Democratic Hub
About Us
Tour
FAQ
Signup
Login
  
Home
Forums
Pages
Issues
Laws
Elections
Arguments
Events
Government
U.S.
World
Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.
Forums > All Posts > Opinion on Gun Control and HB 2471-May make it to the Senate
  • Forums
  • Categories
  • All Posts
  • Forum Rules
  • FAQ\Help
Displaying all 7 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.
01-25-2012, 11:38 AM

bobtheflyfisher
Seattle, WA
Posts: 1
Please do not support the content/intent of HB2471; currently in the House. The way things are currently, in the legislature, I would not be surprised if this bill made it to the Senate. I am a member of NRA and have a concealed weapons permit. I have grave concerns about this bill. Although a background check is made when applying for a CWP I also want a second check to be made at the time a weapon is purchased. If a person, with a CWP, commits a felony after receiving the CWP there is no way to ensure that the felony conviction will cancel the CWP automatically. Therefore, I believe that a second check is necessary at the time of weapons purchase. The minor inconvenience of this second check far outweighs the possibility of a felon obtaining a weapon. In addition, I am for increased control of assault weapons sales (AR-15, AK-47 etc..). There is really no reason for owning such a weapon unless you are participating as a member of the military in a conflict. The problem is that once any type of control is enacted it is only a short step to total control and registration. I am absolutely not for this type of big brother control of my life. In fact, should this occur, I will guarantee that gun sales will go underground and the condition will be worse than it currently is. So the House and Senate must use due diligence, and common sense, when determining gun control issues. Antagonists would say that it is yet another violation of the second amendment to the constitution......that is in fact a huge stretch of the imagination. We are no longer a militia but do deserve the right to keep and bear lawful arms lawfully. Especially in light of the current state of cuts to law enforcement budgets nationally. Someone has to protect our families and if government can't we will.

01-25-2012, 10:48 PM
Square Main Photo
CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897
Yeah, the concealed weapons bill is not original federalism. And nobody is screaming States' Rights! Principles change with the politics. This is unitary federalism and the nationalization of concealed weapons laws. Just who is now going to govern these rules and regulations? Washington, D.C. What Big Government giveth Big Government can taketh away, he he. Seriously, I think D.C. has enough on its plate. Leave it to the States.

I commend you for speaking out as a gun-owner.

I'm not a State's Rights guy.

I'm about balance and public-purpose. I think Madison's compound Republic still stands on paper, but in reality, it's been overtaken by Wall Street and Inverted Communists calling themselves Capitalists doing "God's Work."

Inherent change in the structure of Madison's federalism stems from the national government being given the power to issue the currency, per USCON + judicial interpretation, and Union victory over the South. States still retain ample freedom of action, deliberation, and sovereignty over form and functions of sub-national policy arenas. It would help the cause of state governments if their policymakers would stop selling out to national special interests seeking preemption by the national government.










01-26-2012, 09:17 AM
Square Main Photo
that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158
bobtheflyfisher Wrote: Please do not support the content/intent of HB2471; currently in the House. The way things are currently, in the legislature, I would not be surprised if this bill made it to the Senate. I am a member of NRA and have a concealed weapons permit. I have grave concerns about this bill. Although a background check is made when applying for a CWP I also want a second check to be made at the time a weapon is purchased. If a person, with a CWP, commits a felony after receiving the CWP there is no way to ensure that the felony conviction will cancel the CWP automatically. Therefore, I believe that a second check is necessary at the time of weapons purchase. The minor inconvenience of this second check far outweighs the possibility of a felon obtaining a weapon. In addition, I am for increased control of assault weapons sales (AR-15, AK-47 etc..). There is really no reason for owning such a weapon unless you are participating as a member of the military in a conflict. The problem is that once any type of control is enacted it is only a short step to total control and registration. I am absolutely not for this type of big brother control of my life. In fact, should this occur, I will guarantee that gun sales will go underground and the condition will be worse than it currently is. So the House and Senate must use due diligence, and common sense, when determining gun control issues. Antagonists would say that it is yet another violation of the second amendment to the constitution......that is in fact a huge stretch of the imagination. We are no longer a militia but do deserve the right to keep and bear lawful arms lawfully. Especially in light of the current state of cuts to law enforcement budgets nationally. Someone has to protect our families and if government can't we will.

