In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

National Right-To-Carry

shootstrightshootstright Member Posts: 342 ✭✭✭
NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY
BILL INTRODUCED
U.S. Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) recently introduced H.R. 4547-a national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill that would provide national reciprocity for state carry licensees. The bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses.


For more information on the bill, please visit www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 4547!
«1

Comments

  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    We do ourselves..AND the Constitution..a disservice when we abuse the
    meaning of words.
    You ALREADY have "Right to Carry"...called the Second Amendment.

    This Act...and EVERY OTHER CCW...might better be called "Privilege to Carry"...
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    We do ourselves..AND the Constitution..a disservice when we abuse the
    meaning of words.
    You ALREADY have "Right to Carry"...called the Second Amendment.

    This Act...and EVERY OTHER CCW...might better be called "Privilege to Carry"...


    You are absoutely right on this. And for a long time I have been pondering how it is we came to this. When the US Constitution provides gun rights and my state of KS constitution evern more cleary provides gun rights, just how is it that our gun rights are so restricted? I have come to this conclusion.

    For decades the liberal left-wingers (anti-gunners, open borders advocates, making different groups "victims", special rights for special people, affirmative discrimnation, etc) have highjacked the law, courts, constitution (s) and even the meaning of words (i.e. "assault weapons" when the average American cannot legally own a true "assault weapon"). Due to this highjacking, the liberals can quote our 2nd amendment right, or my KS constitutional gun right, to us gunners and, with a straight face and because of precedents set in the past due to the liberal highjacking, they can claim that that gun right is not "really" a right. This, to me, is what has happened.

    And I guess that rather than try to go back and refight each and every fight that has occurred over these decades and that have brought us to this current unhappy situation, maybe the best way to get back our rights is to pass one law at a time so stating the restorating of that particular right until we get them all back.

    If that is the case, even though I might not be happy at having to go along with this, it might be the best way.
  • shootstrightshootstright Member Posts: 342 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    We do ourselves..AND the Constitution..a disservice when we abuse the
    meaning of words.
    You ALREADY have "Right to Carry"...called the Second Amendment.

    This Act...and EVERY OTHER CCW...might better be called "Privilege to Carry"...


    Highball
    tr fox has got it right.
    We can't get it to court and take back all of the 20.000 + anti-gun laws.
    We need to take it back one law at a time, just like we lost them.
    I know the carry permit is a backdoor attempt to register gun owners . But just think , if you have a permit to carry and this becomes law , we will be able to carry when we travel ,which is when you really need it. The open road is a dangerous place.
    You could carry when going to states like NY or MA with out the fear of a year in jail . Which you know will get you a life time of no 2 nd amendment rights.[8D][8D]

    A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.

    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
    Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.


    NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
    GOA
    http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    There is an additional benefit to having a national concealed carry reciprocity law. Another poster on the General Discussion pointed this out. If you live in states where it is almost impossible to get a CCW (Calif for example) with a nationl reciprocity you could just get a non-resident CCW in one of the easier states and your home state would have to honor it.

    How sweet that would be for those who live in states that supposely have a CCW law yet no one except the rich and powerful people are able to actually get a CCW.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Understood.
    The above posters are correct. I merely point to the meaning of words so that SOME of us know the truth...ALWAYS.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    So, just being a resident of Vermont and Alaska they could carry anywhere.

    I hear Florida is pretty easy to get a non-resident CCW from.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yup Highball, a CCW is turning an "inalienable right" guaranteed by the Constitution, into a revocable "privilege." It seems that most are willing to accept this "compromise" in hopes of turning back the clock.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    Yup Highball, a CCW is turning an "inalienable right" guaranteed by the Constitution, into a revocable "privilege." It seems that most are willing to accept this "compromise" in hopes of turning back the clock.


