Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Comments

70 comments

Date Votes
  • Don McManus
    Terrible idea.

    1. Confirms Federal authority over how, when, where, and why a person can carry a firearm.

    2. To get this passed, all states will have to have their carry laws brought 'up' to a minimum standard acceptable to limp-wristed gun-grabbers in any state.

    3. This will be yet another 'good idea' that will have to be overturned in order to re-gain our freedom.



    Good-bye to the freedom those in Alaska and Vermont currently have. Good-bye to the partial freedom of those in the many states that do not require registration of the identified carry piece. Good-bye to the partial freedom of those in the many states that require only the standard background check before they shall issue a permit.

    One must ask himself why Mr. LaPerri?r supports this legislation.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, all carry holders will have to be trained and certified by a licensed and certified instructor.

    Who, pray tell, offers this type of service?

    Who pray tell, benefits monetarily from providing this service?

    edit: The only proper legislation would be a bill that eliminates CCW permits, restrictions, registration, etc. But that is the actual law already, isn't it?
    0
  • wsfiredude
    Mr. McManus,

    Hit.[;)]


    It is amazing how many folks are so proud of the permission slip they begged from Daddy, obtaining approval to exercise a right which was their's to begin with.
    0
  • zink
    And how much you want to bet the training would be a NRA event with the cost set by them (training and the cost of a "nationwide permit"). More than I want to spend and closer than I want to get to the NRA.
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    It is amazing how many folks are so proud of the permission slip they begged from Daddy, obtaining approval to exercise a right which was their's to begin with.

    Agreed, Mr. Dude.[:)]

    I have one, and will until the day it is no longer necessary to have in order to avoid a stay at the graybar.

    Frankly, when I first applied, I was thankful that our county deemed me worthy. Renewals have been approached with a much different attitude.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    It is amazing how many folks are so proud of the permission slip they begged from Daddy, obtaining approval to exercise a right which was their's to begin with.

    Agreed, Mr. Dude.[:)]

    I have one, and will until the day it is no longer necessary to have in order to avoid a stay at the graybar.

    Frankly, when I first applied, I was thankful that our county deemed me worthy. Renewals have been approached with a much different attitude.
    Brother Don, wide awake and pointing out that it is what it is.[:)]
    0
  • Highball
    quote:Frankly, when I first applied, I was thankful that our county deemed me worthy. Renewals have been approached with a much different attitude.
    That, friend Don, is the attitude that is subtly foisted upon decent citizens. It is a deliberate aim of the anti-gunners, from the nra down to the most vocal grabbers ..and it is bought without question by the majority.

    You see it brought up time after time when discussions arise about the increased power of government to snoop around in private affairs .."if you have nothing to hide ..ect.

    As you have discovered...it is the kill trap for liberties ..a dead end street for freedom.
    0
  • wsfiredude
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    It is amazing how many folks are so proud of the permission slip they begged from Daddy, obtaining approval to exercise a right which was their's to begin with.

    Agreed, Mr. Dude.[:)]

    I have one, and will until the day it is no longer necessary to have in order to avoid a stay at the graybar.


    Understood, and do not believe for one second that my comment was directed at folks like yourself. You have a clearer understanding of the Constitution than most, and I know that some folks are having to hold their nose, and do what they have to do to effect their safety.[;)]
    0
  • jpwolf
    quote:Originally posted by Ruckin69
    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5061


    Had it since before my birth. Thanks, Founders and thank you God for allowing my birth to be in a nation that those God fearing men visualized, then MADE it happen!![:D]

    Ruckin? NRA? You're kidding, right? Lordy lordy lordy.
    0
  • cabnetman
    Simple solution: let the Federal Government adopt the same rules that Vermont and Alaska have regarding CC laws. It seems to work great there.
    0
  • jpwolf
    I think we've "let" the govt. do quite too much already.
    0
  • cabnetman
    quote:I think we've "let" the govt. do quite too much already.
    Yes, I absolutly agree. However, this is one that I would be in favor of.
    0
  • Highball
    quote:Yes, I absolutly agree. However, this is one that I would be in favor of.

    Sounds a lot like a loyal nra member. They TOO have been in favor of NICs checks, disarming vets, and other endless government infringments of the Second.