01-26-2012, 10:02 AM
Square Main Photo
that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158
Bob:


I wish that our country had a lot more gun owners like you, ESPECIALLY in my new home state of Arizona, which is only one of two states in this country to have an official state firearm (the other one is Utah).

On the first anniversary of Representative Gabby Giffords, an Arizona state senator named Ron Gould intends to introduce a bill to allow MORE GUNS on campuses in the state. The article below is a brief summary of my position on his bill:

[url=http://tohell-andback.blogspot.com/2012/01/guns-on-campus-in-arizona.html][/url]

however, probably the best argument against allowing more guns on campus is the following video, which was aired on ABC news a while ago:

[url=http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video?id=7311419][/url]

In July of 2010, Arizona passed a new concealed weapons law that removed the requirement to have TRAINING or a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon:

[url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/07/29/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html][/url]

(The bill's sponsor, Russell Pearce, subsequently became the first state legislator in Arizona history to be recalled, principally because he was also the sponsor of SB1070, which is Arizona's "tougher" immigration law)

It's actually easier in the state of Arizona to get permission to carry a concealed weapon than it is to get a driver's license. Under the provisions of the new law, Jared Loughner was able to buy a Glock 19 at a local gun store. Not long after that, he used the gun to shoot Representative Giffords and 25 people, six of whom were killed. One of the people that was killed was a nine year old girl. Another person who died was one of Gabby Giffords aides.

Loughner was subsequently deemed to be mentally incompetent.

Another group of people that I would consider to be mentally incompetent are the Republican Party officials in Pima County (where Giffords was shot.) Last September, they auctioned off a Glock 23 for a fund raised. Just for good measure, they also threw in a deer rifle as a second prize.

[url=http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-25/news/29999436_1_jared-loughner-shooting-spree-state-charges][/url]

A group called Arizonans for Gun Safety is doing as much as possible to defeat the gusn on campus law. A link to their Facebook page is listed below:

[url=http://www.facebook.com/pages/Arizonans-for-Gun-Safety/214848648594608][/url]

The article posted by Julie Erfle (the widow of a policeman) is especially compelling.

You are absolutely correct in your idea of reasonable registration and background checks
(as opposed to simply banning weapons). Guns have been illegal in the City of Chicago since 1982, but shootings in the city occur almost on a daily basis.

The prohibition of alcoholic beverages didn't work too well either, but it helped Alphonse Capone make a very good living for more than a decade.
01-26-2012, 10:04 AM
Square Main Photo
that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158
test:

http://tohell-andback.blogspot.com/2012/01/guns-on-campus-in-arizona.html
01-27-2012, 04:15 AM

constitutionalive
Joplin, MO
Posts: 10
re "right to bear arms" v. public safety ...

Personally, I do not have a gun although I have been trained in various firearms use, however, I do heartily support the right to bear arms. Originally, the right was written with the thought of having to stand together in the community against what was then seen as the natural temptation of governments with power, i.e., to become self-serving and 'entitled' against the interests and well-being of the very people they were supposed to serve [by-for-of the people].
Thus, I do want the right to bear arms and to carry a concealed weapon [i.e., I want the right to protect myself without having to flaunt a weapon on my person, or, if not concealed, to present the temptation and opportunity for a criminal wanting a weapon to attack me to get one.

Since I do not want to ever be ruled by government which runs by principles currently advocated by the current "T-party" et al of the GOP, I yet fear the day may come when we must either fight
a civil war, or, allow states to secede/form their own GOP-country, at which point, there may actually be those with money who hire military contractors to fight against the majority desire in their respective state to stay in the USA v. secede/form a separate GOP country.

I also believe in the old law now defunct in many states whereby one has the right to use appropriate force, shoot dead if necessary, anyone who breaks into your home and endangers or threatens the life and/or well-being of its residents [once upon a time in the usa, that ability was supported by the laws of all 50 states, criminal law being in the individual hands of individual states and now considerably politicized without principle or common sense or back by demonstrable research e.g., to deter crime and home invasions.]