    A good quantity of "something" is better than a huge quantity of "nothing". As long as the "something" is actually something desired; like expanding gunrights.
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Can anybody give me the Cliff Notes version on what constitutes "certain criteria"?
  • Locust ForkLocust Fork Member Posts: 30,948 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I cannot imagine this will be pass....I wish it could. If it does can you imagine how many people will end up in jail because they "thought" they could carry a concealed gun in California? I can't even keep the pay-pal...ebay rules straight. I've been black balled by them. Each state being in charge of thier area's regulations has always been a way for people to get in with others who think the same. If we start to pass blanket policies that affect the whole country....how long before they come back with some horrible legislation against guns?

    I don't know how I feel about this one....right now its the same love/hate thing I have for chocolate. LOVE the stuff, but maybe a little too much.
    LOCUST FORK CURRENT AUCTIONS: https://www.gunbroker.com/All/search?Sort=13&IncludeSellers=618902&PageSize=48 Listings added every Thursday! We do consignments, contact us at [email protected]
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Each state being in charge of thier area's regulations has always been a way for people to get in with others who think the same.

    Amen, Locust Fork. I have bought into this logic myself the past couple of years, I even geographically relocated to a place more in line with my thinking. Unfortunately most others are not adhering to this concept. There seems to be a lot of spillage, especially from the Left Coast.

    -Wolf
  • wurtzingerwurtzinger Member Posts: 12 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    You ALREADY have "Right to Carry"...called the Second Amendment.


    You do not have a Constitutional right to carry firearms. The Second Amendment only prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. According to the Bill of Rights, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:keep and bear arms

    You say TO-ma-TO, I say to-MA-to... and the beat goes on...
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Wurts;
    ALL HAIL KING GEORGE !!!

    You crawl nicely on your belly to your masters.

    Of COURSE there is no "Constitutional Right"...its called a GOD given right...the right to defend myself and my loved ones.

    See...the 'Rights' enumerated in the Bill of Rights were merely the Founders pointing to some things that government was supposed to keep their slimy fimgers OFF of...
  • wurtzingerwurtzinger Member Posts: 12 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Highball,

    First you say,

    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    We do ourselves..AND the Constitution..a disservice when we abuse the
    meaning of words.
    You ALREADY have "Right to Carry"...called the Second Amendment.

    This Act...and EVERY OTHER CCW...might better be called "Privilege to Carry"...


    When I point out that the Second Amendment does you give you the right to carry you say,

    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Wurts;
    ALL HAIL KING GEORGE !!!

    You crawl nicely on your belly to your masters.

    Of COURSE there is no "Constitutional Right"...its called a GOD given right...the right to defend myself and my loved ones.

    See...the 'Rights' enumerated in the Bill of Rights were merely the Founders pointing to some things that government was supposed to keep their slimy fimgers OFF of...


    Seems like you're the one, "doing the Constitution a disservice by abusing the meaning of words". By the way, what are "fimgers"?
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Wurtz;
    People like you no longer amuse me. Educating people like you is a waste of time.

    Perhaps the love of freedom is something a person is born with..or not. Seems that the people that I respect need very little nudging to understand that quote:You do not have a Constitutional right to carry firearms. The Second Amendment only prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms
    is insanity.
    Yes...the Founders had a healthy fear of central government. However...nobody in their right mind would suggest that they intended for the STATE government to usurpt such a basic right as taking away the citizens' 'Liberty Teeth'.
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Wurtz, I think you have a pre-1860's view of the U.S. Constitution. Back then they thought the Bill of Rights ONLY pertained to the Federal government, and that the States could do all that they damn well pleased, no matter what rights they violated.

    Then we fought a Civil War, and the 14th Amendment guaranteed your fundamental rights under ANY government.

    Remember, the Bill of Rights tells the States what they CAN'T do and the Feds what they CAN do.

