Posted on 03/23/2010 2:03:43 PM PDT by BCR #226
I’ve already sent it our to our email list!
Thanks! Now, let’s see what our party does...
Thanks Joe. BANG!
Well, I agree with the program, but my "elected officials" are Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and Norm Dicks. So sending them this is like trying to piss upwind during a hurricane.
I have felt your pain... (pardon the phrase...).
I used to have to deal with the leftist RINO’s in Northern Virginia.
1. Repeal of the 1934 NFA. 2. Repeal of the Hughes Amendment USC 18 922 (o). 3. Repeal of the "special purpose" clause of the 1968 Gun Control Act. 4. Nation wide recognition of concealed carry documentation for ALL people. 5. Major Congressional hearings, oversight and investigation into the conduct and abuse of power by the BATFE.
Oh please. The people are concerned with 20% actual unemployment, and the country going bankrupt, not arcane amendments to gun control laws. Frankly, I am as pro-2A as anyone, and I'm not sure what 2 and 3 are. They may be very, very important to you, but Hell, half the people don't even know if they approve of Nancy Pelosi or not.
CCW permit-holders number about 5 million nationally, IIRC. Do you have any numbers on violent felons? Vermont and Alaska haven't had any problems with concealed carry rights. Arizona and Wyoming are hoping to join them this year.
Once the McDonald decision says that all citizens, eventually with a minor number of exceptions such as violent felons and psychiatric patients deemed a threat to themselves or others, have the right to keep and bear arms.
I expect that restrictions on concealed carry privileges will go the way of the poll tax. I don't see open carry being very popular in cities. You don't pay for a right. Cities won't want to pay the costs of administering concealed carry rights.
>CCW permit-holders number about 5 million nationally, IIRC. Do you have any numbers on violent felons?
I don’t. But I disagree with the idea that Ex-felons shouldn’t have the right to bear firearms or vote; either they have “paid their debt” to society by serving their term [and therefore should have ALL rights, liberties, and privileges restored], or they have not, in which case the sentence itself was unjust.
Even more disturbing than the disbarring/abridging of the right to keep and bear arms of ex-felons is that right can be abridged for “domestic violence” misdemeanor convictions; IIRC, even the _accusation_ of domestic violence in some places.
>Vermont and Alaska haven’t had any problems with concealed carry rights. Arizona and Wyoming are hoping to join them this year.
Oh, don’t get me wrong I have nothing against conceal-carry; I’m just of the opinion that every state should be able to decide whether to recognize it as a right, via their state-constitution Bill of Rights, or to license/restrict it.
>Once the McDonald decision says that all citizens, eventually with a minor number of exceptions such as violent felons and psychiatric patients deemed a threat to themselves or others, have the right to keep and bear arms.
The problem I have with “psychiatric patients deemed a threat” is that of political correctness, I’ve heard different people claiming that conservative [or liberalism] are mental disorders... if either is EVER found to be the case: Bad Things WILL Happen.
>I expect that restrictions on concealed carry privileges will go the way of the poll tax. I don’t see open carry being very popular in cities.
I don’t really follow you here...
>You don’t pay for a right. Cities won’t want to pay the costs of administering concealed carry rights.
That’s only applicable if the Constitution of whichever state recognizes _concealed_ carry as a right; they may not. My state’s Constitution specifically bars ANY city or county law/ordnance regarding keeping and bearing arms; further, it binds the state itself from making laws abridging the right to keep and bear arms with this disclaimer: “But nothing herein shall be construed to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”
>If you can get that tape for me, I can make it go nuclear. We need to talk later.
I would be interested in seeing that video as well.
You have to rid the country of the idea of ‘corporate rights’ if you want the Constitution and individual rights to be restored.
A corporation will always have more money and can pay people to influence legislators. Most citizens don’t. When the supreme court said that corporations could donate money to political campaigns it suddenly got very expensive to run for office, and the politicians stopped listening to you when you called. You don’t count when there are global corporations worth billions buying and selling candidates and offices. Of course, all legislation will support them— hence multiculturalism, political correctness, loss of sovereignty to plague our society.
No, actually, the border problems will grow much worse as the agents start realizing the outside tax free income potential from outsourcing their skills to the drug cartels.
There was once a proposal to fold the BATFE into the US Marshals and the chief Marshal said to that: Q: What do you get when you mix clean water with dirty water? Answer: You get DIRTY WATER, so ... I don't want them! That conversation ended pretty much the same way as agency after agency was approached (including the FBI) to accept the poor little misunderstood Jackbooted Thugs into their midst. Even other Feds know this group of fanatics are chosen for their attitudes and willingness to act in a lawless manner when it comes to the rights of citizens. This is well underscored in freeper Travis McGee's novel trilogy.
If you don’t understand why now, I won’t even bother trying to enlighten you.
I think you miss my point. It’s farcial to use “We the People” on a list of demands, when the vast majority of people don’t know what they are, or care much. Unfortunately most people don’t care one way or another about the points you raise. That being the case, addressing your letter as coming from “we the people” smacks of silly hyperbole and relegates you to fringe status.
Good spiel BCR. I know my rep agrees with you, but I will send it to him anyway.
Thanks for the ping.
Corporate rights are human rights. Your position is absurd.
The problem isn’t corporations (a communistic position), but big government - not measured only in dollars, but in scope, influence and size.
Corporations cannot have ‘rights’ under the Constitution.
Big government got that way because corporations have made it so, taking over the political process and using corporate monies( which are far greater that what the average citizen can produce from his own wages) to elect and bribe politicians.
Are you an American citizen? If you were, and had the smallest understanding of this country and the reasons it was founded, you would also see that the advance of global communism is also powered by the growth of corporate power in our government and transnationally. Global corporations love communism, it provides cheap labor and government control of the labor.
You’re projecting to say that citizens who oppose corporatist control of government are taking a communistic position.
OK, so what would you do with corporations (other than strip them of their rights)?
What I am interested in knowing is how does a corporation free world function?
Where do you get the idea corporations have ‘rights’?
I am very curious to know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.