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

[Jonnyuma]

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.

100% agree... I just hate that government agents (even if they're on "my side") feel the need to use increased government money to sell it.
It burns my azz, it never convinces anyone, and it perpetuates the idea in low-info types that we citizens exist to feed their stupid, bloated beauracracy.

I'd like for ONE politician to say to the lefty opposition who (suddenly NOW is worried about the deficit) says, "What about the deficit?"..., "So What?". "Figure out how to fund your "progams'. Cut some sh*t. Stop sending $100+M to Guatamala every year. DO YOUR JOB!"

 

[Jonnyuma]

Also with "free speech" you allow violent rape porn, i

You're equating "violent rape porn" with political speech?
No, I'm not on board.

 

[3MTA3]

Government at all levels should be minimal and should contain itself to it's charter. Federal should supersede State, etc. down to the most local level following the guidance of the Tenth Amendment. The intent of the Federal Government was to be the glue that binds the States together allowing them to cooperate and arbitrate issues between them.

It was not intended for the Federal Government to rule the states, however this does not mean that States can ignore or violate the Constitution or it's Amendments. Thank God the Founders made certain inalienable Rights explicit when they added the Bill of Rights, or we would all be subjects of the States by this time.

As it is we inch ever closer to that status. Even with the very clear language and supporting documents of the Second Amendment, interpretation of those words has been all over the map by Judges at all levels causing our right to defend ourselves to be infringed one grain of sand at a time.

 

[Mister Bisley]

Good thread and conversation. I also believe that our right to self defense should not end at a state line. We are Americans first and residents to our state second. I too agree that each state should be able to run their government as they see fit. Government works better on a smaller scale and tailored to and for it's constituents, as long as it doesn't interfere with our natural rights.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Government at all levels should be minimal and should contain itself to it's charter.

With this post you pretty much have the last word, as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you for posting it coveniently right before I have to go to bed (night work). I may have been floundering aboot for the right words for another hr or so... you hit the nail squarely on it's head.

 

[3MTA3]

Good thread and conversation. I also believe that our right to self defense should not end at a state line. We are Americans first and residents to our state second. I too agree that each state should be able to run their government as they see fit. Government works better on a smaller scale and tailored to and for it's constituents, as long as it doesn't interfere with our natural rights.

Exactly. Keep means I can own it, and bear means I can carry it. If you prevent me from carrying it openly, then that means I can carry it concealed. In reality both type of carry should be considered Constitutional. Virtually every law restricting firearms was done for political reasons including the NFA.

 

[Argonaut]

You're equating "violent rape porn" with political speech?
No, I'm not on board.

The first amendment has nothing to do with "Political " speech (just like the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting) Free speech is a very simple concept .........it is about all speech.

 

[bolus]

Concealed carry permit holders, regardless of state, have the lowest rate of crime. When a politician says that they dont want reciprocity because other states are not as "strict" with their requirements, they are saying they dont trust the absolute best citizens in the country.

Just like Prozanski taking away the C&R FFL in Oregon. He targeted a group that I would argue are even safer, more law abiding citizens than conceal carry holders. Certainly better than police officers and much better than politicians.

We all know the politicians are not worried about conceal carry holders committing crimes (well, except for the really stupid politicians). Their actions are simply a punishment that they can enact on people better than them. For the purpose of keeping their jobs, keeping a position of power, keeping their source of political donations that they can funnel into their pockets.

Pol Pot did not slaughter teachers, doctors, engineers and people who wore glasses because they were dangerous people who risked hurting others.

Restricting rights in people who have proof that they are good citizens is simply cruel and oppressive government rule for the sake of power.

 

[justcuz]

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.

Alas argoaut, et al., ID works for Idahoians while in state bit the states citizens need the 'enhanced' permit eh?

 

[Argonaut]

Alas argoaut, et al., ID works for Idahoians while in state bit the states citizens need the 'enhanced' permit eh?

We need no permits.........constution all carry is the law of the land. The only people that want to carry in other states need the "enhanced" permit and that has nothing to do with Idaho......that is other state requirements.

 

[deadeye]

Please read and understand (thread closed)

Site rules:
1. Be excellent to each other
Though this may sound a little 'out there', we couldn't phrase it better than our sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln (captured on VHS circa 1989).

Websters defines excellent as "unusually good" or "much better than average". Our goal of welcoming all gun owners means you're likely to find a diverse group here. Going above and beyond when interacting with others you may disagree with is not easy, but it is a condition of your membership. You don't have to be warm and cuddly, but you do have to be courteous and respectful. When things get heated, simply avoid using the word you.

How you treat others here is a direct reflection on all gun owners, and believe us, people are watching. Opting for the high road is always the best choice, and arguing on the internet is pointless. Since we don't have time to babysit, we don't care who started it; most heated discussions result in both parties receiving a reminder. Continued friction between members is best dealt with via the ignore button.

This rule is purposely vague to inclusively prohibit a wide variety of rude, malicious, catty, sarcastic, hurtful, hateful, spiteful, barbed, and ornery behavior within the Northwest Firearms community including:

• General rudeness and disrespect (as outlined above).
• Epithets, labels, and generalizations against another person or group of people, whether they are members here or not. These serve absolutely no purpose other than to divide us, directly opposite to our goal of uniting gun owners. This is especially relevant in regard to political labels (such as 'the liberal media', 'those right-wingers', and even 'left/right'). Pro-gun and anti-gun are the only labels that should be applied here, as we are a single issue community. This rule also applies to but is not limited to epithets, labels, and generalizations pertaining to race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, ethnicity, nationality, occupation (such as law enforcement), and every other one you can think of. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etcetra is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a vegetarian, so what would you know about hunting?".
• Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another member.
• Comparing members to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons.
• Accusations about personal behavior. If you believe a person's personal behavior is questionable, on or off the site, please contact a moderator.
• Giving out personal information about another member, such as name, phone number, address, etc.
  
  
  
• Threats, including, but not limited to:
  • Threats of legal action.
  • Threats of violence or other off-site action (particularly death threats).
  • Threats of physical or electronic vandalism.
  • Threats or actions which deliberately expose other members to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.
  • Threats to give out personal information about another member.

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging another member is prohibited regardless of the manner in which it is done.

2. Religious and non-firearm political content is prohibited
We are a single-issue organization, focused solely on bringing people together in support of the 2nd Amendment. Religious and political content is inherently divisive, working against the very goals of our organization. This includes news-related content that our staff believes may cause division. This rule applies to the site in its entirety, including the Off Topic section.

It is important to note that firearm-related political content is not prohibited. However, clear attempts to fabricate this relation may be considered a rule violation.