Right to bear arms? More like privilege

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by clip11, Nov 20, 2010.

  1. clip11

    clip11 New Member

    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?
  2. JonM

    JonM Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    it didnt really start with guns guns are just one of many freedoms liberals are trying to remove. they want to tell you how to live where you can live and every little thing you can or cant do.

    think about it. they tell you where you can and cant smoke.
    they force you to wear setbelts its not a choice.
    they force motorcyclist to wear helmets
    they force gas stations to sell only govt approved gas
    in most states light bulbs are even becoming illegal
    they determine for you how much water your toilet uses
    they take more of your paycheck to enforce the above and much much more.

    gun control is just a minor thing compaired to what they really want to do. we dont seem to care about what happens to other freedoms when the liberals come after em.

    after all, laws to enforce seatbelts and toilet flushes are for your own good arent they???

  3. CHLChris

    CHLChris New Member

    The nanny state will always go as far as we let them and keep trying to go farther.

    I think that is for 2 reasons:

    1) To self-justify they DO things like passing laws, writing regulations, try to solve problems that may or may not be there.

    2) Government is like a teenage boy with his girlfriend. He'll keep pushing a little farther each nookie session and will go as far as the girl allows.
  4. collegekid20

    collegekid20 New Member

    while all of the above is true, the 2nd amendment must be given our utmost attention and effort to keep it's true meaning in tact, Which is to carry when and where any armament we want, because the rest of our rights are useless if you cannot defend them.
  5. JonM

    JonM Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    well we arent honestly going to go shoot congressmen when they do evil things. hell, they dont even go to jail for criminal acts. kennedy murders a girl and he gets a free pass even oj could only dream of and made a freekin hero. barney frank runs a child prostitution ring out of his apartment blames his boyfriend for it and he too is a hero. rangel dodges millions of dollars of taxes and he is destined for posing for his holy pics.

    thats why mccain spent so much time trying to negate free speach with the mccain feingold finance reform law. a socialist like mccain knows where the true power is. the right to speak and the right to vote. thats why soon as the election season is over mccain and other socialist go right back to amnesty and promoting illegal immigration. dilute the vote. when the power to speak and vote are gone they will take our guns have no doubt.

    they erode away minor stuff to get us used to the government knows best thing to dull us into a sense of false safety. so they chip away at minor thing and we sit there worrying about our own pet cause. when the liberals went after the smokers every conservative smoker or not should have helped defend them and on down the line an assault on one freedom you dont care about doesnt mean your not next.
  6. winds-of-change

    winds-of-change The Balota's Staff Member

    Here in Illinois I had to pay $10 to get my Firearms Owner Identification Card.

    And JonM, I don't even want to TALK about the money they take out of my paycheck. It is absolutely outrageous. Whenever I get paid I just stare at the amount taken out. I would really like to be using that money to live on. After all, I earned it!!
  7. CHLChris

    CHLChris New Member

    This is totally off-topic so I'll be quick.

    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. If you truly believe that, then what word does one use to describe Bill Ayers? Robert Reich? Paul Krugman? Nancy Pelosi?

    THEY are socialist marxists. Please don't minimize the word, Jon.
  8. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    In Arizona I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun in hand. We have instant backround checks. I do not need a permit to buy, own or carry even concealed. I do have a CCW and it allows me to carry concealed in states that recognize Az permits. When are the rest of you going to throw the bums that did this to you out? How many of you are supporting members of the NRA? I am an Endowment member and an FNRA Commitee Member.
    In California the voters passed a Constitutional amendment by general ballot that took away the State Senate's apportionment by county and made it by population. The State Senate had a Republican majority and kept the rest of the state in line. With apportionment by population, the Cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego took control of the State. At that point nobody elses vote mattered and it was the beginning of the end of Freedom. It is now known as the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. The majority of the counties are Republican but they dont have the population to counter the 3 main cities. Northern Californians would like to split into a separate state by the name of Jefferson.
  9. CHLChris

    CHLChris New Member

    A map in red/blue by county in this huge country is a massive sea of red, especially this year. Even in 2008 when Obama won in such a strong manner, the country was a sea of red.

    It's too bad so much of that red sea is cattle, cornfields, and forests.
  10. Sushihunter

    Sushihunter New Member

    As a Canadian, I wish we had a 2nd ammendment written into our constitution.

    You Americans make sure you defend it given any and every chance.

    With the NRA you have access to some of the best political info going. Find out who is pro-gun and who is anti-gun and vote appropriatley!

    There is reason why the Democrats have been so reluctant to open up the gun control issue in many campaigns the last few years - it costs them dearly!

