View Single Post
Old November 19, 2011, 09:39 AM   #111
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngunz4life
. . . .as far as the standard national test or guidelines...I feel this assessment is way off base Spats. Its just not about that, and I never see that happening. Certain things are always stateside: marriages, driving, local state laws, etc.
Clearly, I don't think my assessment is off, much less way off. Even in my lifetime, the federal government has expanded its power fairly dramatically. The 20th century represented a huge expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause.

Frankly, I see no reason to expect anything other than a push for national standards. Right after the Tuscon/Gifford shooting, there was a push to ban "assault clips." Right after 9/11, the TSA was formed, and airport security was taken out of the hands of the states. Mind you, I'm not saying that this bill is a tragedy on the scale of 9/11. What I'm saying is this: the standard federal response to any problem, real or imagined, is to create a solution on the national level, standardize it, and take it out of the hands of the states.

And in spite of the anti-gun opposition to this bill, I would respectfully suggest that one of them will come to the grand conclusion that fairly extensive training should be required for anyone to carry a gun anywhere (except LEO, of course), thus making it cost prohibitive to get a CCL.

I've seen many comparisons with CCLs and driver's licenses or marriage licenses. They are wholly different things. Marriage licenses are public records. CCLs are not. States recognize other state's marriages, not their marriage licenses. The license is merely evidence of the state's approval.

As for DLs, well, if we treated firearms like we treat cars: (1) I could buy a gun with no license at all; (2) I would be allowed to fire my guns on private property all I want with no license; (3) Anybody could buy all the cars they wanted, at any age, with no restriction except the budget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngunz4life
You know some states don't like the fed govt because the feds can push them around. They want all of the control(to include the politicians). The fact is, there are goods and bads to both states and fed govts. the federal government of the United States of America is not all that bad and has done some good things for the country. I do agree this world seems a little more tangled and complicated these days...hopefully someday we can loosen up some of the excess baggage and get back to basics.
I've never said that everything the feds do is bad. In fact, I'd call it one of the best governments in the world, overall. But this bill is a very bad idea.

And yes, I want as much control (to include the politicians) as I can get over the laws that affect my life.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04510 seconds with 7 queries