M14 Forum

geeck

Except for maybe the 3rd amendment, (quartering soldiers in private homes), all other amendments of the Bill of Rights have be abridged or violated in some way. The Bill of Rights has been changed from a "Charter of Negative Liberties" (What the govenment CANNOT do the the States) to one of what the Federal, or should we should we start saying National government allows the States to do. The States have become subservient to the Federal government they created.

If you cannot see the preponderance of evidence, of the unbridled, unabated, growth of the National government.... what's that old saying "There is none so blind as those who will not see"

mgraffam

I concur. Where you and I differ is that based on past posts, you seem to feel that once our rights are violated, that those violations are here to stay. I disagree. As I pointed out earlier, the Anti-Sedition act of 1918 is a good example of a SERIOUS infringement of the 1st Amendment that clearly provides the Federal Government with oppressive powers. The inability to speak out against the Federal Government - that is about as bad as it gets. That is tyranny in solid form. But it was repealed, just 2 years later.

State's rights have been steadily crushed and eroded since the Civil War. And yet, today - we have the FFA in a handful of states and it will probably get adopted in several more. NH has gone so far as to include legislation to the effect that federal agents attempting to enforce federal law and violate NH's FFA will themselves be arrested and prosecuted.

Let me be clear about this: the Federal government's powers HAVE expanded greatly because WE - the electorate, and the States - have been asleep. When we stir in our beds, the powers of the Federal government recede. It scurries off like a child who knows it is doing wrong and who fears waking its parents.

When daylight comes, all things will be righted.

mgraffam

First of all, as I have said in several places now - challenges to ATF's authority on legal grounds are good reasons to not support this action. I have agreed that the timing of this move is suspect on their part. That is part of my distrust for them.

What I am OK with is the idea of mandatory reporting. I believe that I have made it clear that I am trying to separate the two here.. that I'd like to get an idea of how people feel about the idea of mandatory reporting, and if that idea could be implemented in a way people would accept.

What is mind-boggling to me is how a few folks here seem unwilling to separate the discussion into a practical one with regard to ATF's authority, and a theoretical one with regards to the efficacy of mandatory reporting.

Swamp Rat

Every time you purchase a firearm, you are run through something called the NICS. There is your reporting procedure. So instead of harassing dealers, the ATF can track down (and kill, as history shows) those who purchase 3 AKs in however long a period. That's going to kill sales.

Hey, how convienent, sounds like they are trying to push dealers out of business, just like F&F was for implementing new regulations. Or am I being to paranoid?

mgraffam

My understanding of the NICS check is that the FFL calls in your identifying information, and thats all. NICS does not get a record of what the firearm you are purchasing is.. they run your info, and if you are clear, thats it. The record of the firearm type is maintained at the FFL, and is only transferred to a government agent if they have a warrant.

Can an FFL confirm this? If no one reading this is an FFL, I'll ask when I pick up my new rifle next week and go through the NICS.

Swamp Rat

In one week I had a major cash injection and bought a Carcano, Swede Mauser, a Lee Enfield, and a Lee Navy Straight Pull. This was at a gun show and a pawn shop 3 1/2 hours away. The FFL at the final purchase said "Yeah, two here, Really" then hung up. He then started making small talk asking me what kind of deals at the gun show did I get. I didn't say anything to him about this. Do the math.

csacpt

Just found this and worth a read to anyone who truly values Liberty. Just take the time to read it and Think, please. Forget emotions, and the "feel good" Bravo Sierra that too many attempt to utilize in order to "justify" the "need" for abrogation of our rights.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...tatorship.html

mgraffam

That's wild.

Sounds to me like the Government got interested in your purchases, and that is exactly why that dealer started making the small talk - because they didn't know what you bought. That confirms what I've heard about the NICS check - firearm type isn't reported, which is why it is useless for mandatory reporting.

If a basic type had been reported (semi, manual action, pistol, etc) they probably wouldn't have been curious about your purchases of some old manual action rifles.

Not that I like them sticking their snout into things without any public procedure about the matter.. at least then you could have decided to not cross their threshold of purchases if you didn't want the attention.

I'd have withheld payment and told the dealer to keep the rifles, and not to act as an agent of the state next time.

GARRARD

RE: http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...tatorship.html

That's pretty much how I see it. I would also throw in the War Powers Act as another unconstitutional abomination.

wifetrained

A very sobering read, and happening before our very eye's one step at a time.

bd111

Yes, the administrative state's usurpation of powers reserved to the Congress - usually with our elected reps being willing complicitors - and, more importantly, reserved to the citizens, is more disturbing than ever. We haven't had a POTUS since Reagan who dared challenge its premises (FDR's New Deal) or made any effort to scale it back. It's been very incremental. It's been an article of faith at the Harvard and Yale law schools since the '70's. BO, Biden, HRC and hubby SlickWilly, Holder, and BO's Dr. Strangelove, a guy named Cass Sunstein, are dedicated early adopters. Others include Steve Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Nino Scalia (surprise!) on the Supreme Court, where Roberts, Alito, and Clarence Thomas are probably the leading skeptics.

