Donald Trump: I’ll Sign National Reciprocity if It Reaches My Desk

[BobbyV]

I know my position on national reciprosity will alienate and pizz of a lot of people here, but I oppose any form of "national permission" to carry anything that is a natural right, already recognized as an inailenable right in the Constitution; the constitution in which We the People delinetated limited powers to government and set prohibitions against wherein the government may get involved. If such a law is passed, it will be defacto recognition by the federal government that the several states may infact infringe upon the most important right that set us free and allows us to maintain that freedom against all enemies of the people, foreign and domestic. Lift the lid on this toilet bowl of infringement, examine the contents, and flush it all down the draiin to the sewer of bad law - law that would legitimize further infringement. There is only one solution to this dilemma: Remove any and all infringements on the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

If there are people out therre who cannot be trusted with arms, if not executed, lock them up until it can be proven they are no longer a risk to society.

Woody

If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved. B.E.Wood

I have no problem with this view . . . infringements need to go away across the country.

 

[Rez Exelon]

Yeah . . . um, I know that. If you think it's reasonable to suddenly become a criminal when you cross a state line or to avoid driving the most common route to another location all due to the laws of another state you've got issues.

And you people who use "Full Stop" in your responses are annoying. Are you Alyssa Milano or something?

I think it's unreasonable that there's world hunger, poverty, senseless death, and a million other things --- whether it's unreasonable or not doesn't matter --- it is what it is. Don't like it? Don't go there. Don't like it? Work on a solution. But the solution should be something that doesn't legitimize the problem by fixing a symptom, it should eliminate the problem from existing in the first place.

And if it annoys you that I use Full Stop then you can choose to avoid my posts or you can not be a whiny snowflake and shut up. This is a board that trumpets individual liberties and I can use it if I damn well please.

 

[BobbyV]

I think it's unreasonable that there's world hunger, poverty, senseless death, and a million other things --- whether it's unreasonable or not doesn't matter --- it is what it is.

You forgot to add full stop.

Don't like it? Don't go there. Don't like it? Work on a solution. But the solution should be something that doesn't legitimize the problem by fixing a symptom, it should eliminate the problem from existing in the first place.

Find a solution. Oh wait, that solution has to be one that I like . . . um, if that solution fixes the issue and allows a person to legally the same firearm in all 50 states you don't have to like it, but I can guarantee that you'd take advantage of it.

And if it annoys you that I use Full Stop then you can choose to avoid my posts or you can not be a whiny snowflake and shut up.

YOU replied to me. How is me finding something you used in the reply an indication of me being a whiny snowflake? And telling me to shut up? Really?

Did you just really whine about my opinion and then proceed to call me a whiner for providing an opinion on part of your comment? Seriously?

If you don't like my POV on the subject just keep on scrolling.

This is a board that trumpets individual liberties and I can use it if I damn well please.

It sure does . . . and I'll continue to provide my opinion on topics whether you agree with them or not.

 

[TDoug]

Article. VI.
¶2 – This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Marbury v. Madison 5US 137 (Vol 5, p137)
Chief Justice John Marshall, in his opinion: “Anything that is in conflict (with the Constitution) is null and void of law.” “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law is illogical. For certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other laws.”

The law in conflict would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey. It would report to settle as if it had never existed. Unconstitutionality would date from the date of enactment of the law, not from the date so granted in a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it.

 

[dennishoddy]

One of the more amazing aspects of our country is that you have freedom of choice. For instance, you don't have to live anywhere you don't want to go, and don't have to travel anywhere you don't want to go. So if you don't like their laws or that they don't have reciprocity, then you don't have to go there. Full Stop.

Some don’t have freedom of choice as you describe.
Some of us had to cross state lines as part of our employment, to attend family functions, hospitalized relatives, funerals, etc.
I agree that our 2A doesn’t stop, or at least it shouldn’t stop when crossing state lines or city boundaries.

 

[Rez Exelon]

Some don’t have freedom of choice as you describe.
Some of us had to cross state lines as part of our employment, to attend family functions, hospitalized relatives, funerals, etc.
I agree that our 2A doesn’t stop, or at least it shouldn’t stop when crossing state lines or city boundaries.

Incorrect sir. All of those are choices.

You could:
Choose a different job
Choose to not attend
Choose to not visit.

It's not ideal but those are all very much choices. I spend 26 weeks a year on the road. That's a choice. If I visit my mom out of state, that's a choice.

 

[ignerntbend]

Each state should be allowed to regulate its militia in any way it sees fit, without any interference from the swamp dwelling, nose picking, butt scratching people in the Federal government.

 

[dennishoddy]

Incorrect sir. All of those are choices.

You could:
Choose a different job
Choose to not attend
Choose to not visit.

It's not ideal but those are all very much choices. I spend 26 weeks a year on the road. That's a choice. If I visit my mom out of state, that's a choice.

Change jobs because your employer requires you to travel? Yeah right. You have the choice to flip burgers or provide a high paying job for your family.
That makes zero sense. Just as much sense as your utopian theory.

 

[Snattlerake]

This. Pushing a federally mandated reciprocity thing doesn't address any core issues with the idea of the second amendment and only fixed a symptom rather than a problem. And in doing so it's legitimizing the underlying issues.

True. What can be given to, can be taken away. The only true constitutional fix is to get rid of all the infringements. As pointed out, it will never happen.

 

[Rez Exelon]

Change jobs because your employer requires you to travel? Yeah right. You have the choice to flip burgers or provide a high paying job for your family.
That makes zero sense. Just as much sense as your utopian theory.

You can choose whatever you want. But in doing so means you have to prioritize. I believe what you want is to have your cake and eat it to. Again... Every single thing you listed is a matter of choice.