[axxe55]

i think BlueGuns has made an excellent point. some of us living in pro-gun and gun friendly states with CCW and Castle Laws, possibly don't fully comprehend what some of our other members really have to deal with when buying a firearm, some of the loops they have to jump through, the restrictions, guns they can have and guns they can't, criminals having more rights in a break-in than the homeowner, and so on. they need help in a bad way and if a petition helps just a little, then what's the big deal? i am all for helping out those who have it much worse off than others when it comes to 2nd amendment rights and freedoms.

[Blueguns]

Chain,
I'm not currently in a position to leave CA, so that's not gonna work. I do like your no new laws idea. (I assume it only means no new 2a laws). I'm going to add it to the petition.
Axxe,
Thank you, because we need all the help we can get in states like NY,CA, and IL.

I've begun work on the final draft, any other recommended changes?

[Chainfire]

Originally Posted by Blueguns

Chain,
I'm not currently in a position to leave CA, so that's not gonna work. I do like your no new laws idea. (I assume it only means no new 2a laws). I'm going to add it to the petition.
Axxe,
Thank you, because we need all the help we can get in states like NY,CA, and IL.

I've begun work on the final draft, any other recommended changes?

Au Contraire my friend, I mean no new laws as in no new laws period.......gun or otherwise. Every time they pass a new law the middle class shrinks.

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by Blueguns

Chain,
I'm not currently in a position to leave CA, so that's not gonna work. I do like your no new laws idea. (I assume it only means no new 2a laws). I'm going to add it to the petition.
Axxe,
Thank you, because we need all the help we can get in states like NY,CA, and IL.

I've begun work on the final draft, any other recommended changes?

Blue, i live in Texas, now our gun laws are not perfect, but we fare much better than some states. i can sympathize with those in CA, NY or IL, but truly don't know what you go through in order to own a firearm. for me when i want a new firearm, i go to my LGS, pick one out, and about 10-30 minutes later after a background check, i pay for it and i am on my merry way. i have no obligation to retreat in my own home or property in reasons of SD. my vehicle and workplace are extentions of my home in regards to my SD and being able to defend myself. i can keep a loaded firearm in my vehicle.

in a perfect world, i would like to see every state with a Castle Law, no CC permits as long as you can legally own a firearm, OC or CC in every state, your choice, a right to recipricity to CC or OC among every state as long as you are legally able to own a firearm, the right to own any firearm one wants and as many as one wants. i know this will never happen, but it should be this way

[texaswoodworker]

Originally Posted by therewolf

Short answer:

Probably the same reason we couldn't get GOFFA

to fly?

GOFFA isn't dead yet. The main problem is that our personal lives make it hard to get it off the ground. We are not ready to give up on it, and we will hopefully get to the point that it becomes effective.

[bkt]

Here's a first stab at it. Let me know what you think.

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights acknowledges the natural right of all individuals to protect their lives, property, wealth and liberty - "the security of a free state" - by use of force against a belligerent government or any other force intent on unjustly depriving individuals of these things.

Unfortunately, legislators over the past many decades have endeavored to erode that right in the name of decreasing crime and increasing safety.

Gun-control laws have proven themselves ineffective because criminals do not obey laws and do not acquire firearms from the same sources law-abiding citizens do. The citizens of Illinois - Chicago in particular - endure some of the most strict gun-control laws in the nation, yet 2,124 people have been shot in Chicago as of early October, 2012 resulting in 433 deaths. New York City, another city with extremely strict gun-control, has seen gun crime rise by 11% in 2012.

In contrast, states that have relaxed their gun-control laws and which have seen the largest increase in gun ownership by law-abiding citizens also have enjoyed the largest drop in violent crimes. Criminals are deterred when the risk of confronting someone able to defend him or herself is too high.

History shows the systematic disarming of populations leads to tyranny and genocide. Armenia, Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia and other nations in the past century alone show clearly what happens when armed government thugs impose their will on a disarmed citizenry: genocide and mass-graves.

Legislators at all levels of government have openly shown contempt for reading bills, understanding the content of bills, and understanding the issues that prompted the drafting of a bill. A great deal of gun-control legislation has passed because legislators and executives are ignorant of issues. The result has been to penalize the law-abiding and create a safer environment for criminals. We are not suggesting that those in office today are surreptitiously working to increase crime or working to impose a totalitarian regime. We are stating definitively that those in office today are unwittingly opening the door for these things to happen in the future.

This is unacceptable.

In light of the irrefutable facts that:

• Gun-control legislation imposes restrictions on the law-abiding, not criminals;
• Gun-control legislation enables higher rates of violent crime;
• Gun-control, leading incrementally to disarmament, results in tyranny and mass-murder;
• Good-intentioned but ignorant legislators and executives are ultimately responsible for gun-control legislation, that:

We, the undersigned, pledge:

• To refuse to obey any further abuse of one of our natural rights specifically enumerated in our Bill of Rights;
• To refuse to provide any support whatsoever to any elected official who advocates gun-control legislation (either the enforcement of existing laws or creation of new laws);
• To actively support in every way all elected officials or prospective candidates who actively work to repeal gun-control legislation and who refuse to endorse future gun-control legislation.
• To meet force with force, should it become necessary to do so.

JD isn't fond of the last line. Here's my take. As Washington eloquently observed, government is force. That's all it is. Refusal to obey laws - even illegal and unjust laws - will ultimately be met with the threat of lethal force. My objective is to politely convey that the threat or use of force will be returned.

Our system of government is the best on the planet; I do not advocate any violence on anyone. I do not advocate in any way overthrowing those in government. But I do advocate the common-sense rule that if someone means to force you to do something unreasonable and threatens you with violence if you don't comply that you should know you are free and right to return the gesture.

If we are willing to die for our rights, we are certainly willing to kill for them.

[Blueguns]

Originally Posted by bkt

Here's a first stab at it. Let me know what you think.

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights acknowledges the natural right of all individuals to protect their lives, property, wealth and liberty - "the security of a free state" - by use of force against a belligerent government or any other force intent on unjustly depriving individuals of these things.

Unfortunately, legislators over the past many decades have endeavored to erode that right in the name of decreasing crime and increasing safety.

Gun-control laws have proven themselves ineffective because criminals do not obey laws and do not acquire firearms from the same sources law-abiding citizens do. The citizens of Illinois - Chicago in particular - endure some of the most strict gun-control laws in the nation, yet 2,124 people have been shot in Chicago as of early October, 2012 resulting in 433 deaths. New York City, another city with extremely strict gun-control, has seen gun crime rise by 11% in 2012.

In contrast, states that have relaxed their gun-control laws and which have seen the largest increase in gun ownership by law-abiding citizens also have enjoyed the largest drop in violent crimes. Criminals are deterred when the risk of confronting someone able to defend him or herself is too high.

History shows the systematic disarming of populations leads to tyranny and genocide. Armenia, Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia and other nations in the past century alone show clearly what happens when armed government thugs impose their will on a disarmed citizenry: genocide and mass-graves.

Legislators at all levels of government have openly shown contempt for reading bills, understanding the content of bills, and understanding the issues that prompted the drafting of a bill. A great deal of gun-control legislation has passed because legislators and executives are ignorant of issues. The result has been to penalize the law-abiding and create a safer environment for criminals. We are not suggesting that those in office today are surreptitiously working to increase crime or working to impose a totalitarian regime. We are stating definitively that those in office today are unwittingly opening the door for these things to happen in the future.

This is unacceptable.

In light of the irrefutable facts that:[*]Gun-control legislation imposes restrictions on the law-abiding, not criminals;[*]Gun-control legislation enables higher rates of violent crime;[*]Gun-control, leading incrementally to disarmament, results in tyranny and mass-murder;[*]Good-intentioned but ignorant legislators and executives are ultimately responsible for gun-control legislation, that:

We, the undersigned, pledge:[*]To refuse to obey any further abuse of one of our natural rights specifically enumerated in our Bill of Rights;[*]To refuse to provide any support whatsoever to any elected official who advocates gun-control legislation (either the enforcement of existing laws or creation of new laws);[*]To actively support in every way all elected officials or prospective candidates who actively work to repeal gun-control legislation and who refuse to endorse future gun-control legislation.[*]To meet force with force, should it become necessary to do so.

JD isn't fond of the last line. Here's my take. As Washington eloquently observed, government is force. That's all it is. Refusal to obey laws - even illegal and unjust laws - will ultimately be met with the threat of lethal force. My objective is to politely convey that the threat or use of force will be returned.

Our system of government is the best on the planet; I do not advocate any violence on anyone. I do not advocate in any way overthrowing those in government. But I do advocate the common-sense rule that if someone means to force you to do something unreasonable and threatens you with violence if you don't comply that you should know you are free and right to return the gesture.

If we are willing to die for our rights, we are certainly willing to kill for them.

I like it! Mine was more of a list, but this entails everything.

[dog2000tj]

Originally Posted by bkt

Here's a first stab at it. Let me know what you think.

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights acknowledges the natural right of all individuals to protect their lives, property, wealth and liberty - "the security of a free state" - by use of force against a belligerent government or any other force intent on unjustly depriving individuals of these things.

Unfortunately, legislators over the past many decades have endeavored to erode that right in the name of decreasing crime and increasing safety.

Gun-control laws have proven themselves ineffective because criminals do not obey laws and do not acquire firearms from the same sources law-abiding citizens do. The citizens of Illinois - Chicago in particular - endure some of the most strict gun-control laws in the nation, yet 2,124 people have been shot in Chicago as of early October, 2012 resulting in 433 deaths. New York City, another city with extremely strict gun-control, has seen gun crime rise by 11% in 2012.

In contrast, states that have relaxed their gun-control laws and which have seen the largest increase in gun ownership by law-abiding citizens also have enjoyed the largest drop in violent crimes. Criminals are deterred when the risk of confronting someone able to defend him or herself is too high.

History shows the systematic disarming of populations leads to tyranny and genocide. Armenia, Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia and other nations in the past century alone show clearly what happens when armed government thugs impose their will on a disarmed citizenry: genocide and mass-graves.

Legislators at all levels of government have openly shown contempt for reading bills, understanding the content of bills, and understanding the issues that prompted the drafting of a bill. A great deal of gun-control legislation has passed because legislators and executives are ignorant of issues. The result has been to penalize the law-abiding and create a safer environment for criminals. We are not suggesting that those in office today are surreptitiously working to increase crime or working to impose a totalitarian regime. We are stating definitively that those in office today are unwittingly opening the door for these things to happen in the future.

This is unacceptable.

In light of the irrefutable facts that:

• Gun-control legislation imposes restrictions on the law-abiding, not criminals;
• Gun-control legislation enables higher rates of violent crime;
• Gun-control, leading incrementally to disarmament, results in tyranny and mass-murder;
• Good-intentioned but ignorant legislators and executives are ultimately responsible for gun-control legislation, that:

We, the undersigned, pledge:

• To refuse to obey any further abuse of one of our natural rights specifically enumerated in our Bill of Rights;
• To refuse to provide any support whatsoever to any elected official who advocates gun-control legislation (either the enforcement of existing laws or creation of new laws);
• To actively support in every way all elected officials or prospective candidates who actively work to repeal gun-control legislation and who refuse to endorse future gun-control legislation.
• To meet force with force, should it become necessary to do so.

JD isn't fond of the last line. Here's my take. As Washington eloquently observed, government is force. That's all it is. Refusal to obey laws - even illegal and unjust laws - will ultimately be met with the threat of lethal force. My objective is to politely convey that the threat or use of force will be returned.

Our system of government is the best on the planet; I do not advocate any violence on anyone. I do not advocate in any way overthrowing those in government. But I do advocate the common-sense rule that if someone means to force you to do something unreasonable and threatens you with violence if you don't comply that you should know you are free and right to return the gesture.

If we are willing to die for our rights, we are certainly willing to kill for them.

where do I sign

[WebleyFosbery38]

BKT, that was to die for, really (if we dont do something, there may be little worth dying for)! BG's was a great starter but you just knocked it out of the ballpark. Yes, there are a couple points in there that might make some nervous but anyone prepared to stand tall for their family, neighbors, friends and countrymen knows that will certainly make you a bigger target, be prepared.

I love the fact that you ensured anyone reading this realizes that while 2A is the prime topic, the rest of the BOR's is no less important to us.

"To meet force with force, should it become necessary to do so". Maybe enumerated by saying "To protect every one of those Natural Rights and our Nation with force as the Bill of Rights stipulated has clearly stated from the very beginning, should it become necessary to do so.

I think this thing should move forward and quickly. It could spark some pre-election chatter causing some that are thinking about not voting to change their minds. It will help set the tone for after election actions by whoever gets the nod.

How does this go to a sign-able state, anyone ever done one of these things before? We all have monikers but they dont want to see names like WF38, I have no problem signing my real name and address but some might.

[therewolf]

Originally Posted by Chainfire

I want to take my thoughts above one step further:

I have a proposition.

The Repbulicans have done a fine job with the "no new taxes, period" pledge.
How about if we get a pledge from the Congress of "no new laws"?

There are probably at least tens of thousands of laws on the books. Some are useful, some are sometimes useful and others are just plain stupid...... With tens of thousnds of laws, we don't need new laws, we need some common sense in enforcing the good ones and getting rid of the bad ones. After all, God only gave Moses ten laws.

Now I know we live in a more complicated society then in the time of the great Exodus, so we should make allowances. How would you all feel about living with, say, 100 laws? Hell, we could memorize them. No way to squrim out of breakng the laws with smart lawyers pulling antiquated laws from some dusty lawbook. Everybody would know the laws and there would be no excuse for doing wrong.

Lets start a petition for "NO NEW LAWS". If we got a pledge of no new laws, then the Congress could only focus on removing bad laws from the books, or they would just have to sit on their asses, causing no harm. Within ten or twenty years, we should be in much better shape.

Or why not just start with "Dump useless, poorly thought out laws."

to begin with. IMO, you're on to something, Chainfire. We need to trim,

reduce, and remove.