I hate to be so pessimistic, but in the longer haul and bigger picture of things, I think the one thing that absolutely guts the Constitution worse than any other is the dynasty of career elected politicians in the U.S. House and Senate and the citizenry's lack of success in forcing term limits. We'd be getting totally different behavior in Washington, D.C., if it set in stone from the beginning that nobody gets more than 10 or 12 years in office.

kmcintosh78

You are a forum contradiction.
You disagree with portions of the ATF, but not others.
You stated you don't trust unelected officials, yet willing and gladly except the idea that a Govt agency can collect/harvest data about your firearms purchases, when there is nothing in the original Documents that give them that authority.
The ATF, like every other Govt Agency just makes this crap up as they go. And packages and sells it to the masses under the guise of Safety and Security.

Sorry, but that is crap. More restrictions, regardless how big or small, is still restrictions.
Your argument is weak at best, and really jumps from one side to the other in the same retort.
You can regurgitate info collected from the internet and Wikipedia, but the comprehension is not there.

mgraffam

I believe it was F. Scott Fitzgerald, or maybe E.E. Cummings.. who said,

"It is a test of a first-rate mind to be able to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time."

Yes, you might say I disagree with portions of the ATF, and not others. I wouldn't exactly put it that way - but lets run with it. Of what concern is that? There are many people that I agree with on some issues, and differ on others.. so why should it not be with organizations and their policies too? A great many politicians fit that description, for instance. But I still sometimes set aside my differences and find one that I can stomach voting for.

And, do not put words in my mouth - I am not GLAD to accept something like background checks, or mandatory reporting. It saddens me that crime is such that I need to entertain the idea of accepting these sorts of things. But yes, I am WILLING to accept some 'restrictions' here and there. I see them more as responsibilities - it IS, technically, a restriction for a father not to be able to spend all of his pay check on guns and booze - but that restriction IS his responsibility. So too, I think law abiding citizens have a responsibility to help with crime.

If I seem to jump from one "side" to the other, perhaps you would do well to stop thinking in terms of right and left. Stop trying to fit me into your little boxes that you have created for yourself; stop spending so much mental effort trying to decide if the labels "conservative", "liberal", "crazy", "delusional" or any others apply to me.

If you really want a label - call me pragmatic. Or, maybe 'radically moderate' might be an amusing term. I don't follow the party lines. I look at solutions to problems. Often times the solutions to those problems involve slashing and cutting government - conservatives and libertarians call me their brother then. Sometimes, a new government policy seems like a good idea - then the liberals call me their champion. I think they're all nuts, and I think that party line, ideological crap is one of the biggest problems we have.

I don't think this way because I desire to see myself as unique or some such nonsense - I think this way because I want to get RESULTS. I don't want to move my country "left" or "right" .. I want to move it FORWARD. There are many moderate people that agree.. but the hard-liners constantly ruin it. They constantly fail, at ever turn, to see how their blind adherence to ideology and the constant tug-of-war of both parties has paralyzed our country.

If you can't see how what i've just said is true when you look a the current fiasco with the budget, for example.. then it is YOU you fail to comprehend.

mgraffam

Yeah, you're probably right about that. I'd like to see term limits across the board too.. somewhere in the neighbor of 10 years might be OK - but would that really stop career politicians, or just change the rules of the game some? I'm not so sure.

As it is, they move from being a state Governor, to the House or Senate, then try for a Presidential bid, etc. I don't know that 10 years would really put a crimp in these guy's careers. The could just as easily accelerate them (they need to seek higher office faster than they may have ordinarily). Also, if you shorten it much more .. say to 4 or 6 years, then you have the situation where they know their time in the spotlight is up soon anyhow, so they may as well pursue whatever agenda they like without even needing to fear that their career will get cut short for it.

It is a really tough call.

What I think we really need is some type of voting/election reform that is tailored to get new blood into the government on a regular basis, without necessarily kicking folks out that do a good job, like term-limits do. I have ideas about how that could be done. The problem is, it would either need a majority of people to align with a new political party whose primary elections proceed along new lines, OR it would require an amendment to the Constitution. The media will demonize the former (it doesn't play into their every story as TWO sides mentality), and the politicians will never support the latter (after all if you're winning at basketball, why would you ever consent to switch the game to baseball?)

Swamp Rat

I also believe it was Dr. B. Franklin who said "Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither"

All citizens have a duty to help with crime.

To not partake in it.
To report it when it occurs
If they have the means, to stop it.


As coincidence would have it, "Not left or right but forward happens to be MSNBC's new marketing ploy to distract people from it's highly visible left wing agenda.

McCain, Lindsey Graham, Webb, and Spector (before he switched parties) are all considered moderates. They all have one thing in common. McCain consistently does it right before election time.

Trust me, everything fits in a neat little box.