Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too - Page 7
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 98

Thread: Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Thought I was done with this thread, but the level of foolishness exhibited by some commenters here is really worth noting. Some here would have you "cut off your nose to spite your face." The meaning of the phrase is basically a self-destructive reaction or overreaction to a situation.

    It should be plainly obvious that Congress has the power (not the right, but the power) to engage in law-making - drafting and moving legislation through Congress, before it is signed into law by the President. Hopefully that is not even a matter for discussion here but it is worth mentioning.

    Congress has the ability to make laws, but also to repeal laws it has made. Some commenters here are so averse to Congressional action they would rather wait a hundred or a thousand years for some fictional America that will never exist, in which every person in America, including every person (or the vast majority of people in America and the vast majority of people in Congress) will somehow suddenly adopt our view that self defense (including concealed carry) is the product of a natural right and that any laws curtailing it are simply unenforceable.

    With that said, we DO have conditions in America's political landscape in Congress and in the White House today where it would be possible to pass an Act that would actually repeal unconstitutional laws. In other words, Congresspeople aren't going to suddenly suggest that their laws are unenforceable, but they are likely to repeal them on arguments that have gained favor in Congress (and elsewhere) that it is time for many laws to be overturned for good. Once repeal happens, enforcement is then impossible.

    I feel compelled to remind people that although there are nine states that do explicitly recognize constitutional concealed carry (permitless concealed carry), we should not have to have a state confer constitutional concealed carry; those states in the first place adopted laws (beginning in 1813 - with Kentucky and Louisiana, soon progressing to other states as well) which curtailed or claimed to limit our rights in the first place, thereby creating the conditions whereby people began calling for courts to address such issues or for "states to defend their rights." This situation is horrible because you are asking for a localized (state) government to defend your right that curtailed it in the first place, and assuming one is successful in such a venture, the outcome can only apply in one state when we all know it should apply to all the states.

    It is equally awful that one should have to ask Congress to deal with the situation it created, but it would be horribly irresponsible to take the position of (BluesStringer) who has claimed that he "argue(s) in favor of actual rights being upheld, or at least leaving things at a place where The People maintain the potential to get them back to being upheld." How he makes such a position that he does argue "in favor of actual rights being upheld" is wholly mysterious, being as he has actually advocated in this forum against my suggestion that Congress act to repeal unconstitutional laws that it has created.

    If you acknowledge that Congress does have the power (not the right) to develop legislation, you also acknowledge that it can repeal what it has produced, and under the right conditions (such as those which exist today) law or laws can be developed that would serve the purpose of repeal and thus restoration of conditions which would provide people with a condition more closely resembling that time when they were not expected across the land to seek permission of a magistrate for the exercise of a natural right.

    Now the next part may seem a bit more controversial to some of you, but it doesn't matter to me. In my humble opinion, if you were to ask me "well then where do you think your so-called right comes from anyway," I would say the divine, or from God. To be more explicit, you could make references to Biblical discussion of self defense: Biblical Self-Defense: What does the Bible say about self-defense? Bible study about self-defense questions: Can a Christian own a gun? What do the Scriptures say about using lethal force for self-protection?

    Yet even before the Bible, or before anyone claimed that defense could be justified on the basis of any text which they considered holy, and certainly since the beginning of human consciousness, people had a natural right to self-defense that was inviolable. It was not even a matter of discussion or debate, if someone tried to harm you or take your life, one would evade the threat or defend oneself directly -- this was arguably part of the human condition well before anyone had a thought that resembled the concept that today we call "a right."

    So of course we don't have to seek permission from a magistrate (or some other official) for it. But guess what: people will still try to put you in jail for exercising your rights. Thus the need to demand that Congress repeal the laws which have unjustly served to confine Americans.

    I see H.R. 38 (Concealed Carry Reciprocity) as a logical intermediate step in this process, where some other process see it as an unnecessary and unjust concession. We will agree to disagree. I look forward to the introduction of legislation in Congress that would repeal unconstitutional laws.
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    I see H.R. 38 (Concealed Carry Reciprocity) as a logical intermediate step in this process, where some other process see it as an unnecessary and unjust concession. We will agree to disagree. I look forward to the introduction of legislation in Congress that would repeal unconstitutional laws.
    So you think that passing a law that establishes the authority of the Federal Government to further regulate concealed carry more than it does now is a step in the right direction towards repealing the existing Federal government regulations regarding purchasing and possessing firearms? That's like putting a convicted pedophile in charge of a day care center and saying that it is a step in the right direction towards preventing child molestation.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  4. #63
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Read my above comment, Navy. I will put you in with those who would have us "cut off (our) nose(s) to spite (our) face(s)."

    As part of my comment, I stated, "I look forward to the introduction of legislation in Congress that would repeal unconstitutional laws." In point of fact I have even suggested draft language to submit to Congress for repeal of unconstitutional laws as part of this thread. Were H.R. 38 to be signed into law and then later such language as I have suggested here (in my "REAL SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT" language earlier suggested) would be itself signed into law, H.R. 38 itself would be considered null and void under the legal approach that I myself have endorsed here. Hence I consider H.R. 38 to be an intermediary step.

    I think the differences in our approach should be obvious by now, but I will not have you putting words in my mouth.
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  5. Like Obama's statement of "You can keep your current health care plan and keep your current doctor" was an intermediate step in passing Obamacare which was then "repealed" by Obamacare.

    I'm not putting words in your mouth, just pointing out the idiocy of them.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  6. #65
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

    Falls to me, I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Like Obama's statement of "You can keep your current health care plan and keep your current doctor" was an intermediate step in passing Obamacare which was then "repealed" by Obamacare.

    I'm not putting words in your mouth, just pointing out the idiocy of them.
    Maybe it will fall to me, I guess, to promote a civil end to this discussion. I seem to recall some statement, like, "you get more with honey," you know the phrase.

    So I'll just close this out by saying, I do appreciate the activism you are doing.

    Ciao
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  7. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Maybe it will fall to me, I guess, to promote a civil end to this discussion. I seem to recall some statement, like, "you get more with honey," you know the phrase.

    So I'll just close this out by saying, I do appreciate the activism you are doing.

    Ciao
    I DONT "appreciate " yours... weak and soft..

  8. Wanting the government to control our rights is like wanting the fox to control the henhouse

  9. Congratulations... now explain that to the brain dead SR9 HHK and Cornholeious...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  10. #69
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    oh my land, are you all still trolling this thread typing furiously about your wild assumptions that others here are "wanting the government to control our rights," foxes and henhouses?

    Apparently so.

    Some folks have nothing better to do I guess.

    Anyway, in case anyone is still reading here (besides those who are just trolling this and making unconstructive remarks) I have a revised text for my proposed Second Amendment Protection Act, thing, which is basically a proposed bill to repeal certain unconstitutional legislation.

    If you don't know what the USML categories contain, which I refer to in my proposal, don't whine about it here, go look it up.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...estoration-act
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  11. #70

    Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too

    Quote Originally Posted by mikestone967 View Post
    Congratulations... now explain that to the brain dead SR9 HHK and Cornholeious...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    Screw off, buddy. If anybody on here is brain dead, it's you.

    For the record I've never even stated I was for this damn bill, I just said I don't know whether to be for it or against it but it's funny how you have that retarded, "you're either with us or against us" attitude just because me and you have been in disagreement before.

    Grow up, man. Seriously.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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