Casper Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20132014/HB/90 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99FLHRCI Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 If states can't enforce federal immigration laws, why should they enforce federal gun laws? +1 for Georgia 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serpentracer Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 If states can't enforce federal immigration laws, why should they enforce federal gun laws? +1 for Georgiaimmigraton laws tend to border on racisim for one. and 2 you don't need an assault type weapon. riffles, shotgun and handgun is all you should be allowed to own. and if you want to get technical about the constitution since it was written when the only kind of "arms" was a musket you should only be allowed to own one of those. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2talltim Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) immigraton laws tend to border on racisim for one. and 2 you don't need an assault type weapon. riffles, shotgun and handgun is all you should be allowed to own. and if you want to get technical about the constitution since it was written when the only kind of "arms" was a musket you should only be allowed to own one of those.Then you can't post that here, because back then "press" meant newspapers and telograms not interwebs forums and tvs Edited January 23, 2013 by 2talltim 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted January 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 immigraton laws tend to border on racisim for one. and 2 you don't need an assault type weapon. riffles, shotgun and handgun is all you should be allowed to own. and if you want to get technical about the constitution since it was written when the only kind of "arms" was a musket you should only be allowed to own one of those. A. He said Federal immigration laws. They are not racist. B. If modern firearms aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment, then internet, TV, radio, etc aren't protected by the 1st. Don't forget about wiretapping, drones, etc. Those wouldn't be covered by the 4th. Be careful what you wish for amigo. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1crusher Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Boom! Headshot!Rep. for ghostie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cOoTeR Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 immigraton laws tend to border on racisim for one. and 2 you don't need an assault type weapon. riffles, shotgun and handgun is all you should be allowed to own. and if you want to get technical about the constitution since it was written when the only kind of "arms" was a musket you should only be allowed to own one of those.That is the ignorant bullshit that is spewed by ignorant anti gun people. When the second amendment was written is was to enable everyone to have equal fire power. Guns killed people back then too. The people had the same fire power as the military. The bill of rights was written for the future not just the current times. Please show me the part that says it won't apply later on in the future I'd love to see that clause. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) immigraton laws tend to border on racisim for one. and 2 you don't need an assault type weapon. riffles, shotgun and handgun is all you should be allowed to own. and if you want to get technical about the constitution since it was written when the only kind of "arms" was a musket you should only be allowed to own one of those.The ignorance is strong in this one.The 1st Amendment doesn't only apply to the Gutenberg printing press.And by the way, multishot firearms have been around since the 1500's. The Continental Congress had a design for a 20 shot 'automatic' gun in 1777, the Bill of Rights was proposed 1789. Edited January 23, 2013 by Tpoppa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 I'm going to pic up a hat or t shirt with this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cOoTeR Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) Several states have already ignored federal law regarding medical marijuana. So I wonder how the federal politicians can word any enforcement against the Georgia type gun laws? The Federal government stays away from large scale drug enforcement of the medical marijuana issue. They pretty much just confiscate it book the person so it shows they were arrested but not charged on their record. Yet we have a "War on Drugs". If the government starts to enforce against the Georgia type laws I'm sure the new "War on Guns" will cause quite a stir. Edited January 23, 2013 by cOoTeR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSVDon Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Hell yeah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cOoTeR Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 immigraton laws tend to border on racisim for one. and 2 you don't need an assault type weapon. riffles, shotgun and handgun is all you should be allowed to own. and if you want to get technical about the constitution since it was written when the only kind of "arms" was a musket you should only be allowed to own one of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 It's all a good gesture and makes the representatives look good but the states don't have the authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cOoTeR Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 It's all a good gesture and makes the representatives look good but the states don't have the authority.They dont have the authority to legalize pot either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted January 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 It's all a good gesture and makes the representatives look good but the states don't have the authority. Sure they do. Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 They dont have the authority to legalize pot either.This is true.... I guess we just wait and see Hopefully enough states will say no and just put a stop to all this crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBBaron Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 immigraton laws tend to border on racisim for one. and 2 you don't need an assault type weapon. riffles, shotgun and handgun is all you should be allowed to own. and if you want to get technical about the constitution since it was written when the only kind of "arms" was a musket you should only be allowed to own one of those.And what is the difference between a rifle or shotgun and an "assault type weapon"?An AR-15 is a popular hunting rifle for some types of game and is actually a fairly low powered rifle. Many popular hunting rifles are semi-automatic with removable magazines and many of those can easily be converted to look like "assault weapons" with a few accessories. An "assault weapons" ban does nothing to improve safety. The only thing it accomplishes is to demonize particular weapons and increase their value on the used market.Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsvRidr Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) No muskets used in 1946 during the battle of Athens http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw Edited January 23, 2013 by rsvRidr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) *shakes head*.... there were a variety of types of muskets. Your typical quality civilian musket was rifled, extremely accurate, and reloaded rather slowly.Your typical military musket had a bayonet/mount (very important), reloaded quickly, and wasn't too accurate but didn't need to be. Combat was done in a skirmish line firing fusillades.The fledgling American Army preferred the citizen militia to have the military musket. but they were rare and hard to come by, unless purchased by the government and loaned out to militia units.The experienced British Army preferred the American militias to have military muskets also. Part of that was the civilian muskets were too darn accurate.Huge amounts of American militia actually fought for the British against American independence. They lost.The British thought American militia on both sides were worthless. They lost the battle also.edit: The majority of the US states passed or introduced the bill that Georgia is presenting, back in 2010-11. Georgia was a little late. Most stayed in committee, but this year many were brought back and passed. Federal government already officially responded with a "nuhuh no way", but outcomes remain to be seen. legal/medical marijuana being one of the examples.opinion: the civilian musket probably won the American Revolution at the battle of Kings Mountain, NC. It was all downhill for the British after that. American "Mountain Men" approached and fired from cover using experienced and accurate muskets. They won. The Americans had a right to be angry, the British were marching and destroying/looting/burning everything they encountered. Edited January 23, 2013 by ReconRat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 immigraton laws tend to border on racisim for one.no. and 2 you don't need an assault type weapon..too bad for your argument that we have "the bill of rights", not "the bill of needs". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 There goes that miss-used and miss-represented word called "racism" yet again. Why not just allow hordes of unknown people to camp in your backyard and take advantage of everything that you have earned? If a person goes through the legal process of living here, than I have zero issues. We are not the world police, we can't keep saving everybody when we can barely sustain ourselves these days. As far as any civilian legally owning an actual assault weapon or scary black rifle, where is the danger in that? The Constitution has been trampled on enough as it is, enough is enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDBGoalie Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 A. He said Federal immigration laws. They are not racist. B. If modern firearms aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment, then internet, TV, radio, etc aren't protected by the 1st. Don't forget about wiretapping, drones, etc. Those wouldn't be covered by the 4th. Be careful what you wish for amigo.+1Go back to hugging a tree, politics are not your strong suit. (To serpent, not Ben) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8mmDale Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 immigraton laws tend to border on racisim for one. and 2 you don't need an assault type weapon. riffles, shotgun and handgun is all you should be allowed to own. and if you want to get technical about the constitution since it was written when the only kind of "arms" was a musket you should only be allowed to own one of those.You don't NEED anything but protein, oxygen and water. Shall we ask the government to start taking anything not on that list away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 There goes that miss-used and miss-represented word called "racism" yet again. Why not just allow hordes of unknown people to camp in your backyard and take advantage of everything that you have earned? If a person goes through the legal process of living here, than I have zero issues. We are not the world police, we can't keep saving everybody when we can barely sustain ourselves these days. As far as any civilian legally owning an actual assault weapon or scary black rifle, where is the danger in that? The Constitution has been trampled on enough as it is, enough is enough.This!!! Not accepting the burden of illegal aliens does not make one a racist. Stupidest comment yet from the snake racer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.