|
Forum: Current Events Topic: Reprosity started by: Self-Banished Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2017,4:37 am
This has been working it's way through the legal process and I'm predicting will be a major cause of liberal butthut about Chirstmas time. It is long past due that this is happening so that cases like this don't happen. < http://www.philly.com/philly...bi=true > BARK! Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 01 2017,4:45 am
^^^link failure— Reprosity? did you attempt to spell reciprocity?We’re sorry, we cannot find the page you were looking for. Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2017,5:04 am
Sorry, try < http://www.breitbart.com/big-gov...e-floor > yes, i know how to spell reprocity, all i can say is damned galaxy tab. It's also early. Time for another cup. Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2017,5:17 am
Or if this makes you feel better,< http://www.cnn.com/2017...ex.html > Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 01 2017,5:34 am
QUOTE yes, i know how to spell reprocity, all i can say is damned galaxy tab. It's also early. looks like you need another cup you've misspelled it again, that galaxy must be lacking a spell correction.. Not that I'm trying to be the spelling Nazi, my grammar isn't the best. I own some pistols, even keep one loaded for home defense, but I've never felt the need to carry one. Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2017,6:59 am
^^ I’m glad to see your a gun owner👍As far as carry? Work in some of the areas I do.☠️ Posted by was1 on Dec. 01 2017,7:57 am
Even though I don't feel people should have some of the guns they do, this proposed law makes sense to me. The drivers license analogy is what makes sense.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 01 2017,8:29 am
there's a real hodgepodge of laws some states require no permit whatsoever..maybe this bill as federal legislation will require all states to have some minimum standard of required training education and permitting.I doubt it, it raises an issue of states rights.. Maybe SB could elaborate...I don't really have a dog in the race. Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2017,9:47 am
(was1 @ Dec. 01 2017,7:57 am) QUOTE Even though I don't feel people should have some of the guns they do, this proposed law makes sense to me. The drivers license analogy is what makes sense. And what “some guns” would these be? As to Expats musings, some states do not have requirements other than federal . This is referred to as “constitutional carry” , something I believe all states should have. Yes, you’re absolutely right with the drivers license analogy, you might even put marriage laws in that category too. Legal in one state, legal in all. Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 01 2017,10:53 am
(Expatriate @ Dec. 01 2017,8:29 am) QUOTE there's a real hodgepodge of laws some states require no permit whatsoever..maybe this bill as federal legislation will require all states to have some minimum standard of required training education and permitting. I doubt it, it raises an issue of states rights.. Maybe SB could elaborate...I don't really have a dog in the race. States don't have rights, they have powers as enumerated in the 10th Amendment. While in a way I am for H.R. 38, I do find myself also taken aback by it. The 2nd Amendment as written and ratified clearly recognizes the negative right to keep and bear arms. Since the 2nd Amendment clearly has supremacy over State constitutions, civil laws, etc., the defined part of "bear" is covered under the 2nd Amendment. Which should be more than sufficient to satisfy the strict scrutiny clause of the Amendment "shall not be infringed" Adding a piece of legislative law to grant reciprocity of conceal and carry to me seems more like treating a negative enumerated right as a privilege. Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2017,12:54 pm
^^ sadly, sometimes we have to take what we can get.
Posted by was1 on Dec. 01 2017,1:38 pm
assault rifles & bump stocks for example
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2017,1:51 pm
^^ what’s an a “assault rifle”?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 01 2017,1:55 pm
(was1 @ Dec. 01 2017,1:38 pm) QUOTE assault rifles & bump stocks for example Why? And try to justify it logically without the use of the word "need" as need is subjective and has no basis or context on why something should or shouldn't be allowed. Posted by was1 on Dec. 01 2017,2:38 pm
assault rifle - type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following: a folding or telescoping stock. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. a bayonet mount.my opinion try to justify them sans need Posted by was1 on Dec. 01 2017,2:40 pm
anything that can shoot that fast, and have large magazine clips are not something I feel need to be allowed
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 01 2017,2:43 pm
(was1 @ Dec. 01 2017,2:38 pm) QUOTE wow, SB pointing out typo - pot meet kettle my opinion try to justify them sans need The justification isn't on me as there is no justification warranted to own or possess an assault rifle, bump stocks or what-ever-else have you, the proof is on you. Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 01 2017,2:49 pm
(was1 @ Dec. 01 2017,2:40 pm) QUOTE anything that can shoot that fast, and have large magazine clips are not something I feel need to be allowed Again you are invoking an emotional attachment to "need" need is irrelevant. ROF and capacity doesn't not equal lethality nor is it the only defining attribute of any given firearm. I'll forgo the "magazine clip" as those are two different items as there is no such thing as a "magazine clip". Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 01 2017,2:53 pm
(Self-Banished @ Dec. 01 2017,1:51 pm) QUOTE ^^ what’s an a “assault rifle”? A firearm that fires an intermediate cartridge in a burst mode or has a selector switch. "Assault weapon" is a made up political name by antigun groups back in the 80's Posted by was1 on Dec. 01 2017,3:41 pm
Like I said, it's just my opinion. For the most part, on guns it is all opinion. I see both sides and think both have good points. I do believe that if we did not have such items all those people in Vegas would not have been killed. Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 01 2017,4:31 pm
(was1 @ Dec. 01 2017,3:41 pm) QUOTE Like I said, it's just my opinion. For the most part, on guns it is all opinion. I see both sides and think both have good points. I do believe that if we did not have such items all those people in Vegas would not have been killed. That's fine and all, but in reality one cannot make that determination if a bump stock was available or not. Too many variables and what ifs. At this point that belief is just a mere hypothesis. Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 03 2017,10:45 am
< https://youtu.be/0Ds_Rzdryws >
|