. I really don't care. I was just curious how you thought freethink was being hateful when clearly there are others who definitely are being such but you say he, [freethink] is. Coincidence, perhaps? Because he for the most part disagrees with you...National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced


    Unless you wish to attempt to diminish my credibility by ascribing meanings to things I never did say?
    Not trying to do anything to your credibility on anything pal, or even putting words in your mouth. Well, I should mention that it was in fact you who assumed I thought you were talking to Mikey and not freethink when I clearly never did so, that's on you.

    I, and I alone, decide who I will respond to along with why and how I will respond to them. If your inability to control who and why I respond to irks you then so be it.
    Geeze, talk about making a nonsensical comment. I don't give a crap who you talk to or who you respond to and it's absolutely repugnant for you to assume I do by you so wastefully taking the time to explain a very moot point that is clearly not necessary.

    Again, I was just clearly asking for you to answer my question in the first part of my post #209 but if you don't want to that's perfectly fine. Kinda proves my point of your one-sidedness if you don't with your deflection.

    That has been explained many times over by several posters throughout this discussion.
    That has been explained by several posters many times over within this discussion.
    Ok, if you want to call it that.

    Still don't see the connection with the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause to nationwide reciprocity but if you say so, I guess we'll leave it at that. If you and everybody else is going to rely on the, "because we told you so" rhetoric, we'll just leave it be.

    Because of the nature of internet communication I, and everyone else, has to take what is typed literally since there aren't any other hints or clues like body language or facial expressions to help with the intended meaning.
    It's not that hard to see the difference between saying something is in fact bullcrap and just saying something is bullcrap in the non-expletive form. You tried this once before in the gun free zone thread and just like there, I'll shoot you down here. You clearly are having a problem with taking things too literally. I shouldn't feel like I have to resort to taking a live video of myself with my reply so that you can see my facial expressions, body language, eye movement, hand gestures, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah, so on and so forth to get you to understand.

    Predicting what is possible for the government to do based upon what the government has done in the past is always a wise thing to do.
    What is possible.... is the operative word. Too many of you think it's as real as anything has ever been real before. I think this is all based a little on paranoia.


    The government doesn't yet have the power to regulate carry permits but the bill(s) in question give it that power but many folks are so enamored by the promise of a new and oh so special privilege of carrying across state lines they are blind to the possible unintended consequences.
    Still don't see how making unreasonable states like California honor other states carry privileges has anything to do with all this but whatever. [Speaking in a very sarcastic tone,] I've been told by you and numerous others so it must be true, right??

    The problem isn't that they will complain. The problem is that Daddy Fed will listen to those complaints and then institute more regulations to please those doing the complaining.
    Says who? This another one of those paranoid delusions?


    History shows what I said to be true.
    Maybe on certain things but, not this.

  7. #216
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Corneileous.... your inability to understand what has been explained many times by several different posters has become tedious.

    I will allow you to have the last word in the conversation between you and I.

  8. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Corneileous.... your inability to understand what has been explained many times by several different posters has become tedious.
    Whatever, man. Just because there's several of you who are of the same opinion towards the opposition of this bill doesn't make it wrong. With that said tho.... calm down... I ain't sayin' it's right, either.

    I will allow you to have the last word in the conversation between you and I.
    LOL, if you say so.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    snip .



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  10. #219
    Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Lol.


  11. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I am not saying, nor am I suggesting, either one. It is you who thinks that a person has to prove his worthiness by being able to qualify for a concealed carry permit.
    The US Constitution is a set of laws made by men, with the ability to be changed by the US Congress. The Rights given to man by God do not give you the right to have a gun, nor can man change Rights given by God. So where do all you trolls think you get this " Right" you always talk about. Rights come from God. Laws come from man. There is no higher authority than GOD!

    This ought to set the trolls crazy!

Page 22 of 25 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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