[alsaqr]

To call a conservative with some neo-con leanings (open borders) and a few lefty thoughts (man-made global warming) a "socialist" totally erodes the word's meaning.

What would you call a so called "conservative" who teamed up with Joe Lieberman to introduce a "gunshow loophole" bill that was really draconian gun control at its worst? McCain did just that.

Gun Show Bill Secrets Found

[billdeserthills]

Originally Posted by alsaqr

What would you call a so called "conservative" who teamed up with Joe Lieberman to introduce a "gunshow loophole" bill that was really draconian gun control at its worst? McCain did just that.

Gun Show Bill Secrets Found

Not only that, but while that legislation was being thought on I found out that most of the other dealers at the gun show at that time were Not the Patriots I had always assumed most FFL's to be. Instead these greedy bastards couldn't wait for the massive windfall of money they thought FFL's were gonna soon make charging big bucks to do the new "Legal Transfers" coming to a gunshow nearby soon. Pissed me off to no end, I'm still waiting for Mr "I Swore An Oath to Follow The Constitution" Lying Sack of Poop McCain to Drop Dead and right now won't be too soon for me!

[Swampbilly]

Originally Posted by billdeserthills

Not only that, but while that legislation was being thought on I found out that most of the other dealers at the gun show at that time were Not the Patriots I had always assumed most FFL's to be. Instead these greedy bastards couldn't wait for the massive windfall of money they thought FFL's were gonna soon make charging big bucks to do the new "Legal Transfers" coming to a gunshow nearby soon. Pissed me off to no end, I'm still waiting for Mr "I Swore An Oath to Follow The Constitution" Lying Sack of Poop McCain to Drop Dead and right now won't be too soon for me!

That is truly sad, and I would not hesitate to voice my thoughts on that to an FFL I witness overcome with greed to the point of crapping on the very Second Amendment Rights they claim to champion.

Just goes to show you money and greed corrupts and many humans possess very corruptible personalities...unfortunately, many end up in the political system.


Regards,

Swampbilly

[Steve32]

Originally Posted by clip11

So I was at the gun shop paying on my pistol today. As some of you may know, here in Michigan you need a permit to purchase a pistol. Well here in Detroit, it was free. Today I found out that now they charge ten dollars. What will it take to get government to recognize the 2nd amendment? I thought we had a right to bear and keep arms. With CPL permits and purchase permits, it gets more like a privilege to bear arms. When will it change? How can we get it to change?

I would like to buy a pistol or a revolver, but it looks too complicated here in MI. Permit here, license there, go to the police station answer questions, etc. I bought a rifle, that was simple.

And really, $10? You're complaining about a $10 fee for a permit on a handgun?

I think the point is, if it's a right, you shouldn't pay for it. Not even a cent.

The other point, if they ask $10 now, maybe they ask $25 next year or a $100, few years later.

Now they ask money for a handgun purchase permit. What next? You need freedom of speech permit and you must pay for it? That's the same category.

Look at Europe. People can't buy firearms there. Even the air rifles and airsoft toys are regulated. (If those are stronger than 7,5 Joule, it's 2 years in prison.) People have gas pistols and rubber ball pistols there. But they must ask license from the police. And the license is not $10, more like a $100.

[rjd3282]

I never did understand how poor people fall for the dems BS about being the poor and working mans friend. They want to steal everything the working man makes. They want to tax business so heavily they leave the country or simply close.
If defending yourself is a right (and it is)then a tax(permit) to own or carry a firearm is depriving the poor from defending themselves. Doesn't sound very friendly to me. As far as calling mccain a socialist, I have to agree that isn't the correct word. He was in the military he swore an oath to protect the constitution and now he attacks the constitution. In my book that makes him a traitor. I know he was a POW and war hero but that does not excuse his behavior now. I don't recall being released from my oath and niether was he.
Now for the post from the guy from Arizona bragging about Arizona has wonderful gunrights because they throw the bums out. Please sir throw mccain out he is after all from Arizona and you people voted him into office.

[billdeserthills]

Originally Posted by rjd3282

I never did understand how poor people fall for the dems BS about being the poor and working mans friend. They want to steal everything the working man makes. They want to tax business so heavily they leave the country or simply close.
If defending yourself is a right (and it is)then a tax(permit) to own or carry a firearm is depriving the poor from defending themselves. Doesn't sound very friendly to me. As far as calling mccain a socialist, I have to agree that isn't the correct word. He was in the military he swore an oath to protect the constitution and now he attacks the constitution. In my book that makes him a traitor. I know he was a POW and war hero but that does not excuse his behavior now. I don't recall being released from my oath and niether was he.
Now for the post from the guy from Arizona bragging about Arizona has wonderful gunrights because they throw the bums out. Please sir throw mccain out he is after all from Arizona and you people voted him into office.

I'd love to see McCain tossed out. Where was you when voting McCain&Palin in coulda gave that old POS a goddam heart attack & finished off the ol' constitution attacking SOB. That is, I agree

[corrinavatan]

Originally Posted by Steve32

I think the point is, if it's a right, you shouldn't pay for it. Not even a cent.

You DO have the right to bear arms. However, if you want to bear a handgun in detroit, you pay a fee. I assume that there is no fee on, say, a knife, or a sword, or a crossbow.

Let's extrapolate your argument. Using your logic, I should be able to own an M1A1 Abrams without paying any type of fee. (I'm not sure if you have to register a tank at the DMV, but for the sake of argument, let's assume you don't.).

Let's also take a look at what the fee DOES.