    -Wolf
  • shootstrightshootstright Member Posts: 342 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Wurtzinger

    One of the things the young need to learn is how to read and understand what they are reading.
    To keep and bear arms. Bear means just what it says , to bear , carry . It is the teeth of the people and the founding fathers understood this . The common man also understood this . It is the Crap for brains liberals that have interrupted it to mean what they would like it to say.
    An education is the ability to get thought life without intelligence .
    Intelligence is the ability to get thought life with out an education.
    I find it hard to understand how a group of people can get together in the same place and turn into such and bunch of nit-wits with a total lack of common sense ( the US congress and most schools of higher learning ).
    It is time to take back freedom and the place to start is in the schools . The schools have been taken over by sixties pot heads .
    If you can't do , you teach .
    If not for government where would the incompetent work.
    The people that work for the government I would never hire. If they had any self respect they wouldn't be working for the government. It is the easy way to get a pension and all of the bennys the rest off us can't afford but must pay for for them to have.
    Highball is right it is very hard to educate some people, they lack the basics to understand what is going on around them. History and the 2nd amendment are not taught it the schools today.
    When the state sells you a right you already have under the constitution , it gives them the right to take that right away. It is also a backdoor way to register gun people . The fee for the permit is a tax on you . If they want to punish you the fee will be high like in Fla. at 200 + bucks for a carry permit, mine is only 20 bucks .
    The constitution of my state Article 1 Section 16 states :
    To keep and bear arms.
    "EVERY citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall NEVER be questioned."

    It doesn't say , EVERY citizen except the people that go aerie of some dumb law an airhead in the state government made up.
    This doesn't stop them from taking the rights of EVERY citizen. It's a misdemeanor to carry concealed without a permit . Some day a misdemeanor will be cause for removing your second amendment rights . Hell it may come to even a speeding ticket would do it.
    All you have to do is keep sending the most incompetent people to government to represent us.[8D]


    A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.

    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
    Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    You know, in a way I have always wondered it the US Constitution is just a written document between ONLY the federal government and the citizens. Because why is it that we have or ever needed a consitution for each and every state if the US Constitution is supposed to cover everything?

    Anybody know?
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just my impressions, perhaps a scholar can elaborate or nullify them...

    I believe when our nation was founded, the U.S Constitution and the Bill of Rights was indeed seen as ONLY a contract between the citizens and the Federal government. The States, agreeing with the fundamental rights preserved by the Bill of Rights, also included many of the same guarantees in their state constitutions as a contract between their respective state government and its citizens.

    I then believe that it became apparent over the decades that, in some cases, some states were not abiding by all of the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but the Federal courts felt they had no jurisdiciton in these matters since the U.S. Bill of Rights was only interpreted as applying to Federal matters. Given the "limited" vision of our Federal government by our Founders, I would imagine that a citizen was far more likely to deal with their state government in most situations rather than the Feds. In that case, if the Bill of Rights was seen as not applicable to the States, then a citizen likely had only the rights guaranteed to him by his state constitution.

    After the Civil War, the Feds realized the situation and the 14th Amendment was created, thus guaranteeing all of our Constitutional rights, regardless of what the States guaranteed. The powers of the state governments could not supercede your rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

    Some folks believe this was the beginning of the "big" Federal government, the one that has injected itself into nearly every aspect of our lives today. I think the 14th Amendment was a very important measure. I believe that all citizens should be guaranteed the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights under ANY government.

    JMHO,
    Wolf
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Interesting. Very interesting. Wish some constitutional scholars would step in on this. But not the liberal, left-wing kind. More the middle of the road kind.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Wolf posted; quote:I believe that all citizens should be guaranteed the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights under ANY government
    The first ten for sure. Admittedly...I sorta gloss over the rest...as lessor beings tried to rectify perceived short-comings in the first ten.

    The main thrust I see about firearm ownership is....NO person in their right minds would allow ANY GOVERNMENT to limit their use of, ownership,carrying, nor ANY OTHER facet of guns...after fighting a war STARTED because of guns.The Founders didn't intend it.
    Think about THAT a bit...as we labor under 20,000 plus gun laws.

    Re-read the last paragraph..we are a nation of COWARDS......
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
    I believe when our nation was founded, the U.S Constitution and the Bill of Rights was indeed seen as ONLY a contract between the citizens and the Federal government. The States, agreeing with the fundamental rights preserved by the Bill of Rights, also included many of the same guarantees in their state constitutions as a contract between their respective state government and its citizens.

    I then believe that it became apparent over the decades that, in some cases, some states were not abiding by all of the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but the Federal courts felt they had no jurisdiciton in these matters since the U.S. Bill of Rights was only interpreted as applying to Federal matters. Given the "limited" vision of our Federal government by our Founders, I would imagine that a citizen was far more likely to deal with their state government in most situations rather than the Feds. In that case, if the Bill of Rights was seen as not applicable to the States, then a citizen likely had only the rights guaranteed to him by his state constitution.

    After the Civil War, the Feds realized the situation and the 14th Amendment was created, thus guaranteeing all of our Constitutional rights, regardless of what the States guaranteed. The powers of the state governments could not supercede your rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.


    Pretty accurate, but I disagree with your assessment of the intent of the 14th amendment. "citizens" were not in danger of having their rights violated by the states. While certain rights were restricte, it was done via principles of democracy and Republicanism. The people "citizens", decided for themselves what rights were to be protected, what rights woyuld be limited, and what rights would be disallowed. While some states thought the right to get it on with a prostitute should be protected, other states might feel that right should be prohibited. The people of each state, decided on a state by state basis, how rights were to be dealt with. Most states had specifically protected the rights enumerated in the federal constitution. The citizens had decided, on a state by state basis, that those rights were guaranteed to all "citizens". But who was a citizen-a person who could vote-and different states had varying methods of deciding who was allowed the right to franchise(land ownership, income, literacy, etc). The 14th amendment was created, because many states did not recognize blacks as citizens, and therefore, their rights could be restricted MORE THAN a white person-at least those few with the best intentions desired the 14th for the purpose of protecting the rights of blacks. The more popular reason for the 14th was to prevent Southerners from voting, and to place in the hands of the federal government the authority to dictate to the states rules that they would have to follow. The birth of the 14th amendment, was the death of the constitution that the founders created. The 14th is really a constitution in itself, negating the constitution in its entirety. Everything that the founders did to create a limited federal government, went up in smoke.
    The popular myth is that the 14th amendment protects the rights of the citizens from encroachment on the bill of rights, via state governments- but only a little bit of research dismisses that nonsense. What the 14th amendment really does, is place in the hands of the FEDERAL government the authority to decide what rights, we can enjoy, and what rights, are not protected.
    Can we really say that the first amendment protects the rights that are enumerated in the amendment? Of course not. The federal government prohibits prayer in public school, prohibits certain methods of political speech, says lap dancing is a protected right, but wearing a crucifix to school isnt. While they are doing all this "right protecting" they are doing so in defiance of the first amendment. All one has to do is read the first amendment to realize this is the case.
    How bout the second amendment-I am sure no one would argue that the government protects the second amendment. The second amendment doesnt exist,as far as the federal government is concerned.
    Or any of the other amendments. One can come up with thousands of laws and actions of either federal or state governments that are in complete defiance of the bill of rights- but the bill of rights does not outline your rights-the federal government does.
    As far as national right to carry- I am completely opposed to it,for the same reasons I am opposed to the governmental "right" to an abortion- because it is completely unconstitutional. The constitution prohibits the federal government from meddling in those areas, and leaves it to the states to decide. I just assume the federal government stay among its constitutionally enumerated powers.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Salzo, I enjoyed reading your above post. It was informative and interesting.


    I also do not favor a US Govt. issued national right to carry. Reason being that if that right can be issued quickly, easily and by the control of only the US House, Senate and President, then that same right can be taken away just as quickly, easily and completely.


    I do favor a national right to carry if it is structured only by forcing each and every state to recognize the CCW permit issued by another state. In such a situation, the desire of the federal government should never be able to quickly and easily eliminate any CCW rights, at least on a state level.

    It would be great if the federal government would stick to it's "constitutionally enumerated powers". But it hasn't and doesn't look like it will in the near future. So in my mind other ways need to be found to be able to enjoy and exercise our constituional rights. A national right to carry, as I described above, is one such way.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:I also do not favor a US Govt. issued national right to carry. Reason being that if that right can be issued quickly, easily and by the control of only the US House, Senate and President, then that same right can be taken away just as quickly, easily and completely.