    Hang in there, now.
  11. ironhat

    ironhat New Member

    I'm a Life Member of the NRA. That said, I fear that the organization has compromised their ethics by wading into the deep end of the political arena. They chose this route long ago as the best way to influence them at their own game. The CRKBA, Second Amendment Task Force and such organizations have chosen the grass roots education to put pressure on their individual reps in government. Some say that the NRA has compromised their ethics by crawling in the mud hole of politics. You can't crawl into that hole without getting muddy. It's just a matter of who you choose to carry the banner. I think that we need both. What are your thoughts? :confused:
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2010
  12. ironhat

    ironhat New Member


    I started a new thread when I saw that I was hijacking this one.
  13. gatopardo

    gatopardo New Member

    State level

    What will it take
    You want to do something about it, contact yous state legislators, this is a State law matter, not a federal one, you vote after all, make that vote count.

    Just wanted to set that straight, in Oklahoma we don't have those problems.

    The only thing is, store clerks makes a quick call to the authorities to make to their knowledge who is taking possession of that specific weapon.

    After all, freedom doesn't mean it's a "free for all" situation.
  14. wb_carpenter

    wb_carpenter New Member

    Here in Florida CCW permits are slowly becoming gun permits. I went to a gun show today and without a CCW you could not walk away with your gun FTF or not.

    We have been our own worse enemies and alot of FTF sellers wont sell to anyone without a CCW. I happen to have a CCW but feel it is unfair to someone who may not want to carry.
  15. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    The cases you bring up aren't precisely relevant to your argument.

    They tell you where you can and can't smoke, because constant exposure to second-hand smoke can cause health problems to the people around you, which will cause health costs to rise as people have to be treated for exposure to second-hand smoke. Bottom line: less money being spent on health care for something that is preventable (and, in my opinion, stupid). Also, these measures are passed by popular vote (at least, the 10 different smoking bans that I am aware of were), and were put forward in legislation due to the fact that there is significant evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke is damaging to the health of others. Don't blame the federal or state governments for measures that are voted through by popular decision.

    They tell you to wear a seat belt because you're more likely to die in an accident if you're not wearing one. Nevermind the fact that you're LESS DEAD, but anybody who dies and isn't paying taxes doesn't help the social security/taxes situation. Also, the expense of the road crew that needs to peel your body off the pavement is saved (Average cost of a fatal car accident for state and federal $500,000, according to the National Highway Safety Administration)

    Motorcyclists and helmets? See above statement.

    Force gas stations to use approved gas? Well, yeah. How would you like it if those regulations were taken away, and then all of sudden we're getting the type of gasolines that are used in India, where there is so many contaminants that the mileage of your vehicle goes down by 10 MPG just by using it, also causing damage to your vehicle? I'm sure that you won't complain about those "restrictions" when your car is constantly breaking down or your spark plugs need replaced every 200 miles due to contaminants.

    I'm not sure where you're talking about light bulbs. I assume you mean that states are encouraging measures to make people use more efficient light bulbs, which is a conservation measure that also coincidentally will lower your electricity costs? (I don't understand someone being on a gun forum and not understanding the concept of land stewardship and conservation). The less electricity we use, the more land can be left alone longer/more land has time to recover before we strip mine again, the more land we have preserved for future use (be it construction, hunting, farming, etc).

    Toilets, I understand. But again, your toilet shouldn't use 10 gallons of water to flush, when they can be designed to use only 2. Unless you need some fiber in your diet, this shouldn't be an issue. Why should we be wasting MASSIVE amounts of water to flush? I mean, I flush approximately 5 times a day. Assuming I'm using only a 2 gallon instead of a 10 gallon toilet, I use only 10 gallons of water vs. 50. Now, extrapolate that to the US population, and the cost it takes for cities and federal governments to clean that wastewater for use again.

    Let's be brutally honest here: Handguns are used to shoot people. Yes, there are some people who buy a handgun for hunting, or for target shooting, but by and large, handguns are bought for home protection or some other purpose where you intend to use it to shoot another human being. But if you're buying a handgun in Detroit, I'm going to assume you're gonna use it for home defense, and not for hunting/militia purposes. I don't see a problem for them putting a fee on the purchase of a weapon.

    Forcing people to pay to purchase/register a handgun is not a problem, to me. But then, I was raised in a state where that was the norm; however, purchasing a rifle/shotgun/etc. was never an issue and didn't cost. I mean, heck, it's essentially a tax, and according to what I can find on your state's laws, that fee is being used to pay for state-sponsored gun safety and conservation measures, so I don't see what the big deal is. The money, ironically enough, goes to the Michigan DNRE, paying for your state-operated shooting ranges (which, if they are anything like they are in MO, should be incredibly inexpensive ($3-5 for an hour), and quite professional).

    Also, as was mentioned before, "right to bear arms" does not mean "right to bear any and all arms without any type of reasonable measure to make sure that guns aren't getting into the hands of people who will use them for criminal purposes instead of righteous causes such as hunting, self-defense, or preparation of a militia."

    If you're the type of person who wants to claim that there should be no restrictions on owning a handgun, I want to see you on these forums arguing that convicted felons should have the right to purchase and have handguns and other weapons.