    All of you operate under the same umbrella as shumen, dodd, kennedy, ect.
    Either you support the Second ....or you do NOT !!
    0
  • cabnetman
    quote:Sounds a lot like a loyal nra member.
    BULL......this has nothing to do with the NRA. If every state had the same laws as Vermont and Alaska (that is, if you own a gun you can carry it however you want and that includes concealed). Now that to me is OK.
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    BULL......this has nothing to do with the NRA. If every state had the same laws as Vermont and Alaska (that is, if you own a gun you can carry it however you want and that includes concealed). Now that to me is OK.
    cabnetman:

    The NRA (and disappointingly the GOA) inserted themselves into this issue and pushed it as a 2nd Amendment friendly bill. It is obviously not. The argument has been made that it is pro-gun, and that it promotes the ability of CCW holders to freely travel (more about this later), but there can be no legitimate argument that adding yet another layer of governmental intrusion respects the RTKBA.

    It is my opinion, for what that's worth, that this bill would have eventually became a standardization of CCW laws throughout the country. The end result would most likely have been a Federally mandated training and certification program for this 'National CCW', and it most likely would have included registration of specific carry weapons for each CCW holder, yearly (and costly) re-evaluations, etc. Without these controls, one has to assume that many of the more restrictive states would have simply opted out of the CCW issuing business altogether.

    It would probably have, ended up with a few states dropping out and many states being forced to adopt much stricter controls than they currently have. There is no realistic way that this bill would have had a positive effect on even a significant minority's freedom to carry.

    All this is in addition to the simple fact that encouraging Federal involvement simply codifies the right of the Federal Government to infringe upon that which it Constitutionally cannot.
    0
  • cabnetman
    Don, I agree with everyting you say. Read my original post.

    quote:Simple solution: let the Federal Government adopt the same rules that Vermont and Alaska have regarding CC laws.
    Those two states don't have any regulations regarding CC laws and that goes hand in hand with the 2nd amendment. No restrictions. We have the right to own and carry any gun.
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    Don, I agree with everyting you say. Read my original post.

    quote:Simple solution: let the Federal Government adopt the same rules that Vermont and Alaska have regarding CC laws.
    Those two states don't have any regulations regarding CC laws and that goes hand in hand with the 2nd amendment. No restrictions. We have the right to own and carry any gun.
    cabnetman:

    I noted that, but had to question the 'adopt the same rules' portion, followed up with the 'this is one I would be in favor of' in your later post. These two statements obviously contradict one another.

    IMO, the only proper Federal intervention would be a SCOTUS decision eliminating the power of the states to regulate carry (concealed or otherwise) in totality. If Congress gets involved in any way, it is overstepping its Constitutional authority.

    Welcome to the forum, BTW.
    0
  • cabnetman
    quote:IMO, the only proper Federal intervention would be a SCOTUS decision eliminating the power of the states to regulate carry (concealed or otherwise) in totality.
    I just don't see that happening. Only in a perfect world and we are far from a perfect world. So, IMO, we need to grab the best that we can get before we can't get anything. I know that is settling for 2nd best and we need to take that and fight for the best.

    Thanks for the welcome. I'm glad to be part of the forum as it seems like a good one. I'm one of those Pennsylvanians that Obama said that we "cling to our guns and religion". I'm a redneck and proud of it. Hope that doesn't offend anyone here, but if it does, so-be-it.[^]
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    I just don't see that happening. Only in a perfect world and we are far from a perfect world. So, IMO, we need to grab the best that we can get before we can't get anything. I know that is settling for 2nd best and we need to take that and fight for the best.

    Thanks for the welcome. I'm glad to be part of the forum as it seems like a good one. I'm one of those Pennsylvanians that Obama said that we "cling to our guns and religion". I'm a redneck and proud of it. Hope that doesn't offend anyone here, but if it does, so-be-it.[^]
    I have to disagree with you, cabinetman. 2nd best may be a looser noose, but is is still a noose. With my eye towards the sugar vs. vinegar analogy, I will leave it at that and simply encourage you to think deeply about what is, can be, and should be; and to keep an open mind.

    It was not that long ago I would have been solidly in your camp. I now believe that the only way we will keep the beast at bay is to keep the door closed and to seek and persist at closing those that are now open. Thune-Vitter would have been the opening of a door that is currently closed.
    0
  • cabnetman
    Hmmmm I'll have to think on that Don.

    The problem I see is that the door is already open and the likes of Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, Fienstien and the Brady bunch is trying to open it further and take away all our gun rights. They don't care about what the Constitution says. What we need to do is figure out how to close that door permanetely and that begins with getting all those liberal congress people out of office and replace them with 2nd amendment people and strict constitutionalists. I would be the first one to admit that is not an easy task, but one that must be done.
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    Hmmmm I'll have to think on that Don.

    That's all we can ask. Thanks.

    edit:

    I was going to leave it at that, but cannot.

    Congress does not matter. So long as we the people believe that Congressmen have power over the 2nd, they will think they do and will act accordingly. A Congressman stating that he will enact legislation that supports the 2nd Amendment has proven that he is either a pretender or a stooge.