    Absolutely. Rights are not needs or privileges, definitely.

    quote:I do favor a national right to carry if it is structured only by forcing each and every state to recognize the CCW permit issued by another state. In such a situation, the desire of the federal government should never be able to quickly and easily eliminate any CCW rights, at least on a state level.


    In other words, you would favor national reciprocity. I don't totally, because of this one reason. If we have any hope of destroying the boundaries of privilege and license, this type of law would make us unwilling to cut the strings, because by no longer having or needing a state issued CHL, you would also no longer be afforded that right in another state that has not yet cut the apron strings of Big Brother, and you definitely would never get them in a state that will never cut the ties to Big Brother. This would not be a step in the right direction, it would be a wall.

    quote:It would be great if the federal government would stick to it's "constitutionally enumerated powers". But it hasn't and doesn't look like it will in the near future. So in my mind other ways need to be found to be able to enjoy and exercise our constituional rights. A national right to carry, as I described above, is one such way.

    I can't argue with that.
  • mrseatlemrseatle Member Posts: 15,806
    edited November -1
    Would you please read Amendment Nine to the Constitution.

    Anyway, I've been encouraging a boycott on CC permits here in Texas since they started almost a decade ago. Lets get this beast under reign soon, before it gets out of control!

    Let that taxform expire![:0] with pride knowing that they didn't out smart us... this time.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by mrseatle
    Would you please read Amendment Nine to the Constitution.



    What ABOUT it???
  • D.K.D.K. Member Posts: 291 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    We do ourselves..AND the Constitution..a disservice when we abuse the
    meaning of words.
    You ALREADY have "Right to Carry"...called the Second Amendment.

    This Act...and EVERY OTHER CCW...might better be called "Privilege to Carry"...


    AMEN! But the majority, even many who post here, don't get it!
  • spanielsellsspanielsells Member Posts: 12,498
    edited November -1
    I hate to agree with Wurtz, but I think I have to.

    SCOTUS and the rest of the court system has not supported a pro-gun stance on any Second Amendment claims in over 100 years. Gun-rights constitutional claims have been far more successful on other constitutional claims, such as the Fourth Amendment.

    I know what the Second Amendment says and I know it means that we have the right to carry. But, what is right and what is viewed as legal by the court system (which, incidentally, is the same system that will toss your @$$ in jail and prevent you from legally ever owning a firearm again) are two different animals.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
    I hate to agree with Wurtz, but I think I have to.

    SCOTUS and the rest of the court system has not supported a pro-gun stance on any Second Amendment claims in over 100 years. Gun-rights constitutional claims have been far more successful on other constitutional claims, such as the Fourth Amendment.

    I know what the Second Amendment says and I know it means that we have the right to carry. But, what is right and what is viewed as legal by the court system (which, incidentally, is the same system that will toss your @$$ in jail and prevent you from legally ever owning a firearm again) are two different animals.


    Most of what goes on here is philosophical argument.

    I think everyone has the right to own and keep any arms they choose, up to and including silencers and machine guns, or short-barreled rifles or shotguns, or any other thing banned by Gun Kontrol akts in our country.

    I don't own any, because I am aware of what our current fedcoats will do if I am caught doing so, but at the same time, if I were a juror on a case dealing with this type of offense, I would invoke jury nullification on it, or any other firearm-related crime. (Don't confuse firearm crime with a violent crime or some other malum in se violation. Mere ownership of anything does not prove intent).
  • sig232sig232 Member Posts: 8,018
    edited November -1
    It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I recently upset the CA attorney general by writing and asking why I could not get a nonresident carry permit. I have an Oregon permit and received a Washington State permit with a simple payment, I explained that to them and I think they are still trying to figure out how to put me in jail for asking the question.

    Sig232
  • spanielsellsspanielsells Member Posts: 12,498
    edited November -1
    Forgive me, but sometimes it appears that passionate, philosophical thought comes across as irrational calls to arms. I can be as emotional about my gun rights as the next guy (or gal), but I also believe that the emotions must be toned and checked with rationality and a sense of what goes on in the "real world."

    It is nice to fantasize about taking on the Feds because they've overstepped their bounds, but, as I've said in many other threads at GB, it takes a concerted effort if you have any dreams of success. A concerted effort is not three drinking buddies forming a "militia" cell shooting each other with paintballs in the woods on Saturdays. A concerted effort is a rational group of people who can get ordinary, everyday citizens to support them.

    And, as I said in another thread, the only group that I've heard of that remotely approaches that definition is the Minutemen who were playing Border Patrol a few months ago.

    If you have the people behind you, you stand a far greater chance of success, sometimes without the need to spill blood. If you don't have the people behind you, you're nothing more that strange neighbor parents warn their children to stay away from.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
    Forgive me, but sometimes it appears that passionate, philosophical thought comes across as irrational calls to arms. I can be as emotional about my gun rights as the next guy (or gal), but I also believe that the emotions must be toned and checked with rationality and a sense of what goes on in the "real world."

    It is nice to fantasize about taking on the Feds because they've overstepped their bounds, but, as I've said in many other threads at GB, it takes a concerted effort if you have any dreams of success. A concerted effort is not three drinking buddies forming a "militia" cell shooting each other with paintballs in the woods on Saturdays. A concerted effort is a rational group of people who can get ordinary, everyday citizens to support them.

    And, as I said in another thread, the only group that I've heard of that remotely approaches that definition is the Minutemen who were playing Border Patrol a few months ago.

    If you have the people behind you, you stand a far greater chance of success, sometimes without the need to spill blood. If you don't have the people behind you, you're nothing more that strange neighbor parents warn their children to stay away from.


    OK, there's a lot of call to arms that goes on, too.

    Right now, I'm more interested in the soft war. If I wasn't, I wouldn't even be here.

    The fact that the militia forming border patrol is a sign of hope for the future. It tells me some do listen. Some are wide awake. Hell, if I didn't have ties to where I am right now, I might well consider going there to live, myself.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:wurtzinger Posted - 03/02/2006 : 11:55:09 PM
    You do not have a Constitutional right to carry firearms. The Second Amendment only prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms
    quote:wurtzinger Posted - 03/03/2006 : 9:42:08 PM
    When I point out that the Second Amendment does you give you the right to carry you say,


    Go ahead and agree with Wortz,Spanialsells....Certainly a fine example of calm, rational thought in the finest mode of the NRA...you will fit right in there.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Let me add something to the above...
    Just exactly as tired as you are of me and my 'fanatical' views..is how tired I am of the 'calm, rational' approach to TYRANNY...
    See..the calm approach is WHY we have 20,000 gun laws.
    Compromise IS a dirty word...UNLESS it is about the color of the draps.
    STOP COMPROMISING AWAY OUR RIGHTS.

    I really DON'T give a damn if you lie on YOUR belly and reach out to touch the masters gown...just don't DEMAND that I do it to.....
  • shootstrightshootstright Member Posts: 342 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't like his heave metal music but
    Ted Nugent should be the next NRA president.
    We need someone like Ted to inspire the young
    and build our numbers. [8D]


    A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.

    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
    Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.


    NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
    GOA
    http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    You know what ?
    I could AGREE with that. I am damn sick and tired of mealy-mouth politicians running the NRA....They drove out the only Second Amendment hard-liner...Kneal Knox...
  • shootstrightshootstright Member Posts: 342 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Highball
    we need people like you with 'fanatical' views
    It help the marshmellows to think and it adds
    fertalizer to weak minds.[8D]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    THANK you, Shootstraight...and forgive me my trespasses ?
    I feel greatly our losses of freedoms...and sometimes do indeed speak harshly.
  • shootstrightshootstright Member Posts: 342 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What we the people need is a national referendum so we the people could counter what the nit-wits we send to government do to use.
    It is polled that 85% of us want the southern border closed. We have laws in place to do this.
    With a referendum we could get what the people want. The down side may not be for the good of the people. To many stupid people thanks to pot and other good $ hit.[8D]
Sign In or Register to comment.