Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Roper, Feb 13, 2008.
I sent my e-mails today, thanks for the heads up Roper.
Is that a fact?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't think it was petty criminals they were worried about. I think it was England and Indians, but what do i know.
As many of you already know, there are literally billions of cartridge cases out there already and they are UNMARKED. Nearly all of them can be reloaded. There will be no end of unmarked cartridges for many years, giving birth to the next legislative case of "do somethingitis" that will outlaw the posession of unmarked cartridges.
Can anybody see the problem with this?
This topic has been debated ad nauseum and so far the Supreme Court has sided with those who believe that firearms ownership is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
One of the many reasons that Supreme Court Justices are more important than presidents.
bill, no, i don't think your fanatical what-so-ever. i wrote something which poorly conveyed my thoughts and the redited it hoping nobody would get to quote it.
honestly, i'm all for the rights of gun owners.
the fanatical part of it was a poor choice of words. i'm just saying that there's legislation geared towards tracking ammunition. ok. i don't think it will solve much of anything. at the same time saying that people are having their rights are being infringed on, harassed by the government, etc. seems a little "fanatical" for a serial number on a bullet. i think thought it was a little scary that people go ape sh*t over the smallest thing. i didn't really consider the $$$ aspect of it. get at the root of the problem. this isn't going to solve it.
maybe i can change my username like Buck to get out of this one.
Jon, I know full well what the courts have said. I was only alluding to what I see as the intent of the framers. I haven't read any of the court decisions word for word, so I can't speak to specific arguments. But it seems pretty clear that the main intent of the second amendment was to provide for a "well regulated militia."
This is the reply I just received from a rep. that I emailed:
I agree with you, I would never support any such bill. The bill died in committee, safe for another year.
Rep. Tom Campbell
So maybe you boys can stop the pissing match and we can move on to more relevant issues like swing vs. nymph, wet vs. dry, carbon vs. cane, you know..... the important stuff!:rofl:
No big deal Chris.
It's all good.
I look forward to fishing with you next month.
Like I said, already been debated ad nauseum. I won't bore you or myself with re-hashing the issue. But, if you're interested in constitutional history and semantics.....by all means, carry on!
Since I'm on the lazy side and don't want to read the whole bill. What are they going to mark the lead or the casing.
Most pick up the brass and the lead would be so misformed after going thru a body that you couldn't read the numbers if you wanted to.
Don't pay me no never mind as I'm just babbling on about what I know nothing about.
changed my quote before anyone else replied quoting it. i didn't change my quote after people replied. as long as you quote it before i change it, you can still respond with my original quote.
i didn't go back after people started quoting to change my original quote so i wouldn't get flack. i thought what i posted sounded crazy. big deal. you called me a spineless pussy. congragulations.
i royally f*cked up that sentence you quoted me on. i also pmed you about it.
Chris, no big deal. You don't seem fanatical to me. Hell, I crap leather and laces with the amount of shoe I eat on this site.:clown:
Actually, Jon, maybe you should brush up on your history. Every time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue, beginning in the late 1800s and I think most recently in the late 1970s, they've made clear the second amendment is an issue of states' rights, not individual rights. Now, that may change when they finally hand down their opinion on Parker v. D.C., which was heard last fall. But for now, the Supreme Court has never ruled it's an individual right.
OMJ, I didn't read the entire bill either. I've heard "both casing and projectile" from some and "only casing" from others. It doesn't really matter though as both would be equally useless in preventing or solving crimes. The bill, if it ever got enacted, would actually create a black market for unmarked ammunition so it would cause more crime than it prevented.
Just another hairbrained scheme from the Brady Bunch.
Thanks for the heads up Roper, hopefully this is a dead issue for now. And for those of you who can't see things like this as another attempt by the Brady Bunch and other anti gun fanatics to put yet another "chink in the armor" of responsible gun ownership. Just keep your heads buried in the sand. At least I know what side of the line I stand on, and I'm proud to see and say I'm not alone over here. :thumb:
I will concede that I was over-reaching when I stated that the "Supreme Court has sided with those who believe that firearms ownership is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT."
Let's look at what the Supremos have actually said:
From US vs. Cruickshank (1876):
Apparently you interpret this to mean that the RKBA CAN be infringed by other govt. entities? I would say that this means that the RIGHT exists independant of govt. and the 2nd ammendment is there to prevent Congress from infringing.
I think this is the most salient passage from this portion of the opinion:
At any rate, I stand corrected as to the SCOTUS ruling on the individual right issue. In my eyes the SCOTUS has acknowledged that the right exists independant of any govt. body as it was, like other freedoms, pre-existing and granted by our creator.
In Presser vs. People of Illinois (1886):
In U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990):
In this case the SCOTUS takes a stab at clarifying the meaning of "the People"
We live in interesting times. It may well be a defining moment in our history when the court hands down the DC decision.
Keep your powder dry boys!
Whew! For a moment there, having mis-read Roper's initial post, I was afeared that they were gonna take away my right to arm and keep bears! :clown:
Then, realizing my mistake, i again misread it and thought they were gonna try to take away my right arm that hoists beers!:beer1:
Seriously folks, it wouldn't even take 2 seconds for a black market to develop in ammo. There would be van loads coming in daily from out of state, completely under the radar. This was one of the stupidist pieces of proposed legislation that i have ever heard... a complete and idiotic waste of tax dollars, and have absolutely zero effect on preventing criminals from obtaining ammo.
Glad to hear it died in committee!