Close
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    ssf467
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sniper7 View Post
    obvious tactics by the dems to try and control everything each person does in their life.
    Bush & the GOP did more to get us into the Police/Nanny state then the Dems in the last 15 years.

  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    TN/ ex-CO
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssf467 View Post
    Bush & the GOP did more to get us into the Police/Nanny state then the Dems in the last 15 years.
    Agreed!

  3. #3
    Plinker
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    66

    Default

    But nothing so far here in Colorado correct?

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbeal View Post
    But nothing so far here in Colorado correct?
    No nothing here in CO yet, but state laws like this affect every other state. If 25 of the 50 states pass stupidity like this, manufacturers have to make choices, do it, not sell in those states, or just shut down. The anti's win with all three choices. If the manufacturers comply, then the anti's get to go onto the next step in the slow bleed to gun ownership death.

    This is how it happened in England. This is how it happened in Australia.

    Oh ya, I can't believe I failed to mention this part of it all earlier...
    How is LE supposed to figure out who owns the gun that left the microstamped brass? Hypothetically, the law passed, murder occurred, brass was found with a S/N on it. OK, now what? The cops are going to say it's worthless info. Dem's are going to say they now need a central registry of all firearms S/N's and who owns them so LE can match up the info faster.

  5. #5
    ssf467
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SA Friday View Post
    No nothing here in CO yet, but state laws like this affect every other state. If 25 of the 50 states pass stupidity like this, manufacturers have to make choices, do it, not sell in those states, or just shut down. The anti's win with all three choices. If the manufacturers comply, then the anti's get to go onto the next step in the slow bleed to gun ownership death.

    This is how it happened in England. This is how it happened in Australia.

    Oh ya, I can't believe I failed to mention this part of it all earlier...
    How is LE supposed to figure out who owns the gun that left the microstamped brass? Hypothetically, the law passed, murder occurred, brass was found with a S/N on it. OK, now what? The cops are going to say it's worthless info. Dem's are going to say they now need a central registry of all firearms S/N's and who owns them so LE can match up the info faster.
    It's never been about enforcement, but control. Look around and see the control grid being in placed. This will not happen, but a treaty will be ratified and then your 2A will be dead finally.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssf467 View Post
    It's never been about enforcement, but control. Look around and see the control grid being in placed. This will not happen, but a treaty will be ratified and then your 2A will be dead finally.
    According to Article 6 of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified has to comply with the US Constitution to be legal. So, they will have to repeal the 2nd ammendment (as they did with the 18th ammendment with the inception of the 21st ammendment) BEFORE the treaty would be legal or enforceable. If they repealed the 2nd ammendment, the treaty would be irrelevant at that point, and more than likely the US would be in or on the brink of a second civil war.

  7. #7
    Paper Hunter
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Aurora
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SA Friday View Post
    According to Article 6 of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified has to comply with the US Constitution to be legal. So, they will have to repeal the 2nd ammendment (as they did with the 18th ammendment with the inception of the 21st ammendment) BEFORE the treaty would be legal or enforceable. If they repealed the 2nd ammendment, the treaty would be irrelevant at that point, and more than likely the US would be in or on the brink of a second civil war.

    Thank you.... +1 for being somewhat informed....

  8. #8
    ssf467
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SA Friday View Post
    According to Article 6 of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified has to comply with the US Constitution to be legal. So, they will have to repeal the 2nd ammendment (as they did with the 18th ammendment with the inception of the 21st ammendment) BEFORE the treaty would be legal or enforceable. If they repealed the 2nd ammendment, the treaty would be irrelevant at that point, and more than likely the US would be in or on the brink of a second civil war.
    Look at the last 2 decisions on the 2A. Yes it's an individual right, yes it can be regulated. So with that frame of reference, the treaty would be constitutional. So I don't have to repeal the 2A, but regulate it. The gun restrictions coming will be gradual. Look to the UK.

  9. #9
    Iceman sniper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    16,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssf467 View Post
    Bush & the GOP did more to get us into the Police/Nanny state then the Dems in the last 15 years.

    But how much of that really came from pelosi as speaker of the house.

    I truly believe if we could get her out of there things would change drastically for the better.

    Everyone likes to blame the guy at the top, but there are too many people below and around Bush that made things bad, but Bush took the blame for it all.
    All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break em for no one.

    My Feedback

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •