Rodan
Member
What about yours?
I can't recall a discussion here of a gun control regulation, increase in federal power, or reduction of personal freedoms that you weren't OK with.
A dangerous proposal in Congress
- Thread starter delcrossv
- Start date
- Status
What about yours?
I can't recall a discussion here of a gun control regulation, increase in federal power, or reduction of personal freedoms that you weren't OK with.
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
Hmmmm . . . I notice that you don't refute my assertions.
Sistema1927
US Veteran
“No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
― Gideon J. Tucker (often wrongly attributed to Mark Twain)
We just barely survived another stellar performance by the NM legislature as they adjourned yesterday, where they only infringed on our freedom just a little bit (by their estimation). However, that has not deterred our grand poobah Governess from wanting to call a special session to enact all the infringements that she desired.
― Gideon J. Tucker (often wrongly attributed to Mark Twain)
We just barely survived another stellar performance by the NM legislature as they adjourned yesterday, where they only infringed on our freedom just a little bit (by their estimation). However, that has not deterred our grand poobah Governess from wanting to call a special session to enact all the infringements that she desired.
What about yours?
I can't recall a discussion here of a gun control regulation, increase in federal power, or reduction of personal freedoms that you weren't OK with.
Memory can certainly be confusing and inaccurate. Do you have a specific example in mind?
The Legislators certainly are worth their salaries (they get none)!
She's out in two more years. Thank God and the voters for constitutionally required gubernatorial term limits.
Last edited:
Gee, I wonder which side of the isle he's on.
Elections have consequences.
Elections have consequences.
This part scares me
On page 6 line 16 for exceptions from the law are organizations that are authorized to engage in paramilitary, law enforcement, or security services authorized under control of a governmental authority. Can you say a couple million illegal military age young men in this country?
On page 6 line 16 for exceptions from the law are organizations that are authorized to engage in paramilitary, law enforcement, or security services authorized under control of a governmental authority. Can you say a couple million illegal military age young men in this country?
OP
I think we have a winner.
Instead of bickering amongst ourselves over S.3589, may I suggest we all step back and take a cold, hard look at what's really going on here?
Legislators constantly introduce legislation they know will never become law, and that's certainly the case here. S.3589 has just one co-sponsor, and since being introduced on January 16, it's been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has scheduled no hearings at this point.
An identical House bill, H.R. 6981, was actually filed first, on January 11, with 11 co-sponsors (out of 435 House members), and it's been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, again with no hearings scheduled.
Neither bill apparently has the support of House or Senate leadership, and neither one has been the subject of major news stories or press releases announcing the support of various anti-2A groups. The sponsors and co-sponsors are all from the same party...no bi-partisanship at all. I'll betcha $100 to a bag of stale donuts these bills will never even come close to becoming law. So why would their sponsors introduce them?
Politicians need to raise campaign money, and they do that by appealing to donors. Some of those donors want to see pet ideas introduced as legislation, so the elected officials oblige, even though those pet ideas have no chance of becoming law. Other elected officials want to demonstrate that they're working for a favorite cause, something they've campaigned on or something that matters to their constituents, so they introduce bills like this.
I'm not saying the sponsors of these bills don't actually support the proposals...just that reading between the lines tells us there are far greater threats out there to the Second Amendment than S.3589 and H.R.6981.
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Legislators constantly introduce legislation they know will never become law, and that's certainly the case here. S.3589 has just one co-sponsor, and since being introduced on January 16, it's been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has scheduled no hearings at this point.
An identical House bill, H.R. 6981, was actually filed first, on January 11, with 11 co-sponsors (out of 435 House members), and it's been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, again with no hearings scheduled.
Neither bill apparently has the support of House or Senate leadership, and neither one has been the subject of major news stories or press releases announcing the support of various anti-2A groups. The sponsors and co-sponsors are all from the same party...no bi-partisanship at all. I'll betcha $100 to a bag of stale donuts these bills will never even come close to becoming law. So why would their sponsors introduce them?
Politicians need to raise campaign money, and they do that by appealing to donors. Some of those donors want to see pet ideas introduced as legislation, so the elected officials oblige, even though those pet ideas have no chance of becoming law. Other elected officials want to demonstrate that they're working for a favorite cause, something they've campaigned on or something that matters to their constituents, so they introduce bills like this.
I'm not saying the sponsors of these bills don't actually support the proposals...just that reading between the lines tells us there are far greater threats out there to the Second Amendment than S.3589 and H.R.6981.
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
^^^^^^What he said.
And the dire predictions about New Mexico's similar law have proven utterly false. The only thing it cost us was the presence of anti-government group training camps. No loss.
And the dire predictions about New Mexico's similar law have proven utterly false. The only thing it cost us was the presence of anti-government group training camps. No loss.
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
How many "anti-government group training camps" existed before the law?
If any "camps" existed, how much of an impact did they have on the local economy?
Considering the events of 250 years ago, is not an ant-government group a patriotic group in the finest American tradition? After all, didn't one of the founding fathers say something about rising in open and armed rebellion when the government becomes tyrannical?
There were three to my personal knowledge - one near Bluewater, one near Fence Lake, one north of Datil. All disappeared after the law was passed and publicized. One more supposed to have existed near Farmington, but that was more of an anti-Indian racist group.
Damifikno, but locals were the ones who told us about these because of the creepiness of full-auto fire day and night, and BDU-clad non-local folks creeping around day and night.
No. Treason is treason. We have representation and self-determination now, which is what the rebels of the 18th century demanded and would die to get.
Last edited:
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
Yep, GW and TJ were traitors.
Do we? And even if we do, the executive branch becomes more tyrannical every year.
Last edited:
Nonsense. In a really good presidential election year, just over 60% of registered voters cast a ballot. It's usually well under 40% in off-year elections. Hardly a groundswell of voter discontent over anything, let alone 'tyranny."
To be clear, if you train to tactically oppose the US military or law enforcement while armed, you get no symparhy from me, and none from the courts.
To be clear, if you train to tactically oppose the US military or law enforcement while armed, you get no symparhy from me, and none from the courts.
Last edited:
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
Hardly unexpected.
Why the personal shot at another member?
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
Shot? His response was as expected.
My true feelings are the majority of the gubbermint hates us...
It is another step towards banning firearms is the real motive.
The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves at what this country has turned into.
It is another step towards banning firearms is the real motive.
The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves at what this country has turned into.
Last edited:
Or more to the point - BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A RECOGNIZED RIGHT TO BE ARMED FOR SELF DEFENSE (a.k.a. RECOGNIZED 2nd Amendment rights).
How about an elected governor who thinks she can suspend EVERYONE'S 2nd Amendment rights by the waive of an executive pen?
- Status
Similar threads
