US Senator Coburn (R-OK) Introduces Gun Control of His Own (not kidding!!!)

[okietom]

The main problem I see with this is that it is being offered as an amendment to the Reid gun bill instead of being a stand alone bill. My other question would be is it mandatory or voluntary? Voluntary is great, mandatory not so much.

This!

 

[okietom]

"Do any of you who do not like Colburn's proposed legislation have ANY ideas that might work better."

Why yes. Enforce the ****ing laws that are on the books now.

We have too many laws.

Keep everyone that isn't safe to own a gun locked up. If they aren't safe to own a gun they are simply not safe to walk free. Then we would not need background checks. Every one that is free would be legal to own a gun.

 

[okietom]

I understand. I just don't know why some insist on the rigid interpetation. All great documents that stand the test of time are "living documents" if you will. I believe that when the day comes that the government actually attempts to take a legally aquired firearms from law abiding citizens the end of our country as we know it is here, it will be time to start from scratch. I believe I have to right to own and carry firearms which I do. I will not NEVER give them up. But whats clear to me if you study the intent of those who wrote the document we are talking about and all of the case law since it was written is that this right is not absolute. If it were an abosolute right we would
not have the right as a society to keep handguns from bank robbers or exposives from bombers or even a atomic bomb from some one who happen to have enough money to buy or build one. Is this how any of you actually feel? Firearm ownership is a right, also a resposibility. Why is it to much to ask that we take part in trying to keep firearms away from those who should not have them.

So, is the Bible a living document to you? When I see the words "living document" my mind says "liberal". Our activist judges feel that the constitution is a living document. That is how we became saddled with "Roe vs. Wade.

I disagree with the concept of living documents.

 

[DFarcher]

So, is the Bible a living document to you? When I see the words "living document" my mind says "liberal". Our activist judges feel that the constitution is a living document. That is how we became saddled with "Roe vs. Wade.

I disagree with the concept of living documents.

I wish there was another way to say it, I don't really like the phrase "living document". I agree 100% judges should not be in the business of making laws, which they do. But its hard to dispute the fact that the genious of documents that stand the test of time is that some wording is vague, and the ability to interpret a phrase in more than one way can keep a document relevant over time. And in the case of the US Constitution gives states the ability to make their own varrying laws within a framework.

 

[otis147]

I wish there was another way to say it, I don't really like the phrase "living document". I agree 100% judges should not be in the business of making laws, which they do. But its hard to dispute the fact that the genious of documents that stand the test of time is that some wording is vague, and the ability to interpret a phrase in more than one way can keep a document relevant over time. And in the case of the US Constitution gives states the ability to make their own varrying laws within a framework.

so, by living document, you mean an arbitrary set of guidelines that can mean anything the reader wishes, with creative reading skills... gotcha.

the constitution wasn't vaguely worded, it was written in plain english.

 

[DFarcher]

so, by living document, you mean an arbitrary set of guidelines that can mean anything the reader wishes, with creative reading skills... gotcha.

the constitution wasn't vaguely worded, it was written in plain english.

No what I meant is that much of the constitution and other great documents are written in a way that intelligent, thoughtful people without agendas can read the same passage and not agree 100% on the exact meaning or intent.

 

[caojyn]

It's supposed to be strictly interpreted with the ability to be changed (amendments). It's just supposed to nearly impossible to pull off, that's one safe guard along the whole checks and balances thing that went out the window years ago.

 

[farmerbyron]

No what I meant is that much of the constitution and other great documents are written in a way that intelligent, thoughtful people without agendas can read the same passage and not agree 100% on the exact meaning or intent.

I couldn't disagree more. The Constitution was written to delegate specific powers to govt. and a long list of prohibited powers of the govt. It is not some wizardly document that means something to one person and another thing to someone else. It is a rule book. A rule book that is seldom followed anymore.

 

[otis147]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

..... vague as hell.

 

[okietom]

I wish there was another way to say it, I don't really like the phrase "living document". I agree 100% judges should not be in the business of making laws, which they do. But its hard to dispute the fact that the genious of documents that stand the test of time is that some wording is vague, and the ability to interpret a phrase in more than one way can keep a document relevant over time. And in the case of the US Constitution gives states the ability to make their own varrying laws within a framework.

The constitution already gives states the ability to make laws that are what the states want. Our "living document" judges have shot that all to heck by claiming all kinds of nonsense like using the "commerce clause".

Just look at how a federal judge has screwed the people of California when they voted for "prop 8".

That is now waiting on a ruling from the Supreme Court. I would not doubt that they would some how use the commerce clause to uphold the gay Judge that ruled that California could not amend it's own constitution. Our federal courts should not be interfering with the states.

It is the desire to change the document that is behind the "living document" strategy of subverting our constitution.

The gun grabbers are using that to try and get our guns.