As for immigration, I believe that is a separate issue and should not be confounded [The right to protect one's property addresses the aspect of immigration which NRA lobbyists use as a reason to protect gun rights; so, I will gladly address my immigration opinions in a separate forum discussion under immigration, but not under "right to bear arms" discussions because it politicizes the right to bear arms with illegal immigration.]

I will however raise the question for discussion: a 'country' is composed of people with common beliefs and interests who agree to live under the same rules as a matter of social cooperation for mutual benefit, liberty, happiness, and well-being. That being stated, should not ALL states of the USA [excepting those which choose to secede/form a separate GOP-land country] have the _SAME CRIMINAL LAWS_ by which all people should discipline themselves, and by which all governments [prosecutors-police-courts/judges] are directed to enforce to protect all US citizens equally ? Having been compelled to relocate due to military service and/or work or education, I have been shocked and often appalled at the behaviors which are allowed in some states because there are no laws against it...and states outside of the original 13 colonies are the worst because they confuse "lawlessness" with "liberty" where rights of others are not respected and the rule of the jungle, "might makes right", reigns. Oddly, churches in such areas find no conflict of interest between Christ's teachings and 'the rule of the jungle', so churches reinforce such offensive behaviors which often abuse/violate the US Constitutional rights of others, by their silence, and, ultimately, there is a consensus formed whereby communities are more like jungles where predators with deadly weapons roam in groups, asserting their personal interests over the rights of others.

In this day and age, people are too mobile across many states to say "one state has a distinctively separate population which has distinctively separate needs and so justifies distinctively separate criminal laws."

Of course, all of this begs for support of the federal government over cries of "nanny state"...I want, need, demand that we have one government body over all states of the USA which
oversees, regulates, asserts highest standards based on the most advanced scientific research, plans, legislates, issues policies and programs, and enforces rules to ensure that all rights of each and every Individual Citizen are upheld and protected; I do not want to hear federal government defaulting, saying "that is state/local government responsibility" nor do I want to hear state/local government defaulting saying "that is federal government responsibility", whereby not federal, state or local government acknowledges let alone accepts responsibility for enforcing laws which protect ctizens' legal rights or uphold citizens' rights [against those who would abuse them, be it individuals or corporations.]. THAT is why the original 13 colonies formed a US federal government, to behave as specified in the US Constitution; if/when that government fails to behave thus, it loses the US Constitutional authority to govern; if any one person or group acts to subvert the rights of Individual Citizens and/or undermine aka subvert the US Constitution which guarantees the rights of Individuals [inclding corruption of government and/or institutions such as banking/finance et al. businesses], they are committing act(s) of Treason which is punishable by death, per US Constitution. THAT is the social agreement for governance under which all who are US Citizens can/should expect to live and be governed.

Having stated the above, it becomes clearer what is/should be the responsibilities of the US Government, and assists as a cornerstone upon which discussions of right to bear arms, immigration, et al. must be considered and command legislation/laws and enforcement/adjudication.




01-27-2012, 06:12 PM

Igetit
Bottineau, ND
Posts: 1
I live in North Dakota and a DUI will cancel your CWP. It is up to the state to see that your permit is revoked and sooner than you think they will catch up with you. A second background check won't do any good if someone dropped the ball if you committed a crime. As far as I know a firearms dealer is required to run your soc# every time you purchase a firearm. At least that's been my experiance. So, it seams like it's redundant and a waste of time. In order to own a fully automatic weapon is literally an act of congress so the semi-auto's don't seam to be an issue with me. I do have an issue with bad guy's having one when I don't. Making laws don't seem to keep people from breaking them. Drugs are illegal and banned but guess what? I would hate to see a ban on semi-auto's because when I need one the most it won't be here. Good people do good thing's and bad people do bad thing's. Be a good person with your semi and protect your neighbor's. If you say I'm just afraid, you are wrong. How could you be afraid with this much protection. I'm only afraid of my right to protect myself.
You must be logged in to reply to a post.


 

 
About Us
Contact Us
FAQ
Advertise
Links
Login
Sign Up
  


� Copyright 2009-2012 Democratic Hub. All Rights Reserved.
Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy


OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES