|
Post by nfalls116 on Mar 25, 2018 10:46:39 GMT -5
I must be undereducated here but what all have we given up as far as guns in the last 100 years other than having to pay a special tax to own automatics It seems like over all in the last 20 years more states have been trying too loosen restrictions on gun ownership
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Mar 25, 2018 10:58:35 GMT -5
First we gave up machine guns unless the tax was paid.
Then we gave up short barrel shotguns
Then way gave up newly manufactured machine guns, essentially marking existing machine guns too expensive for most to own. We also gave up suppressors unless the tax was paid.
Then we gave up "assault weapons" for ten years.
Then of course there are multiple states banning cosmetic features, magazines, certain guns all together. Requir8ng background checks on ammunition sales and evening limiting the amount of ammunition or type that can be purchased.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 25, 2018 11:38:15 GMT -5
First we gave up machine guns unless the tax was paid. Then we gave up short barrel shotguns Then way gave up newly manufactured machine guns, essentially marking existing machine guns too expensive for most to own. We also gave up suppressors unless the tax was paid. Then we gave up "assault weapons" for ten years. Then of course there are multiple states banning cosmetic features, magazines, certain guns all together. Requir8ng background checks on ammunition sales and evening limiting the amount of ammunition or type that can be purchased. Yep.. the left’s idea of compromise is we surrender all. Do we have any other watered down “rights”
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Mar 25, 2018 12:29:27 GMT -5
I must be undereducated here but what all have we given up as far as guns in the last 100 years other than having to pay a special tax to own automatics It seems like over all in the last 20 years more states have been trying too loosen restrictions on gun ownership I think "we" is meant as we as Americans. Many's rights have been restricted far more than us Hoosiers, as demonstrated by the thread from a couple weeks ago about the guy traveling through NJ. I hunted California a couple years ago. The gun regs are so intentionally convoluted there, I still don't know for sure if we followed the law to the letter.
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Mar 25, 2018 12:39:03 GMT -5
First we gave up machine guns unless the tax was paid. Then we gave up short barrel shotguns Then way gave up newly manufactured machine guns, essentially marking existing machine guns too expensive for most to own. We also gave up suppressors unless the tax was paid. Then we gave up "assault weapons" for ten years. Then of course there are multiple states banning cosmetic features, magazines, certain guns all together. Requir8ng background checks on ammunition sales and evening limiting the amount of ammunition or type that can be purchased. Yep.. the left’s idea of compromise is we surrender all. Do we have any other watered down “rights” Do we have any that aren’t?
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on Mar 25, 2018 13:09:17 GMT -5
I must be undereducated here but what all have we given up as far as guns in the last 100 years other than having to pay a special tax to own automatics It seems like over all in the last 20 years more states have been trying too loosen restrictions on gun ownership I think "we" is meant as we as Americans. Many's rights have been restricted far more than us Hoosiers, as demonstrated by the thread from a couple weeks ago about the guy traveling through NJ. I hunted California a couple years ago. The gun regs are so intentionally convoluted there, I still don't know for sure if we followed the law to the letter. That is exactly what I was thinking. We are fortunate to live in Indiana and not CA, VA, MD, NY, NJ, CT, IL and so on and so forth. It tends to let some of us drop our guard on a national level. Glad to be a Hoosier.
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Mar 25, 2018 14:35:49 GMT -5
I must be undereducated here but what all have we given up as far as guns in the last 100 years other than having to pay a special tax to own automatics It seems like over all in the last 20 years more states have been trying too loosen restrictions on gun ownership I think "we" is meant as we as Americans. Many's rights have been restricted far more than us Hoosiers, as demonstrated by the thread from a couple weeks ago about the guy traveling through NJ. I hunted California a couple years ago. The gun regs are so intentionally convoluted there, I still don't know for sure if we followed the law to the letter. My FIL who lives in California, gave me a 6" blued colt python as a wedding present. It predates California's drop list so he was allowed to own it. I can never give it back to him as long as he lives in California.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 25, 2018 16:07:54 GMT -5
Yep.. the left’s idea of compromise is we surrender all. Do we have any other watered down “rights” Do we have any that aren’t? Actually they have manufactured a few new ones such as killing babuesin the womb..
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Mar 25, 2018 16:16:50 GMT -5
Do we have any that aren’t? Actually they have manufactured a few new ones such as killing babuesin the womb.. Yes but people still trying to stop it from happening too aren’t they.
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on Mar 25, 2018 16:19:07 GMT -5
I think "we" is meant as we as Americans. Many's rights have been restricted far more than us Hoosiers, as demonstrated by the thread from a couple weeks ago about the guy traveling through NJ. I hunted California a couple years ago. The gun regs are so intentionally convoluted there, I still don't know for sure if we followed the law to the letter. My FIL who lives in California, gave me a 6" blued colt python as a wedding present. It predates California's drop list so he was allowed to own it. I can never give it back to him as long as he lives in California. Medic, I'd be proud to be your surrogate FIL and you can give it to me. LOL! You are a fortunate man to have a FIL like you do. That is one fine wedding present!! That needs to pass to your children and their children.....
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Mar 25, 2018 22:31:56 GMT -5
It's very important for all of us who own AR15 and any other type of firearm to call our representative and make it know that we all fully support the right to keep and bear arms and the part of the 2nd amendnent that says Shall not be Infringed.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Mar 26, 2018 12:32:18 GMT -5
The 2nd amendment is under attack in some of the more liberal web sites that I've seen. We must all get together and protect our right to keep and bear arms without the Feds, States or Cities infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment
On June 26, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment—"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"— protects a purely individual right, as do the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments. "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right," the court said. "The term ['the people'] unambiguously refers to all members of the political community."
The court's 5-4 majority rejected the notion pushed by D.C. officials and gun control supporters in Heller —taken from the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in Salina v. Blaksley (1905)—that the amendment protects only a privilege to possess arms when serving in a militia. All nine justices rejected gun control supporters' alternate and mutually exclusive idea—invented by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in U.S. v. Tot (1942)—that the amendment protects only a state power (a so-called "collective right") to maintain a militia.
Citing a previous decision by the court, recognizing that the right to arms is individually-held, the court noted, "As we said in United States v. Cruikshank (1876), '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.'"
The court also declared that the Second Amendment protects "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," including "all instruments that constitute bearable arms." It said that people have the right to keep and bear handguns (the type of arm at issue in Heller), because "[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. . . .Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family,' would fail constitutional muster."
As demonstrated by the vast majority of research on the subject, the court's ruling is consistent with the Second Amendment's history and text, the statements and writings of the amendment's author, James Madison, and other statesmen of the founding period, and the writings of respected legal authorities of the 19th century. Constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook has noted that there is no evidence that anyone associated with drafting, debating and ratifying the amendment considered it to protect anything other than an entirely individual right.
Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights in Congress, said that the amendments "relate first to private rights." In The Federalist #46, he wrote that the federal government would not be able to tyrannize the people, "with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by [state] governments possessing their affections and confidence." In The Federalist #29, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833), still regarded as the standard treatise on the subject, wrote, "the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic."
In U.S. v. Miller (1939), the most recent of the important Second Amendment-related Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, the court recognized, as it did in U.S. v. Cruikshank (noted above), that the right to arms is individually-held and not dependent upon militia service. Had the court believed the amendment protected only a militiaman's privilege or a state power, it would have rejected the case on the grounds that the defendants were neither actively-serving militiamen or states. As the Heller court noted, the Miller court never questioned the defendants' standing. It questioned only whether a short-barreled shotgun had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," which it described as privaThe Second Amendment
On June 26, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment—"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"— protects a purely individual right, as do the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments. "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right," the court said. "The term ['the people'] unambiguously refers to all members of the political community."
The court's 5-4 majority rejected the notion pushed by D.C. officials and gun control supporters in Heller —taken from the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in Salina v. Blaksley (1905)—that the amendment protects only a privilege to possess arms when serving in a militia. All nine justices rejected gun control supporters' alternate and mutually exclusive idea—invented by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in U.S. v. Tot (1942)—that the amendment protects only a state power (a so-called "collective right") to maintain a militia.
Citing a previous decision by the court, recognizing that the right to arms is individually-held, the court noted, "As we said in United States v. Cruikshank (1876), '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.'"
The court also declared that the Second Amendment protects "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," including "all instruments that constitute bearable arms." It said that people have the right to keep and bear handguns (the type of arm at issue in Heller), because "[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. . . .Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family,' would fail constitutional muster."
As demonstrated by the vast majority of research on the subject, the court's ruling is consistent with the Second Amendment's history and text, the statements and writings of the amendment's author, James Madison, and other statesmen of the founding period, and the writings of respected legal authorities of the 19th century. Constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook has noted that there is no evidence that anyone associated with drafting, debating and ratifying the amendment considered it to protect anything other than an entirely individual right.
Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights in Congress, said that the amendments "relate first to private rights." In The Federalist #46, he wrote that the federal government would not be able to tyrannize the people, "with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by [state] governments possessing their affections and confidence." In The Federalist #29, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833), still regarded as the standard treatise on the subject, wrote, "the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic."
In U.S. v. Miller (1939), the most recent of the important Second Amendment-related Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, the court recognized, as it did in U.S. v. Cruikshank (noted above), that the right to arms is individually-held and not dependent upon militia service. Had the court believed the amendment protected only a militiaman's privilege or a state power, it would have rejected the case on the grounds that the defendants were neither actively-serving militiamen or states. As the Heller court noted, the Miller court never questioned the defendants' standing. It questioned only whether a short-barreled shotgun had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," which it described as private citizens "bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
As indicated in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court has always recognized that the Second Amendment protects, and was intended by the Framers to protect, a purely individual right of individuals to keep and bear arms useful for defense, hunting, training and all other legitimate purposes. te citizens "bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
As indicated in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court has always recognized that the Second Amendment protects, and was intended by the Framers to protect, a purely individual right of individuals to keep and bear arms useful for defense, hunting, training and all other legitimate purposes.
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on Mar 26, 2018 13:03:13 GMT -5
As I mentioned in another thread, Gun Owners of America has a great platform for contacting your congressmen and congresswomen. You don't even have to join although it is cheap. Just get on their mailing list. They will send alerts to you with pre written letters to your Senators or Representative. You just fill out your contact info and check "remember me" and that is it. I probably send 3 to 4 letters per month. Senator Young and Rep. Susan Brooks respond. Soon to be one term (I hope) Joe Donnelly does not. Also the NRA ILA does the same thing
|
|
|
Post by bullseye69 on Mar 28, 2018 4:44:04 GMT -5
I'm ok with giving up a stupid gimmick like bump stops. I don't like teetering on that slippery slope of continuing to ban things, that is a concern as it always is. Maybe we have to pick our battles wisely, right now, until emotions cool down. I wouldn't buy a bump stock but if someone gave me one I would. It would be fun for plinking. Just remember! Give them a inch and they will take a mile.
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Mar 28, 2018 5:58:05 GMT -5
I'm ok with giving up a stupid gimmick like bump stops. I don't like teetering on that slippery slope of continuing to ban things, that is a concern as it always is. Maybe we have to pick our battles wisely, right now, until emotions cool down. I wouldn't buy a bump stock but if someone gave me one I would. It would be fun for plinking. Just remember! Give them a inch and they will take a mile. Maybe it is give them an inch OR they will take a mile
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Mar 28, 2018 10:49:12 GMT -5
Society wants to blame it on something it didn’t work with music or video games. So now it has to be the guns fault. Let’s not look at the fact that it’s this whole how we raise our children deal. Next time some latchkey kids goes off it isn’t going to be because The words of some songs or some content In video games or a piece or part or whole of a gun. It’s going to be because the kid lacked proper guidance on how to define right or wrong but also just as importantly the proper way to handle conflict.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 12:51:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Mar 28, 2018 12:57:24 GMT -5
Parents, again. Most kids these days come from broken homes not just the goofy ones...
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on Mar 28, 2018 13:03:23 GMT -5
I wouldn't buy a bump stock but if someone gave me one I would. It would be fun for plinking. Just remember! Give them a inch and they will take a mile. Maybe it is give them an inch OR they will take a mile Wishful thinking. An analogy would be the crack in the dike story. Once the power of the sea breeches the wall....... Some folks must erroneously believe that we are dealing with reasonable opponents. Nope. We are dealing with emotionally driven irrational people. One give up will beget another. Anyone that doesn't get that can't be helped to see the truth or what is barreling down on our Second Amendment rights. Even a former Supreme Court Justice called for the repeal of the Second Amendment and he was appointed by a Republican President. Do you really believe this is a time to agree to any give up of our Constitutional rights? Nope again. It will only embolden the anti's. But then again some folks wear rose colored glasses and/or are in utter denial. Do you see that light at the end of the tunnel?...... Not referencing you Nathan btw. LOL!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 13:24:07 GMT -5
Parents, again. Most kids these days come from broken homes not just the goofy ones... I coached soccer (select) and baseball for 25 years. It was easy after the first practice or two which child came from a broken home (divorce). Very sad, there are so many divorces today. My wife sees it in school (teaches 9 yr old/4th grade). Most of it was self confidence and insecurity.
|
|