    If, however, that Congressman states that Congress has no power to legislate issues regarding arms, and that those currently on the books are an affront to our Constitution, he has potential. We can count those Congressmen on one finger.
    0
  • cabnetman
    Congress has usurped its authority in every sector of our life. Where does the Constitution give them the right for health care or prescription drugs? They don't have the right; they took it because that's what the people wanted. That is the same path that we are going down with the 2 nd. It is not what the constitution says anymore, it's what the people want, and that is going down a very slippery path and I don't have an answer as to how to stop it. Not sure it can be stopped. That is one of the reasons I was happy about the outcome of the Heller case. You can say all sorts of bad things about that case, but at least it has established law precedence.
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    Congress has usurped its authority in every sector of our life. Where does the Constitution give them the right for health care or prescription drugs? They don't have the right; they took it because that's what the people wanted. That is the same path that we are going down with the 2 nd. It is not what the constitution says anymore, it's what the people want, and that is going down a very slippery path and I don't have an answer as to how to stop it. Not sure it can be stopped. That is one of the reasons I was happy about the outcome of the Heller case. You can say all sorts of bad things about that case, but at least it has established law precedence.

    Bill:

    I will leave the Heller case for another day, but will recommend serious consideration of what precedents were actually established. It was obviously discussed at length here.

    All the best,

    Don
    0
  • cabnetman
    OK Don, we will leave the Heller case for another day. However, I must say this about that case; if the decision had gone the other way, we would be screwed big time now.[;)]
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    OK Don, we will leave the Heller case for another day. However, I must say this about that case; if the decision had gone the other way, we would be screwed big time now.[;)]
    Straws and camels, Bill. Never forget the straws and camels.[:)]
    0
  • Highball
    quote:OK Don, we will leave the Heller case for another day. However, I must say this about that case; if the decision had gone the other way, we would be screwed big time now
    Actually, we would be a giant step closer to regaining our Second Amendment Rights ;

    OR we would be a giant step nearer to the slit trenches and mass burials.

    Which it would be depends solely upon the courage and the resolution of the remnant Americans here in this land of americans.
    0
  • jpwolf
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    quote:Sounds a lot like a loyal nra member.
    BULL......this has nothing to do with the NRA. If every state had the same laws as Vermont and Alaska (that is, if you own a gun you can carry it however you want and that includes concealed). Now that to me is OK.


    Read the 2nd amendment...s l o w l y

    See it?

    Are you still for handing what's left of that God given right completely over to the govt, because that's what this would do?
    0
  • jpwolf
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    Don, I agree with everyting you say. Read my original post.
    .... We have the right to own and carry any gun.


    Without a NEW law. See it yet?
    0
  • jpwolf
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    [ So, IMO, we need to grab the best that we can get before we can't get anything. I know that is settling for 2nd best and we need to take that and fight for the best.



    That is the problem right there. We have the high ground in every way, yet we constantly give it up and call it "compromise"....sheesh!
    0
  • jpwolf
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    Congress has usurped its authority in every sector of our life. Where does the Constitution give them the right for health care or prescription drugs? They don't have the right; they took it because that's what the people wanted. That is the same path that we are going down with the 2 nd. It is not what the constitution says anymore, it's what the people want, and that is going down a very slippery path and I don't have an answer as to how to stop it. Not sure it can be stopped. That is one of the reasons I was happy about the outcome of the Heller case. You can say all sorts of bad things about that case, but at least it has established law precedence.



    What you have just described is "Democracy". We however, are supposed to be a "Republic". The founders feared a democracy for just the things you see happening today. Our sold out reps, at the instruction of those who control them, knew that with welfare (#5 in my signature line) they could turn this into a democracy. A working republic would end their agenda immediately.
    0
  • cabnetman
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    Congress has usurped its authority in every sector of our life. Where does the Constitution give them the right for health care or prescription drugs? They don't have the right; they took it because that's what the people wanted. That is the same path that we are going down with the 2 nd. It is not what the constitution says anymore, it's what the people want, and that is going down a very slippery path and I don't have an answer as to how to stop it. Not sure it can be stopped. That is one of the reasons I was happy about the outcome of the Heller case. You can say all sorts of bad things about that case, but at least it has established law precedence.



    What you have just described is "Democracy". We however, are supposed to be a "Republic". The founders feared a democracy for just the things you see happening today. Our sold out reps, at the instruction of those who control them, knew that with welfare (#5 in my signature line) they could turn this into a democracy. A working republic would end their agenda immediately.
    Well what is one to do.[?] I agree with you but I think we are trapped. We haven't been a Republic for years.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?