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

    Forgive me, but if you're able to shell out $200-500 for a handgun, I don't think a $10 fee is going to prevent anyone from buying a gun, which seems the gist of the OP's argument; that somehow this $10 fee is preventing him and others from being able to exercise their right to bear arms.

    To the OP: if you think the fee is wrong, support those organizations that are against the law, such as the NRA, and write to your local NRA representative.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2010
  16. billdeserthills

    billdeserthills New Member


    You are so right, reminds me of some homeowner associations
  17. Kimber45

    Kimber45 New Member

    What is the Second Amendment?

    "It is recognition of a right.

    Parse that sentence again: Rights can be either recognized or abrogated but they cannot be granted.

    In order to grant something, you first must have it. The State does not possess the right to the people's self-defense (by definition) against either personal tyranny (e.g. a thug breaking into their home) or government tyranny (e.g. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.)

    You either accept that you, and everyone else, have an unalienable right to self-defense or you do not."

    How Unalienable Rights Become Privileges by Karl Denninger
  18. Infidel

    Infidel New Member

    That's the rub isn't it?

    If you think about it...only three states have a RIGHT to bear arms. AZ, AK, and VT. In these states; one can carry openly or concealed without a permit. It is a RIGHT written into the Constitution of those states.

    Carrying a firearm concealed in every other state where permits are issued is a PRIVILIGE granted and revokable by that state or local issuing authority.

    I don't know how it can be changed UNLESS and UNTIL the PEOPLE of those states vote correctly and very loudly make your legislators know how you feel and that you are done being subjects to their whim and personal views on how things should be done. Then, of course, you have to VOTE. If one doesn't vote, as far as I am concerned, you don't have a right to complain...at least not complaints to which I will lend an ear.

    Look at the draconian anti-gun laws in NY, MA, NJ, CA...the list could go on. But if you think about it we now have over 40 states with SHALL or MUST issue CCW laws on the books. Okay...we have victories there. Keep pushing the issue to get CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY in your states. Make it a priority. Make the lawmakers know how you feel, and if they don't act in YOUR best interests...FIRE THEM.

    This may be simplistic, and it samned well will be easier said than done, but it CAN be done. Decide how much farther you will let the fedgod push you, or your stategod...and say enough is enough.

    I live in AZ...gun owners heaven. We have real and tangible GUN RIGHTS. We have no gun priviliges. We have RIGHTS. We voted correctly, and took ours back. Do the same.

    God bless you all, and I hope you can make it happen.

    Now let me step down off my soap box.

    It very well could be that the next step is a civilian version of HR218 LEOSA (Thank God I am covered by this one)...where your permit is by law recognized by every other state in the US. We got it for cops and retired cops, let's get behind it for permit-holding civilians.
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2010
  19. Swampbilly

    Swampbilly New Member

    That is really disturbing. Is that a State government mandate, or are foolish FFLs propogating this? If the latter, well that is truly stupid...like you say, nothing like the gun owning and shooting community becoming its own worst enemy.

    I do not have a defensive carry permit, and would be truly P.O.'d if I, a law abiding citizen, was not able to purchase a firerarm at a gun show. I suspect this is the FFLs doing this themselves, as it saves them the trouble of running the background check - laziness, and 2nd Amendment rights infringement to boot.

    If this type of thing becomes State mandated, then you can just about bet forcing people to be CCW "registered" to own a firearm will have some future back door scheme to register firearms in general. That's a big reason why I have not added my name to that government owned firearms owners "list" known as the concealed carry permit.


    Last edited: Dec 6, 2010
  20. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    I live in a state where you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet as long as you have proper health insurance. Like if you wreck your health plan will help pay the bill. But they will have LEO parked overpasses looking for people not wearing a seat belt and call out to waiting police cars on the road to catch these dangerous drivers.:rolleyes:

    Not that I'm advocating wearing a helmet but the logic is way flawed there. I personally think seat belts are a good idea but it should be left to the individuals. I do think keeping the kids belted in is a good idea and really don't have a problem there. But I don't like the idea that the choice is taken from me as a grown man.

    Things like carry permits, permit to buy etc are just ways to move people's thinking more in line that every right we have as free men and women is more a privilege. They serve no other propose. People can spout BS about safety or weeding out undesirables but it is nothing more than changing a right to a privilege. I'm sure every permit holder on this board knows one other permit holder that they would want to be nowhere near when they are handling a weapon. THis person is probably a moron that has his/her permit for no other reason but to show people they can be a bad *** and they have a weapon to prove it. But they passed the test somehow. So the idea of that weeding out is moot right there. If you can legally purchace or own a weapon then carrying it should not be a privilege. You rather have the right to defend yourself or not. States not requiring such permits have somehow not become lawless hell holes. Another nail in the pay the government for the privilege of exercising your rights coffin.

    We rather have to right to bare arms or not. Personally I'm tired of this never ending list of common sense regulations to save us from ourselves.