How many members here believe States should be able to infringe on our constitutional rights?

[arakboss]

Today I read a comment on a thread here regarding a member approving of States being able to decide their own rules on reciprocity. How many others here share this view? If you share this view what other rights do you think the States should be able to infringe up on?

Read More

 

[GOG]

I think the states, like the federal government should stick to their business as outlined in the National and State Constitutions and let the people make their own decisions and lead their own lives. In return we will provide funds and sadly our Blood and Treasure. Capisce?

In other words, we'll do our part as we always do but it's time to back off because people are pissed.

 

[Jonnyuma]

I think a responsible and law abiding gun owner and CCer is highly unlikely to become irresponsible and prone to criminality by stepping over an arbitrary line.
State border, university campus, post office, gun-free zone, whatever.

 

[arakboss]

I think the states, like the federal government should stick to their business as outlined in the National and State Constitutions and let the people make their own decisions and lead their own lives. In return we will provide funds and sadly our Blood and Treasure. Capisce?

In other words, we'll do our part as we always do but it's time to back off because people are pissed.

I agree. I am all for States going their own way managing their affairs but not when it violates or infringes up on our constitutionally protected rights. A law abiding citizen of this country should be able to carry open or concealed in the entire country. National Reciprocity would be a compromise. A right to defend ones self should not end at a State line.

 

[The Heretic]

It depends on the issue - gun rights, I predict few would believe in infringing. Other rights, I am betting a lot.

The only real thing that really differentiates conservatives and liberals is what rights they believe the government should infringe.

On the left they typically want guns banned and taking your money to give to others - oh, and banning certain kinds of speech (including porn because they say it degrades women). On the right, they want porn banned because their church and leaders say it is a sin to look upon it (while they, the leaders, look upon it), and anything gay/et. al., because that too is a 'sin' (while they, the leaders, are often secretly gay, or molest children), and they want to ban drugs, because:



While they, the leaders, do drugs. The liberals seem split on that issue.

Conservatives generally want 'obscene' speech limited because it is bad to cuss (while they make racial slurs in private).

Libertarians on the other hand, believe in maximum liberty and minimum government.

It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

 

[justcuz]

Today I read a comment on a thread here regarding a member approving of States being able to decide their own rules on reciprocity. How many others here share this view? If you share this view what other rights do you think the States should be able to infringe up on?

So, to quantify my understanding of your post - you feel the federal legislators should decide reciprocity not states?

If that is your perspective, pray tell which State's CC training standards would be mandated by the Federal Legislators, NM's 16 hour, w/ live fire, course which includes deconfliction segment as well as limits NM's citizens to a singular caliber to carry unless another segment is added to the course; NC's 8 hour + live fire exercises; oh perhaps UT or VA's 4 hour w/no live fire exercises; perhaps any of those states which has no training whatsoever - pays ur $$$ get ur CC!

Speaking of $$$, like I was...how much goes to the state's profit center and how much goes to the Fed's profit center?

Sorry, with limited exceptions the states have done a fine job of buggering up citizens firearm carry rights, now you wish the Feds to intercede and str8en out the mess for the wellbeing of the nation's citizens - really?

 

[Stomper]

Yeah as an example, the Feds really bubblegummed up civil rights, huh?





(in case anyone missed it... that was sarcasm... )

 

[Legs]

I may reside in Oregon but I am a citizen of the United States of America. Our Constitution rules! On that note, my right to self defense should not end at a state line.

 

[Jonnyuma]

The only real thing that really differentiates conservatives and liberals is what rights they believe the government should infringe.

I believe that the rise in (small L) libertarianism has pushed much of the evangelical authoriarianism out of conservative politics and my personal opinion is that we are better for it. The examples posted above seem extreme and outdated.

When I lived in AZ Howard Stern showed up on the radio in 1990-something. As you would expect, the protests began immediately and I remember listening to a caller into the show from AZ complaining that Stern may soon be forced off the air... "This is such a conservative place", he whined. What the twit failed to realize before he yapped is that it was ALL LIBERALS who were doing the protesting, boycotting, and noise-making. Business as usual for the Mob, it's what they do.

Been to a good evangelical right-wing book burning lately? Seen any big turnouts for anti-gay protests? Official right-wing anti-porn crusades? How 'bout conservative protests that end in riots without the aid of leftist-fascist Antifa bomb-throwers? I'm about 100% sure that if those things were happening it'd be "Headline News", you'd hear about it whether you wanted to or not... the miscast "right-wing" vehicular murder in Charlottesville last summer proved that.

Freedom, rights, and personal liberties are being stifled and restricted by one side in contemporary America. That side wants to create NEW "rights" such as healthcare and open immigration (that you and I must provide) while denying actual Constitutional rights (which conversely and by design, require no provisions be made by another party) protected by the Bill of Rights. It's not 6 of one, half a dozen of the other... it's a leftist offensive to purge the town square of free speech and opposition. To demonize and marginalize "the other". To institute full spectrum control, centralized government, and Stalin-style eradication of the opposition.

It's too damn ironic and scary to be funny that "The Resistance" is all about MORE government control. They call themselves Anti-fascist while advocating for NAZI-ism, socialism, and communism.
They think they will be exempt from it's horrors. They are wrong. The very definition of Useful Idiots should include Antifa, CNN, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, and of course, communist and former Obama CIA chief John Brennan.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Legal wording / ideas are strange at times...
Here in Washington , my Hawken rifle copy is considered a antique firearm , the same as my original St.Louis rifle made circa 1840's -1850's.
Yet...
In Illinois because my Hawken was made in 1997 it needs a FFL to bought , sold or traded...just like any other modern gun.
Did my rifle suddenly change ... just 'cause I went across the country with it...?

The same can be said for my AR15...to me its just a Carbine and here in Washington , it is at the moment , not banned or restricted...but in some parts of the country , it has features that make it banned or restricted...
But again the rifle itself does not change...it is still just a AR15 Carbine.

I understand that needs are different across the nation and what may work in one part of America may not work in other parts...
With that said...
We have a system and documents in place that spell out the way things are supposed to be.
A long look at what actually works within that system and just what those words in those documents really meant to those that wrote them and how we today as Americans view them needs to be done.
Andy

 

[arakboss]

So, to quantify my understanding of your post - you feel the federal legislators should decide reciprocity not states?

If that is your perspective, pray tell which State's CC training standards would be mandated by the Federal Legislators, NM's 16 hour, w/ live fire, course which includes deconfliction segment as well as limits NM's citizens to a singular caliber to carry unless another segment is added to the course; NC's 8 hour + live fire exercises; oh perhaps UT or VA's 4 hour w/no live fire exercises; perhaps any of those states which has no training whatsoever - pays ur $$$ get ur CC!

Speaking of $$$, like I was...how much goes to the state's profit center and how much goes to the Fed's profit center?

Sorry, with limited exceptions the states have done a fine job of buggering up citizens firearm carry rights, now you wish the Feds to intercede and str8en out the mess for the wellbeing of the nation's citizens - really?

Neither. We should have the freedom to carry without a license.

 

[bbbass]

I believe......... I made my views known in the other thread.

 

[11Charlie]

I believe......... I made my views known in the other thread.

Copy and paste brother because I didn't read it!

 

[11Charlie]

I should be able to walk into any store, in any state, carrying what ever I want in a holster under my shirt if I so choose! No State or elected government official should be able to tell us that we can't PERIOD!

 

[Argonaut]

We (Idaho) are about as federal constitutionally pure state as there is. The constution is pretty simple and allows for great freedom overall, it is when revisionist judges get involved it gets sticky. Another reason we need strict constructionist (Trump) judges. that being said, the document can be a two edged sword, Freedom of speech for instance requires allowing people to talk even on subjects you disagree with (there is no right that anyone has to listen)..............we do tend to mix up laws and rights. They are very different things.

 

[Jonnyuma]

I've read it stated here on NWFA (and other fori... ?) that locals could and/or should be leery of "out-of-staters" walking around armed. Why?

When discussing "public safety", funding government through taxation*, entitlement programs, health care, etc, people (even "conservatives") tend to lose sight of the fact that we are a free society. We're not subjects, we're not run by the government. We... run... it. And if we have the will and some backbone it will continue that way. The Constitution was written by men who were suspicious of government and it's inevitable tendancy to overreach. We owe them nothing.

*It always infuriates me (overstatement, it's actually just very annoying) when proponents of a tax cut claim it will increase revenues to the Fed, therefore it's a great idea. Newsflash: I DON'T CARE if it increases revenue. I do not exist in this world to provide revenue for the government machine! If revenue goes down, CUT Spending! Deal with it. If it goes up, cut taxes MORE! I could give a sh*t what it does to revenue as far as my participation goes... I am not a human battery in your Matrix machine and you are not entitled to the fruits of my labor simply because you want it.

 

[Argonaut]

I've read it stated here on NWFA (and other fori... ?) that locals could and/or should be leery of "out-of-staters" walking around armed. Why?

When discussing "public safety", funding government through taxation*, entitlement programs, health care, etc, people (even "conservatives") tend to lose sight of the fact that we are a free society. We're not subjects, we're not run by the government. We... run... it. And if we have the will and some backbone it will continue that way. The Constitution was written by men who were suspicious of government and it's inevitable tendancy to overreach. We owe them nothing.

*It always infuriates me (overstatement, it's actually just very annoying) when proponents of a tax cut claim it will increase revenues to the Fed, therefore it's a great idea. Newsflash: I DON'T CARE if it increases revenue. I do not exist in this world to provide revenue for the government machine! If revenue goes down, CUT Spending! Deal with it. If it goes up, cut taxes MORE! I could give a sh*t what it does to revenue as far as my participation goes... I am not a human battery in your Matrix machine and you are not entitled to the fruits of my labor simply because you want it.

I agree about your tax issue.........but you are confusing rhetoric designed to attract opponents to your side with principle. The fact is, tax cuts do usually increase revenue but they also increase liberty and freedom. So, allow the tax cutting politicians there arguments, the bottom line is, tax cuts improve the quality of life for everyone.

 

[Alan12013]

I'm fine with whatever as long as we get our culture in check. Since that wont happen, I'm more in-line with "cultural originalist interpretation" of the constitution. For instance I support stop and frisk yet and censorship yet I do not support many gun and peripheral regulations.

 

[Jonnyuma]

...the document can be a two edged sword, Freedom of speech for instance requires allowing people to talk even on subjects you disagree with...

I haven't seen anyone attempting to shut-down left-wing speech. Plenty of instances of the reverse.
I don't live in a vacuum or echo chamber, I view and listen to as much leftist propaganda as I can, and I can't recall a single valid example of conservatives attempting to stifle a liberal's 1A rights.

OTOH, a quick Google search will net you dozens of conservative speakers being shouted-down, run out of town, having their events cancelled, as well as Google itself, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram censoring right of center speech.

The sword seems to be a little dull on that second edge, brother.

 

[Alan12013]

I haven't seen anyone attempting to shut-down left-wing speech. Plenty of instances of the reverse.
I don't live in a vacuum or echo chamber, I view and listen to as much leftist propaganda as I can, and I can't recall a single valid example of conservatives attempting to stifle a liberal's 1A rights.

OTOH, a quick Google search will net you dozens of conservative speakers being shouted-down, run out of town, having their events cancelled, as well as Google itself, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram censoring right of center speech.

The sword seems to be a little dull on that second edge, brother.

It has been looked into. On college campuses almost all protests regarding speakers comes from the "left" of the speaker in question. Very sharp on one side and not the other. Also with "free speech" you allow violent rape porn, intentional and efficient propaganda, etc.