|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 13, 2015 20:52:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 14, 2015 7:26:25 GMT -5
Any feel for what the chances are?
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 14, 2015 13:13:15 GMT -5
My guess would be somewhere between slim and none, even though I fully support it.
I am glad to see someone advance the "extreme" freedom position, in opposition to the extreme suppression of freedom proposed by the anti's repeatedly.
I think support for the measure should be significant, and should reinforce that any moves towards MORE gun restrictions remain the "third rail" that they have been for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 14, 2015 14:09:21 GMT -5
My guess would be somewhere between slim and none......... I understand "Slim" left town last week.  |
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Jan 17, 2015 16:22:06 GMT -5
Can somebody explain this? Does it mean no rules at all? Not sure how I feel about that if that is the case... I think Indiana's system is reasonable. If you are not crazy or a felon you can carry without much hassle or expense , illinois on the other hand made it a costly hassle on purpose.r
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 17, 2015 23:06:35 GMT -5
IMO, no laws against ANYONE owning or carrying would be preferable to laws that prevent some folks from exercising their second amendment rights legally.
Those who we would be most worried about having firearms in their possession or on their person, likely have them already.
The only people who would be worried about their possession being LEGAL, are people who try to obey the law.
Therefore, the laws against possession don't work. When they are enforced, they simply delay the would-be possessor or inconvenience them slightly until they can obtain the weapon illegally.
They are much like the laws against drugs in that respect. They are a source of income for the legal system, and I suspect the gun manufacturers are secretly glad they are on the books, as each gun confiscated creates another potential customer for a replacement, especially in areas where the confiscated weapons end up melted.
Whatever harmful purpose the possessor of the weapon might use it for is already illegal in its own right, and is often penalized heavier if the wrongdoer was in possession of or used a weapon in the commission of the crime, so there is no actual benefit to society from the law existing.
Meanwhile, any ex-offender who has done their time and is going straight, as well as the growing number of people who have been adjudicated as unfit to legally buy guns for whatever long-ago bout of depression or domestic spat that may have occurred in their distant past, are sitting ducks in their neighborhoods because they can't legally obtain or possess the means of self defense guaranteed us by the constitution.
If laws against bad guys having guns really worked, Chicago would be the safest place in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Jan 18, 2015 17:57:10 GMT -5
do I get my money back for my lifetime if this passes?  |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 18, 2015 18:26:29 GMT -5
do I get my money back for my lifetime if this passes? Money back from the government? Ha-ha! |
|