1. The revenue goes somewhere. According to what I can find out about detroit, part of the money goes to conservation efforts, part of it goes to a fund for officers slain in the line of duty, some of it goes to pay for Detroit's/Michigan's state-sponsored ranges.
2. It allows everyone involved with the sale of the firearm to know that the person with the permit to purchase IS ACTUALLY ALLOWED to own a firearm. I assume that it should be impossible for, say, a convicted violent felon to get a permit.

Originally Posted by Steve32

The other point, if they ask $10 now, maybe they ask $25 next year or a $100, few years later.

Okay, that is a valid point; where does the fee "cap".

On the other hand, does Michigan even have a sales tax on firearms? I know some states don't, and my assumption was that it was usually states that required a permit to possess.

Originally Posted by Steve32

Now they ask money for a handgun purchase permit. What next? You need freedom of speech permit and you must pay for it? That's the same category.

The right to bear arms is not an unconditional right with absolutely no limitations. You have the right to free speech, until you start maliciously lying about someone with the intent to cause them harm, for example.

Originally Posted by Steve32

Look at Europe. People can't buy firearms there. Even the air rifles and airsoft toys are regulated. (If those are stronger than 7,5 Joule, it's 2 years in prison.) People have gas pistols and rubber ball pistols there. But they must ask license from the police. And the license is not $10, more like a $100.

I'm afraid "Europe" is a bit vague. Each nation in Europe has it's own gun laws. Examples:

Italian citizens don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but different types of licenses can be obtained by the local police authorities. The applicant must be 18 or older, prove he can handle and use a firearm safely, must provide a clean criminal record and must not be mentally ill or be a known abuser of, or addicted to, alcohol or illegal drugs.

In Norway, it's a breeze to get a gun; you just apply for a permit and say "I'd just like to do some recreational shooting" and you're pretty much done.

The situation you mention sounds similar to Germany's, however, if you truly wanted to get a firearm, you could get one. However, from my time speaking with my German relatives on the subject, I don't believe that there really is that much of a cultural desire to own a firearm (just about every German I've spoken to, ranging from family members, to students of the college classes I attended there, to protesters I met seem to find the idea of owning a gun as something fascinating, along the lines of "but why would you even want one?")

[corrinavatan]

Originally Posted by rjd3282

If defending yourself is a right (and it is)then a tax(permit) to own or carry a firearm is depriving the poor from defending themselves.

Excuse me, but how is a "poor" man going to afford a $200 gun if he can't afford a $10 permit? I'd entertain that argument a bit more if the permit cost more, but a person could pawn some old clothing and come up with $10.

I mean, let's say that a person can buy a firearm from a friend for, say, $50. That's dirt cheap for any pistol, I don't care how crappy it is.

A $10 permit, whose point is to make you fill out paperwork to prove you're not a convicted felon, that you're of sound mind, and whatever the last stipulation is to get a permit, is suddenly "too much?"

If $10 would prevent you from owning a firearm, you're not going to be purchasing a firearm in the first place. Either that, or you're not going to be able to afford ammo or a maintenance kit. If we were talking about something along the lines of an Assault Weapons Permit, I might get on board. But $10? Even a kid at McDonalds can make that money in well less than a day.

[dickmansky]

I'm angry over weapons being sold to drug cartels in Mexico, that this psycho could buy a 30 bullet clip, that people are wearing guns to political and other kinds of events. It's gone too far. The second amendment says _well regulated_, but I don't see the regulated. It might as well be Tombstone in the 19th century.

I'm new as a gun poster, don't own nor want a gun, but I'm wondering where the second amendment says the right to bear arms includes every new gun innovation that comes down the pike, no matter how deadly. Unless you are in law enforcement or a war zone, why does a citizen need an assault rifle?

[Cory2]

Originally Posted by dickmansky

I'm angry over weapons being sold to drug cartels in Mexico, that this psycho could buy a 30 bullet clip, that people are wearing guns to political and other kinds of events. It's gone too far. The second amendment says _well regulated_, but I don't see the regulated. It might as well be Tombstone in the 19th century.

I'm new as a gun poster, don't own nor want a gun, but I'm wondering where the second amendment says the right to bear arms includes every new gun innovation that comes down the pike, no matter how deadly. Unless you are in law enforcement or a war zone, why does a citizen need an assault rifle?

Sounds to me like you have been watching to much tv. I don't mean that offensively either, it happens to alot of people but before I touch anything else you said I want you to watch this video.

YouTube - The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms

YouTube - The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms

As to the part about where does the 2A justify every new innovation. Well at the time of its writing the people had access to the same "cutting edge technology" as the strongest militaries in the world. Some people like to say that it is different now because of the rate of fire of guns now. I argue that with this. Back then people often carried several guns because of their slow reload time. But even so, if there was only 1 person with a muzzle loaded firearm and no one else had one how many people do you think that man/woman could kill? I would wager quite a few. The same thing stopped them back then that stops them now, other people with guns.

Also, it is nearly impossible to acquire an actual assault rifle without going through an extremely arduous and thorough investigation... and a considerable amount of money. Basicly meaning the average person cannot obtain an assault rifle or any other fully automatic weapon unless they spend a looong time saving up money for it. Think of buying a car and you are in the price range.

As for the Mexican drug cartel thing. Why do you care? I don't personally care how many drug dealers are killed by other drug dealers. My only opinion on the matter is the less drug dealers the better. There are people who actually work for the government dealing with these particular areas that can adress your comment better than i can so hopefully one of them will come on here.

Also, welcome to the forum! Please stop by the introduction section and tell us a little about your self.