"HE ain't black. He is mixed race. Period."

Black in America is what you look like- it has nothing to do with your genealogy.

As far as what Krellin says, yah everyone's going to die. I'd rather go out on my own terms, though. Whether young or dead, I'd like to tell a few people some last words, maybe be in a comfortable bed. Not in my desk without any understanding of whats going on and knowing only fear as I die.

One last point, Krellin basically admitted he's a troll since words have no meaning unless you give them meaning.

@Krellin I would say that a woman who is willing to choke her child and has been commited multiple times to the mental hospital is mentally unstable and shouldn't be able to buy a gun. But yet my mother who that applies to can still buy a gun.

So please please take a second you have no idea some of the things people have gone through and has helped to form their opinions.

And just cause it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen. Is there anything wrong with having people with violently - keyword violent- unstable mental conditions from being allowed to have a gun?

Most states have laws against mentally unstable people buying guns CF. It should honestly be a state issue, not a federal one.

Re: race by color. Not according to the US Census Bureau.

@Jimgov - What if your ban on these weapons result in *increased* violent crimes? Look at the laws in the states where moat of these crimes tale place and look at the ownership of the guns used. The states have se.of the moat restrictive gun laws amd the guns used were not owned by the attacker. Therefore your law would not have stopped the crime and the attacker felt free to.commit their crime.knowing no one would be armed and ready to stop them.

Draug I disagree with it being a state issue, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't know the ins and outs of every gun law honestly. That's why I was asking the pro-gun people here what they thought should be done if anything.

Why would it be federal. State licensing and ownership has naught to do with Interstate Commerce.

Jimgov m16 is a true assault weapon it is what I carried into desert storm with a 203 attached

Bushmaster is not even close

Celtic it is a state issue if a weapon is made and sold in a state technically the fed has zero play there

@Draug

Being black in America has nothing to do with genealogy. Being an African-American does.

As far as state vs federal, I understand the argument, but what about when someone from one state carries a gun into another state? For example a conceal and carry state into a place like NY with very restrictive laws. Doesn't federal law then trump both states laws due to interstate commerce clause? Really just asking a question to ponder, not making a point.

Krellin is such a farce

He can't possibly be real. What do you bet he smells like

I kind of imagine he smells like mothballs and a dirty diaper

Interstate Commerce? What did they sell? No, it has nothing to do with it. Fireworks aren't federally regulated and if you bring certain classes of them into certain states, you are breaking the law unless you have a license to conduct profressional shows in that state. Firearms are no different. Don't have a license for that class of firearm, don't bring it in.

@Draug .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

See, evem SCOTUS says Congress doesn't have the authority to regulate firearms beyond their actual sale across state lines. So a gun made in a state amd sold therein is outside of Congress' reach.

Pat, no, unless there was a sale made, Feds ahve no power over that gun. I have a CCP in Tennessee, and it is good in every border state (the permit) of ours (which is 9 I believe).

CCP from one state are good in other states, only if both states signed an agreement to recognize each others CCPs.

So, I know for a fact that my CCP is not good in New York, so why would I bring it in there, knowing I am breaking the law.

Repost from another thread. It's my idea and I think it's a damned good one:

My proposal is a nationwide, graduated licensing system, possibly with dividing guns into categories of combat effectiveness:

Single-fire hunting rifles/shotguns (including limited-capacity semi-automatic hunting shotguns) being category zero - no licensing requirement; free for all adults to own and carry on condition that the weapon is used in connection with hunting

Concealed carry pistols being category one - a two-hour class, instant background check, and one-time live-fire range qualification

Semi-automatic rifles and non-hunting shotguns being category two - a four-hour class, full background check, and one-time live-fire range qualification

Fully automatic weapons of all classifications being category three - a weekend class, extensive background check, and annual range qualification
__

I would repeal all laws banning high capacity magazines and cosmetic features (including short barrels). I would repeal all laws banning incendiary, explosive (Raufoss etc.), armor-piercing, and other specialist ammunition. I would make concealed and open carry for all weapon types legal nationwide and ban gun-free zones (including schools, but I would ban *open* carry in schools). The catch is that you must have the appropriate category license to buy, own, and carry a weapon from that category (but each category of license qualifies an individual to own/carry weapons from lower categories)

This law would pre-empt all state gun laws, but states can opt-out on the condition that they do not enact more restrictive laws in its place.

@GF - I would do none of the above. Congress does not have the right to determine gun free zones or what a person may or may not own. they only have the right to determine what may or may not be sold or carried *across state lines*.

@ Draugnar

Congress can pass the above legislation to further protect the Second Amendment.

Also, I included a clause in which states can opt-out of the legislation on the condition that they do not enact stricter laws in its place.

I disagree. Those powers not enumerated to Congress nor explicitly restricted to the states are not granted to Congress. As long as a state doesn't ban all firearms, they are within the 2nd Amendment and their constitutional right.

^I disagree with that. The people have the right to small arms that are as good as what the military and the police have under the Second Amendment, and my proposed legislation would ensure this.

You have to admit that a simple graduated, comprehensive licensing system with incorporated buying, owning, and possessing privileges is a much better idea than the 6,000 federal gun laws currently on the books.

I admit no such thing. I believe in states' rights. I believe the people of a state have a right to self-determination. You only believe in states' rights when it is convenient but would trample the rights of people.in another state to.vote to ban automatic or aemi-automatic weapons. If the founders had intended for any small arms, they would have effectively the said "the right to bear any arms at any time.under any circumstances" and just as the federal school safety zone waa struck down by SCOTUS, so too should Congresses power to force a state to accept open carry or conceal carry or full auto or semi auto or anything else the people.of a stqte should choose to enshrined in their state constitution. You'll note that the only way the enforcement of health insurance requirements withstood SCOTUS scrutiny was by ot being a tax. I do not believe that forcing a state to accept weapons it's citizenry find unacceptable would stand up and I do not believe the gun-toting Texan red necks.should be allowed to tell the people.of New York that they have to allow the sales of automatic weapons in their state any more than New York should have the right to tell Texas theu can't sell automatic weapons.

Draugnar, most states do not recognize each others' CC licenses. Why should I have to leave my gun at home just because I'm traveling across state lines?

Many states like California and New York have laws that could be considered in violation of the Second Amendment, and Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to protect it with further legislation.

@Gun - While YOU may consider many states' gun laws in violation of the 2nd Amendment, it is obvious that they would have been overturned if they were. Lawyers would be lined up around the block to go after them. What they are, however, are laws that you disagree with. Not the same thing.

No theyvdo not have that right. The USAG has a right to present a case before SCOTUS and have it clarified as with other laws at the state level that have been challenged.

I'm just saying that the current state-based CC licensing system and all federal gun laws make a lot less sense than my proposal.

Gun-free zones are blatantly unconstitutional. We have a right to be armed everywhere, except in exceptional locations like airplanes and military installations.

Nothing right was ever easy and nothing easy was ever right. Your approach is easier but denies the states their right to sovereignty.

@Gunfighter - Where are you getting your information? How are gun-free zones unconstitutional? You listed a few, but how about every elementary, middle and high school, at least in the state of Florida? Where is the constitutional ruling on this?

I think it was bo posted one earlier where federally mamdated gun free zones were found by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional. Florida has their own law and it isn't subject to SCOTUS. But the feds can't make that declaration into law.