FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

This is but should not be, a thorny question for people.

My take is here (28 min audio): http://www.brainout.net/downloads/wma/2A.MP3 .

And here are 2 alternatives to the current useless legislation provoking #DemocratSitIn:
(23 mins) http://www.brainout.net/downloads/wma/2ABkgrndCks.MP3 and
(19 mins) http://www.brainout.net/downloads/wma/2AGunDraft.MP3 .

Crowder piece referred to in audio, is here: http://louderwithcrowder.com/reporter-t ... 2vFH3qJZ_k

What's your position, and even more importantly, WHY?

. .

. .

The Bill of Rights states that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed".

That tells me that the neither the federal or state gov't has the right to limit my "inalienable right" to purchase, build or own a fire arm whether its a full-auto or a BB gun. They have no right to impose a waiting period, no right to conduct a background check, no right to require a permit/registration/concealed carry permit.

We've seen with 'fast and furious' that the Feds have no problem with selling military grade weapons to known criminals, so why give them the right to choose for us?

As far as I'm concerned, any legislation restricting/regulating guns is already an infringement of the Bill of Rights. Too bad our authorities have less respect for law than we do.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Technically, you're right. I'm thinking though that we have to work with where we are now. Now, we have rules in place for background checks. I'm proposing a universal gun training program which would still allow those checks for anyone undertoing the training, so to make it more politically palatable. I'm thinking that after another generation when and if the population is pro-gun and mature enough, the background checks rule will be rescinded.

So the idea is to SHIFT the background checks to the LICENSING rather than to the firearm purchase. Once licensed, any firearm may be purchased with a valid license, just as you can buy insurance or cars with a valid license, etc.

Then ultimately with no firearm registration, the known purchases of guns will become low or zero, which is a #Libertarian goal.

In principle, your gradual shift idea seems good, but it can be dangerous. Once government is given authority, it is rarely given back.

Look at Colorado and the marijuana issue. Sure, Colorado legalized it, but the Feds have not. That means that no bank is willing to take dispensary money. Just a few days ago, a dispensary owner was murdered and robbed because the criminal knew that profits cannot be banked.

Let the gov't borrow an inch, and it will steal a mile.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Well, that's why only a Libertarian Pres would be best. True reversion of power to the states, true reduction in government and taxes, and while not all the goals will be achieved in one term, it makes the idea popular.

I'm not sure how I feel about legalizing drugs, but it seems like all these ideas can be allowed as pilot programs. As far as legalization itself goes, the Federal Government shouldn't have the right at ALL to say what drugs are legal, approved, whatever. I don't know why someone doesn't challenge that as unconstitutional.