NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby Michael Pelletier » Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:57 pm

spnorm wrote:One could also contend that, unless one belongs to an organized militia (a.k.a the armed forces), they have no right to keep or bear arms. Personally, I am not for banning gun ownership - I just don't buy that the 2nd amendment grants that right to every citizen. The intent of that amendment has to be looked at in the context of when it was written. Not trying to start a gun rights argument here - just another interpretation.

One could contend that the moon is made of green cheese as well.

Under current law, every male from the age of 17 to 44 is a member of the Militia of the United States. See 10 USC 311.

That aside, the Second Amendment stands at the pinnacle of decades worth of writing on the principles of individual liberty by America's founders and Constitutional architects. There is no question whatsoever as to its meaning and intent except among people who willfully disregard, or fail to understand, these writings and the principles they set forth.

The Second Amendment was written by people who had just overthrown their lawfully established government and defeated the most powerful armed forces in the world by using their privately-owned weapons to kill its members until they gave up. The first shot was fired in that war during an attempt by those government armed forces to seize privately-held arms and ammunition. To suggest that such people would even consider permitting their new government to restrict ownership of arms to only government armed forces borders on the ridiculous, regardless of whatever tortured grammatical parsing one might bring to bear.

The Constitution upended millennia of traditions in government. The government was no longer the MASTER, the sovereign, but rather the SERVANT of the people; deriving its powers FROM the people, not from the traditional "divine right of kings" where the power flowed downward and the people were SUBJECTS, not CITIZENS.

The only means by which OUR government has the power to do something is because WE THE PEOPLE give them that power. And prohibiting possession and use of arms is a power that we explicitly denied the government via the Second Amendment.
User avatar
Michael Pelletier
 
Posts: 4219
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:43 pm
Location: 3 Woodbine Lane

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby Concerned » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:05 pm

That was then, this is now.

I saw the same thing in a Star Trek episode - blindly following a document to the letter of the words without understanding the intent and interpreting it to adjust to today's reality.

Do you honestly believe that the framers of the Constitution would not possibly alter and update the document as time progressed for the past 230+ years?
Concerned
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 6:11 am

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby andysinnh » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:48 pm

I'm sure, that in some ways, that the gun-carrying gangs in larger urban areas consider themselves a form of militia. Rights protected by the constitution. Wonder if they have an NRA card.

Now don't get me wrong - if you look far enough back you'll see that I was an NRA member as a teenager as I learned gun safety and did my fair share of target shooting. But while the constitution is being perceived in this thread as very black-and-white - I'm curious as to whether those who open carry would be in such agreement if they stumbled across a gang member in NYC with perhaps a little more firepower. This is the sort of dichotomy I'm trying to get my head around...

andy
Andy Schneider
andysinnh
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:04 am
Location: Woodward Rd

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby RD » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:01 am

Concerned wrote:That was then, this is now.

I saw the same thing in a Star Trek episode - blindly following a document to the letter of the words without understanding the intent and interpreting it to adjust to today's reality.

Do you honestly believe that the framers of the Constitution would not possibly alter and update the document as time progressed for the past 230+ years?


And how would the framers feel about using the 2nd Amendment to fuel the Mexican drug wars with 90%... yes, 90% of the firearms used in that violence brought in from the U.S.?
"If you think teachers are your enemy, you should probably reassess who you think your friends are." - Chris Larson
RD
 
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:49 pm

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby RBarnes » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:06 am

Concerned wrote:Do you honestly believe that the framers of the Constitution would not possibly alter and update the document as time progressed for the past 230+ years?


That is why the framers allowed for it to be Amended!!!!

Rather then twist it to mean something other then it does it was meant to be changed over time and it has, in fact the last time was 1992.

Ah but gun grabbers know that they would never get enough support to change the constitution stripping people of their right so they instead choose to twist words and go against the Constitution as it was written.

And by the way, Star Trek was a movie... as in NOT reality.
$DO || ! $DO ; try
try: command not found
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby RBarnes » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:20 am

RD wrote:And how would the framers feel about using the 2nd Amendment to fuel the Mexican drug wars with 90%... yes, 90% of the firearms used in that violence brought in from the U.S.?


Considering that is an untrue statement I'm sure the founders would base their opinions on facts, not myths.

http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/ ... f-90/8613/
As several investigative stories have pointed out, of the 29,000 firearms seized in Mexico from cartelista elements, around 6,000 have been traced as to origin, and 5,114 of those have been traced to the U.S. Thus 90 percent of the traced weapons had a U.S. origin, but only about 17% of all those seized came from the U.S.
$DO || ! $DO ; try
try: command not found
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby Concerned » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:27 am

If 90 % had a US origin, that means 90% came from th US at some point. Even if they went to Mexico via some other country, they still came from the US.
Concerned
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 6:11 am

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby chrisorteg » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:33 am

RD,

How do you propose the constitution should be amended to prevent guns from be involved in the drug wars? Would allowing fees, or increasing the fees, for carrying prevent guns from being involved?
Christopher S. Ortega
chrisorteg
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 12:34 pm

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby RBarnes » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:37 am

Concerned wrote:If 90 % had a US origin, that means 90% came from th US at some point. Even if they went to Mexico via some other country, they still came from the US.


Read the quote again, 90% of the guns TRACED. They were only able to trace 6,000 of the total 29,000 guns.
$DO || ! $DO ; try
try: command not found
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby RD » Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:10 pm

chrisorteg wrote:RD,

How do you propose the constitution should be amended to prevent guns from be involved in the drug wars? Would allowing fees, or increasing the fees, for carrying prevent guns from being involved?


