Question is, do you really think this amendment will provide a system that is 100% accurate either?
US Senator Coburn (R-OK) Introduces Gun Control of His Own (not kidding!!!)
- Thread starter Cougar
- Start Date
Question is, do you really think this amendment will provide a system that is 100% accurate either?
Perhaps not, but I would be willing to bet a rack of ribs that it would be significantly more accurate than your gut instinct.
"Wickard v. Filburn" is where the wheels came off of the state's rights wagon if memory serves. That dastardly farmer Roscoe Filburn grew too much wheat (that he never sold or intended to sell). He clearly did this so that he could feed his own livestock like a free American might want to do. The villain! The monster!
Back to topic, I am not sure why Coburn is doing this. We have so very many laws on the fed books now that don't help anyone - I am not a fan of anything more that "does not hurt us very bad" - and that may be the best thing I can say about this.
Any crazed young man willing to kill his mother to get her guns will surely kill an LEO to get his/her guns; or a solider, or an agent guarding a VIP, etc. No registration system will solve this equation for us. The end result for the Gun Grabbers is all guns gone - nothing less. If you listen to them they will admit this often. We cannot accept half measures and compromise - we cannot let them ratchet away our rights with no movement in the other direction.
The world is not the same place it was before Heller v. D.C. - we cannot allow it to be. In the same way that the awful and misguided Wickard v. Filburn broke our government outright, the wonderful Heller v. D.C. has fixed our 2nd amendment rights as an individual right. We cannot let our fellow citizens act like Heller never happened. This decision reversed a long trend of "..it probably means National Guard.." logic in schools and courts. People are starting to understand what those zany founders might have actually meant.
Make no mistake, I am a Coburn fan still. But I am missing the merit in this amendment. I like that Coburn is not a "straight party" republican. He's a good litmus test for "anything for the greater good for the GOP" crowd - they hate him - and I enjoy that. Many republicans would strip our rights just as easily as Democrats, with different motives, but he same result. Especially in Oklahoma where too often; 'republican' means 'democrat who cannot abide abortion'.
Back to topic, I am not sure why Coburn is doing this. We have so very many laws on the fed books now that don't help anyone - I am not a fan of anything more that "does not hurt us very bad" - and that may be the best thing I can say about this.
Any crazed young man willing to kill his mother to get her guns will surely kill an LEO to get his/her guns; or a solider, or an agent guarding a VIP, etc. No registration system will solve this equation for us. The end result for the Gun Grabbers is all guns gone - nothing less. If you listen to them they will admit this often. We cannot accept half measures and compromise - we cannot let them ratchet away our rights with no movement in the other direction.
The world is not the same place it was before Heller v. D.C. - we cannot allow it to be. In the same way that the awful and misguided Wickard v. Filburn broke our government outright, the wonderful Heller v. D.C. has fixed our 2nd amendment rights as an individual right. We cannot let our fellow citizens act like Heller never happened. This decision reversed a long trend of "..it probably means National Guard.." logic in schools and courts. People are starting to understand what those zany founders might have actually meant.
Make no mistake, I am a Coburn fan still. But I am missing the merit in this amendment. I like that Coburn is not a "straight party" republican. He's a good litmus test for "anything for the greater good for the GOP" crowd - they hate him - and I enjoy that. Many republicans would strip our rights just as easily as Democrats, with different motives, but he same result. Especially in Oklahoma where too often; 'republican' means 'democrat who cannot abide abortion'.
Y'know, if you're going to talk about the Constitution, you really ought to read the thing.
1) If the Constitution is a living document, then Article V is its beating heart. You do know Article V, don't you? The Framers knew that it would have to adapt to the times, so they gave us specific procedures to do so. Those procedures do not include the words "say things are different now, so it doesn't mean what it used to."
2) The Framers meant a much more expansive view of the right than you recognize. In fact, their interpretation allowed for private ownership of cannon, and even warships. The proof is right there in the document itself: Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. That would be a pointless thing to do if there weren't privateers to whom such letters could have been issued, now wouldn't it?
3) Yes, actually, I do believe that anybody who's not serving a lawfully-imposed sentence should be free to keep firearms. Rob a bank? Go to prison. Stay there. But when he's released, he's paid his debt to society; he's a free man. Still think he's a danger? Then keep him locked up. Free men ought to be free.
You can be my bodyguard anytime...
As for the amendment still being out there, let's wait to see if it's a mere scheduling issue. Or is Coburn still firing after the battle is won?
Excellent comments Yojinbo!
Okietom, I don't much like the "living document" concept either. That's not a Republic, that's a moving measuring stick, or otherwise known as arbitrary law and arbitray religion. What the Constitution was meant to say is what it says. Only interpretation can be on how faithful you are to the original intent. And articals that posed limits on the Federal government are perhaps the clearest of all.
his point is that you already have a system in place to address your concerns
You're giving Coburn way too much credit.
Yep I was afraid of this. After his town hall meetings I got the vibe this was his plan. It is why I dont agree with his previous vote to allow debate. He was trying before to get this through. Then the Manchin-toomey. He knew it would fail. Now he can go back to work on this. He can say look now this is what will work. He will then be hailed as a hero by both sides of the aisle. It will be his "crowning moment" so to speak. I fear it will also be the "foot in the door" for the antis.
Sent from Samsung Galaxy S3
Sent from Samsung Galaxy S3
Similar threads
