This is epic

[fd15k]

Folks,

Remember I said in one of the recent threads that a state has an obligation to protect its citizens ? I don't remember which one it was, but it was in the context of getting training and such so that one doesn't get busted in a place like NYC for illegal possession of a firearm. So this just came out of Tennessee :

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HJR0585.pdf

And that's how it should be done

Read More

 

[drew]

A RESOLUTION urging the State of New York to use common
sense and sound judgment

I believe that's a lost cause. In the first sentence too.

 

[osterr1999]

This is pretty amazing.

 

[hermannr]

I Love the "make sure NY residents drive through TN safely and within the laws....." Until this is resolved, in the lady's favor, I would suspect if you have NY plates on your rig, you probably better not visit TN.

Good for the TN assembly!

I would suspect that an even more effective approach would be to add that the TN AG office is hereby authorized to represent this young lady in court in NY. The chance that a state might defend it's citizen in court, I think would make a difference because of the State's ability to carry the fight to the US Supreme Court. (this kind of action is not without precident)

 

[mkwerx]

That was indeed epic.

 

[Asp]

Wow! (I can't think of anything else to say)

 

[Stomper]

HELLZ YEAH!!

 

[Hawaiian]

The crazy thing is that Bloomberg is too dumb to realize how stupid this makes him look and how much justification he is providing for a National CCW bill to be passed.

Is this the kind of common sense the anti's are talking about when they ask for common sense gun control? Seems more like No Sense at all to me.

 

[fd15k]

The crazy thing is that Bloomberg is too dumb to realize how stupid this makes him look and how much justification he is providing for a National CCW bill to be passed.

Is this the kind of common sense the anti's are talking about when they ask for common sense gun control? Seems more like No Sense at all to me.

Whether we like it or not, antis have some common sense in their ideas of gun control, and antis are also a diverse group with different take on things. Problem is those ideas come in conflict with our beliefs. However, a person employing critical thinking should not disregard them as being illogical, or not being common sense.

Here is one example: background checks for all gun purchases. I know we enjoy paperless parking lot transactions, us being gun hobbyists. But some criminals also enjoy that as a source of firearms. The DOJ statistics shows that majority of guns in criminal hands don't come from such transactions. Should we completely disregard the problem then, because requiring FFL transfers for all guns would not 100% address source of firearms for criminals ? That's the question.

 

[Hawaiian]

I don't have a problem with the background checks. I know, I will probably get flamed for that statement on here. The kind of common sense gun control that scares me is the AWB, semi-auto ban, mag capasity limit, having all guns unloaded and locked in a safe even when at home.

 

[rur862]

Background checks WILL NOT prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns.

All the legislation in the world will not change the fact that a gun is a physical object and its physical ownership can be transferred from one person to another even if a background check is completely absent.

The whole notion of a background check aught to frighten us. Even though it may seem reasonable to some, don't forget that it is a tool of the government to be able to control who can have guns and who cannot.

When they are able to set the standard for gun ownership, they can make it as stringent as their interests dictate.

 

[fd15k]

Background checks WILL NOT prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns.

Nobody says background checks will prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. Instead the theory is it would be more difficult for them.

The whole notion of a background check aught to frighten us. Even though it may seem reasonable to some, don't forget that it is a tool of the government to be able to control who can have guns and who cannot.

We've had federal background checks for almost 20 years now, and individual states had them even earlier... Have there been any problems other than a few individuals getting false denials (due to inconsistencies in records, or miidentification) ?

When they are able to set the standard for gun ownership, they can make it as stringent as their interests dictate.

Except they can't set any standard they want - SCOTUS decisions have shown that.

 

[Swedish K]

odd - link seems to be dead - get nothing but a white page here

 

[fd15k]

odd - link seems to be dead - get nothing but a white page here

I've attached the document.

 

[Swedish K]

Hope they sent a copy to all TN Law Enforcement as well. I would hate to have a failure to follow through occur on the part of TN.

 

[fd15k]

Hope they sent a copy to all TN Law Enforcement as well. I would hate to have a failure to follow through occur on the part of TN.

Well, to be fair, it has just been introduced. But I sure hope it passes. Track the progress here :

Tennessee General Assembly » Legislation

 

[rur862]

Nobody says background checks will prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. Instead the theory is it would be more difficult for them.



We've had federal background checks for almost 20 years now, and individual states had them even earlier... Have there been any problems other than a few individuals getting false denials (due to inconsistencies in records, or miidentification) ?



Except they can't set any standard they want - SCOTUS decisions have shown that.

A government able to dictate who can own guns terrifies me much more than some hoodlum with a .22.

Also, if there is one thing the SCOTUS has shown us over the last 200 odd years it's that they cannot be relied upon to protect our constitutional rights.

Anyone who thinks that they don't have to worry about their rights being infringed because the supreme court will defend them is going to severely disappointed.

 

[fd15k]

A government able to dictate who can own guns terrifies me much more than some hoodlum with a .22.

Also, if there is one thing the SCOTUS has shown us over the last 200 odd years it's that they cannot be relied upon to protect our constitutional rights.

Anyone who thinks that they don't have to worry about their rights being infringed because the supreme court will defend them is going to severely disappointed.

Well, you have to connect with reality then. Government can, and will dictate who can own guns. Simply because the notion of rights is invented by that same government
for application within society. Here is a mental exercise : think of any one right that you may think you have that is unlimited and unregulated.

 

[Asp]

. Here is a mental exercise : think of any one right that you may think you have that is unlimited and unregulated.

Thinking
(Except in Soviet Russia)

 

[fd15k]

Thinking
(Except in Soviet Russia)

Breathing would be a better example then - it directly affects other members of society (through CO2 pollution) But legally I think it's part of the "right to life", and that one is regulated fair amount.