Amending the constitution would be difficult, but one quick easy thing we could do is bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, enacted in 1994 by Clinton, but allowed to expire in 2004 by Bush. The drug violence in Mexico has escalated dramatically since the Ban was allowed to expire.
"If you think teachers are your enemy, you should probably reassess who you think your friends are." - Chris Larson
RD
 
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:49 pm

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby chrisorteg » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:57 pm

Too hard to change the constitution, but rather easy to enact unconstitutional bans & fees....... hmmm....

:shock:
Christopher S. Ortega
chrisorteg
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 12:34 pm

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby TonyRichardson » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:00 pm

RD wrote:
chrisorteg wrote:RD,

How do you propose the constitution should be amended to prevent guns from be involved in the drug wars? Would allowing fees, or increasing the fees, for carrying prevent guns from being involved?


Amending the constitution would be difficult, but one quick easy thing we could do is bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, enacted in 1994 by Clinton, but allowed to expire in 2004 by Bush. The drug violence in Mexico has escalated dramatically since the Ban was allowed to expire.


One major problem with that, it only changes the behavior of the law abiding citizens.
It will not change the behavior of the criminals in any way that would matter.
The drug cartels will still use the heaviest weapons they can get their hands on at any given time.

About the only thing that would change would be the weapons mix so far as where the heavier weapons were produced or brought in from. The cartels would still arm themselves as heavily as they could. Plenty of AKs floating around the world they could get their hands on.

Do you really think that the cartels bringing in AKs or Uzis through a different path is going to reduce the killing over drugs?

It won't matter in any appreciable way, it there is far too much money involved for the criminals to walk away.
Outlawing certain types of weapons won't change that.



By the way...since congress enacts legislation, they have to either extend the existing legislation at the time or pass new legislation. Not the sitting president, he can only sign approval of the congressional legislation or veto it.
How long will the BDS go on?
Liberalism - What happens when emotional reactions are confused with and substituted for facts and reason.
TonyRichardson
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby RBarnes » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:35 pm

RD wrote:
chrisorteg wrote:RD,

How do you propose the constitution should be amended to prevent guns from be involved in the drug wars? Would allowing fees, or increasing the fees, for carrying prevent guns from being involved?


Amending the constitution would be difficult, but one quick easy thing we could do is bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, enacted in 1994 by Clinton, but allowed to expire in 2004 by Bush. The drug violence in Mexico has escalated dramatically since the Ban was allowed to expire.


Funny thing you mention that, further down in that article I linked to is states:

The most common plea from those who bandy about the 90% figure is that the U.S. consider reinstituting the ban on “assault” weapons that expired five years ago. This is a diversion by those who want the ban for its own sake, not because there is any evidence that it did any good when it came to reducing crime or violence. The “assault” weapons banned were not full-automatic weapons (macine guns), which have required a rarely-granted BATFE license since the 1930s, but semi-automatic weapons with characteristics that make them “look” like military weapons — larger clips, pistol grips, barrel “shrouds” and the like. Firearms crime associated with such weapons didn’t go down during the 10 years the ban was in effect for the simple reason that most crooks still prefer small handguns; “assault” rifles are of little use to them.
$DO || ! $DO ; try
try: command not found
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:27 pm

The drug violence in Mexico has escalated dramatically since the Ban was allowed to expire.


The drug violence has increased since we started tightening our borders. It's harder for the cartels to get their drugs into the US than it used to be. Hence more violence. Nothing to do with assault weapon bans or not.
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Re: NH Non-Resident Carry License: $20 -> $100 July 1

Postby Michael Pelletier » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:24 pm

Concerned wrote:I saw the same thing in a Star Trek episode - blindly following a document to the letter of the words without understanding the intent and interpreting it to adjust to today's reality.

If you want to repeal it, go for it.

While you're at it, repeal the First Amendment too - poor struggling churches should be bailed out with tax dollars. And those dang investigative reporters exposing thieving bureaucrats across the country, have they no sense of decency?? Think of the families of jailed bureaucrats, what will the spouses and children do without their $100,000 hack jobs?? Journalists should get a $100 annual license with photo, fingerprints, background check, and a training course before they're allowed to publish.

And let's get rid of that annoying Fourth Amendment too - just think how many criminals have gotten off on some damn stupid technicality because the cops did something as sensible as random roadside strip searches!

Hell, let's just shred the whole damn Bill of Rights! Why not??

Of course, the only reason the Constitution was adopted in the first place, going into effect upon ratification by New Hampshire, was because the Second Amendment and other guarantees of essential liberties were added to it. So arguably, repeal of any of the Bill of Rights would nullify the entire Constitution.

I submit that it's you who does not understand the intent. If you want to understand the intent, you should look at Iran, right now, today. That's what happens when only brutal government-sanctioned thugs are allowed have guns. It's been repeated over and over again throughout the history of gun control worldwide, from China to Rwanda, from Germany to Cambodia to Darfur to right here in the United States in the shameful history of Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes: http://www.reason.com/news/show/32884.html

By the way, do you suppose the Mexican cartels got their helicopters, submarines, grenades, and anti-aircraft artillery from a Texas Wal*Mart too, when they stopped in to fill out a BATFE Form 4472 and buy their rifles?
User avatar
Michael Pelletier
 
Posts: 4219
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:43 pm
Location: 3 Woodbine Lane

PreviousNext

Return to Other Topics (sports, work, commute, food, etc)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron