Dumb question

[VoiceofReason]

Why does the NRA not go after cities and states that require a person to apply for a Firearms Owner Identification (FOID) card?

This amounts to, requiring permission from the government to exercise a constitutional right. It also allows the city or state to maintain a list of citizens that own firearms. In some cases even the types of guns owned.

I think I read that a lawsuit has been filed against DC over all their requirements but has the need for a FOID been abolished anywhere yet?

[The Annoyed Man]

One fight at a time, I think. They've got some pretty big legal cases going on right now.

[rbwhatever1]

Why don't the People of the States go after the "States" that abolished or "Legislated Away" their natural rights? We are self governed so we just need to stop following un-constitutional laws en mass. Some politicians would have the people of Texas believe that we are a democracy and "some people" decide how arms are to be worn with a "view to prevent crime" and then it's somehow voted on and Legislated to create a New Crime for not complying. Its the very absence of arms "in view" that creates victims and crime. No man has the right to vote away, restrict, regulate or abolish another man's natural rights but we have done nothing to stop this Republic from sliding into a "democracy" by it's continued un-constitutional legislative actions.

CHL in Texas or any other free State is not Constitutional and should be wiped from the books. The Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Laws are a joke as We the People need no Politician to allow us the right to defend ourselves, our families, our communities or our Country. Free men should wear their Arms anyway they see fit and they should not need "permission or license" to exercise this Natural God Given Right. It's absurd we allowed it in the first place.

What would happen if every Law Abiding Citizen in the United States that owned a handgun strapped it on their belt, and if long gun slung it over their shoulder on January 1st 2014 and never again went without arms in public? I believe the Second Amendment would not be questioned by any Politician in any capacity ever again. The great "gun debate" would be forever closed.

National never ending Gun Out. We the People run this Country and it's about time all levels of State received a History Lesson on Constitutional Protections of Natural Rights. Or we can continue to blindly follow un-constitutional laws Legislated by Morons until the very end...

[Strat9mm]

I never thought of it that way.

I have to say that requiring anyone to get a license to carry, open or otherwise, would seem to be a defacto infringement.

The courts have ruled the right pertains to the military, but the word used in the document, is PEOPLE.

It was PEOPLE who armed themselves, ordinary CITIZENS with their own weapons, who formed the militias, not the other way around. That point seems to have been overlooked for some reason.

Just because someone is in the judiciary, doesn't mean they are qualified, or will render sound UNBIASED decisions in DEFENSE of the Constitution.

It sure seems as if bribery, undue influence, and problems rending UNBIASED decisions which UPHOLD the Constitution have been problems from the beginning.

That much has become painfully obvious.

[Hola Gato]

This amounts to, requiring permission from the government to exercise a constitutional right. It also allows the city or state to maintain a list of citizens that own firearms. In some cases even the types of guns owned.

Isn't that what a Texas CHL does?

[JP171]

I never thought of it that way.

I have to say that requiring anyone to get a license to carry, open or otherwise, would seem to be a defacto infringement.

The courts have ruled the right pertains to the military, but the word used in the document, is PEOPLE.

It was PEOPLE who armed themselves, ordinary CITIZENS with their own weapons, who formed the militias, not the other way around. That point seems to have been overlooked for some reason.

Just because someone is in the judiciary, doesn't mean they are qualified, or will render sound UNBIASED decisions in DEFENSE of the Constitution.

It sure seems as if bribery, undue influence, and problems rending UNBIASED decisions which UPHOLD the Constitution have been problems from the beginning.

That much has become painfully obvious.

have you actually read any of the court decisions? no I thought not, go back and read them, the supreme court rendered a decision that the second amendment affirms a RIGHT of the PEOPLE. doesn't bother to read loves conspiracy theories, ok your on ignore

[VoiceofReason]

This amounts to, requiring permission from the government to exercise a constitutional right. It also allows the city or state to maintain a list of citizens that own firearms. In some cases even the types of guns owned.

Isn't that what a Texas CHL does?

Not really. In Texas you can buy and own a gun and have it in your home or carry it in your car without a “FOID”.

[Strat9mm]

I never thought of it that way.

I have to say that requiring anyone to get a license to carry, open or otherwise, would seem to be a defacto infringement.

The courts have ruled the right pertains to the military, but the word used in the document, is PEOPLE.

It was PEOPLE who armed themselves, ordinary CITIZENS with their own weapons, who formed the militias, not the other way around. That point seems to have been overlooked for some reason.

Just because someone is in the judiciary, doesn't mean they are qualified, or will render sound UNBIASED decisions in DEFENSE of the Constitution.

It sure seems as if bribery, undue influence, and problems rending UNBIASED decisions which UPHOLD the Constitution have been problems from the beginning.

That much has become painfully obvious.

have you actually read any of the court decisions? no I thought not, go back and read them, the supreme court rendered a decision that the second amendment affirms a RIGHT of the PEOPLE. doesn't bother to read loves conspiracy theories, ok your on ignore

Actually, you should never ASSume. I have read some of the court decisions.

I'm not sure why you're arguing against what I wrote, since you basically made my point with your second sentence.

As for your final sentence, what 'theories' have I espoused, -exactly-?

The people who put others on 'ignore', are the very ones who can't make their own arguments in a logical, or coherent manner. Instead of directly addressing what someone has written or said, and making their point, they put people on ignore, or make statements which do NOT address the topic(s) at hand.

Then again, are some topics which some people seem to have a complete inability to process in a rational way.

Perhaps you believe no one in our government or judiciary has ever taken a bribe?

Perhaps you believe that we all need to submit to laws which require us to register ourselves with I.D. cards just to be able to carry firearms on our persons.

Perhaps you believe that 'moderate' muslims are a peaceful bunch, and are our best of friends. John McCain made a serious error when he stated that all the Syrian rebels are 'moderates'. 1) They're not, so he lied to all of us and 2) Moderate muslims still detest and hate the West, Christians and Jews.

Feel free to try to prove which of my statements are 'conspiracy theories'.

But I don't know what you believe, other than in the 2nd Amendment, and I'm not going to waste any time perusing through your posts to decipher your beliefs, because someone's head is stuck just way too far.. well... perhaps we can both assume how best to finish that last sentence, since others will have to read this post to you.

If people can't make cogent and logical arguments, then perhaps they should let those who can, do.

Just because someone states a fact that you disagree with, doesn't make it a (conspiracy) theory.