Maybe we gun owners should think like pot heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flatline

So because they do something somewhere else we should do it here?

---

No, I was merely showing where what was suggested has been done before with an 'out' for those that don't wish to participate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flatline

You want to force people to have to buy guns, or will the government be providing these. This sounds a bit like forcing people to have health insurance. Just because something might be good for people doesn't mean you should force them to do it.

And honestly some people probably shouldn't be forced to own guns. What about people who have violent felonies, shall we allow them to have guns or force them to move out? What about people with deep mental health issues(I'm not trying to start a debate, so assume some crazed homicidal maniac who has made open statements), should they be forced to have guns or move out?

---

Of course you would need to purchase your own gun, I wouldn't want the government telling me what kind of gun i need to own (or cannot own).
You're wrong. Its not like forcing health insurance at all. If you don't want to own and posess a gun, you don't have to live here. However, if you don't want to participate in forced health insurance, you don't have an option at all, we're all part off the health care program now. There is a huge difference in local & federal government.

If you read my original post, lawful citizens would be the posessors of said guns. If you're not "lawful", I personally don't want you here to walk the streets with my family.

My point is this...

Unless you have been under a rock, you can surely recognize that the opposing party will stop at nothing to further thier political agenda. We must act where we can while we can to promote and protect our liberties and the constitution.

Kevin

While I do have reservations about the specific proposals made here so far, we should constantly press the victim disarmament crowd with our own initiatives. Thus, they will be the ones forced to 'compromise' in the direction of increased Liberty, rather than us 'compromising' away our rights, as has been the case from the birth of the Republic.

The more radical the proposal, the better it will be. It is way past time to use the Fabian dynamic against the collectivists, instead of stupidly standing by while they rope-a-dope us with that tactic. And, don't forget, it's 'for the children', especially in light of the kindergarten massacre that one teacher, other school staffer or even a visiting parent could have prevented had their fundamental right to self defense not been illegally (a statute that violates the Constitution or exceeds the legislature's authority is NOT a law) stripped from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiloDeltaDelta

You're wrong. Its not like forcing health insurance at all. If you don't want to own and posess a gun, you don't have to live here.

---

What about conscientious objectors? Pacifists? Quakers?

And why should someone need to jump through your hoops to live in his own home? Have you bought and paid for his house?

centrarchidae,

Come on, you should know better than to bring (gasp!) PRINCIPLES into a political discussion - how quaintly Jeffersonian...

KiloKiloDelta: Your idea is no good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiloDeltaDelta

Of course you would need to purchase your own gun, I wouldn't want the government telling me what kind of gun i need to own (or cannot own).
You're wrong. Its not like forcing health insurance at all. If you don't want to own and posess a gun, you don't have to live here. However, if you don't want to participate in forced health insurance, you don't have an option at all, we're all part off the health care program now. There is a huge difference in local & federal government.

---

It is exactly like forcing health insurance. Your want to force someone to buy something because you think it will benefit society/themselves/yourself/whatever. The reality is that you want to reduce others liberty through your authoritarian desires.

And by the way, telling someone that if they don't like they can leave does not preserve their liberty. I heard that there are some countries south of the border that don't have public health care or mandatory insurance and you can go ahead and leave based on your logic. Does that feel like liberty to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiloDeltaDelta

If you read my original post, lawful citizens would be the posessors of said guns. If you're not "lawful", I personally don't want you here to walk the streets with my family.

---

How do you plan to make sure that only lawful citizens have guns and the rest leave? On that note how do you suggest that the government ensure that all lawful citizens posses said firearm? What will you do with those who are not in compliance? Deportation or fines?

Do you think that we should just ship out all of our felons? What about if all the other states enact the same legislation? What do you suggest then?
The reality is that there are people who were at one period were 'unlawful' who walk the streets everyday. Some haven't changed a single bit and shouldn't be in society, however many have reformed their lives and have earned their liberty. Or maybe you think that someone who was caught with one tab of x should get a life sentence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiloDeltaDelta

My point is this...

Unless you have been under a rock, you can surely recognize that the opposing party will stop at nothing to further thier political agenda. We must act where we can while we can to promote and protect our liberties and the constitution.

Kevin

---

You are suggesting that you can impart legislation that would violate a person's freedom of choice and create a government that regulates further the aspects of daily life. The does not promote nor protect our liberties or the constitution but instead does the opposite. Your trying to tell people how to live their lives just like the opposing party that you accuse of doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperiorDG

http://delivery.tacticalrepublic.com...TM&cb=70940880

Perhaps this would work:

South Carolina Lawmaker Reintroduces Bill to Exempt State from Federal Gun Ban 12/28/12 | by S.H. Blannelberry 15 6384

South Carolina Sen. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg) has reintroduced a bill that would exempt any firearm, accessory or ammunition manufactured and kept within the borders of the Palmetto State from federal regulations.

Invoking states rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Bright’s legislation – known as the ‘South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act’ – states:
“A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in South Carolina and that remains within the borders of South Carolina is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”
“Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition,” the bill adds.
http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploa...ut_graph1.jpegFirearms Freedom Act

The ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ movement has its origins in Montana, where a gun maker by the name of Gary Marbut got sick and tired of the federal government’s overreach with respect to his business. After closely examining the Constitution, in particular the commerce clause, Marbut conceived the Firearms Freedom Act in 2009.
“This is really about state’s rights and federal power rather than gun control,” Marbut told the Wall Street Journal in a 2011 interview. “There is an emerging awareness by the people of America that the federal government has gone too far, and it’s dependent on a really weird interpretation” (for more on this, click here).
The Montana FFA is now being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Yet, despite the uncertainty of its fate, at least 7 other states have passed a clone version of the bill as its made its way through the courts.
Sen. Bright had previously introduced the SC FFA during the 2011-2012 legislative session. However, it died after being referred to a committee.
http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploa...2/opinion.jpegSen. Lee Bright

Given recent events, the elementary school shooting in Newtown, CT, and the subsequent calls for gun control at the Federal level (Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s promise to renew the Assault Weapons Ban), Bright sees support for the bill gaining momentum.
“A lot of people are showing a lot of interest in it. We’ve got a better chance now than we had previously,” Bright told SHJ.com, adding that, “There are a lot of folks that are against the Second Amendment and want to restrict people’s guns rights, and this is just one they seized.”
South Carolina is home to several gun manufacturers and firearms-related businesses, most notably FN Manufacturing. The Columbia-based operation produces an array of different products, from handguns to barrels for .50 caliber machine guns (for more on this, click here).
Again, just to clarify, if the SC FFA were to be signed into law, with few exceptions, none of FN’s products would be subject to federal law provided they were stamped with “Made in South Carolina” (a requirement of the bill) and kept within the state’s borders.
Sounds like a good deal, right?
State lawmakers will reconvene in Columbia on Jan. 8. Let’s hope they give the FFA some serious consideration.

---

... +1