August 4, 201610 yr Comments: Judge Nap Blasts Obama Admin for 'Reprehensible,' 'Lawless' Stockpiling of Gun Owner Info | Fox News Insider
August 4, 201610 yr If you buy a gun your information is already stored some where, so we only care if the Government has it?
August 4, 201610 yr If you buy a gun your information is already stored some where, so we only care if the Government has it? Yes, considering that would be able to hypothetically take them away from me, I care that the government has been stockpiling this information for reasons other than was intended. Yes, I care that the government, which is supposed to represent law and order, has once again conducted an illegal action.
August 4, 201610 yr Yes, considering that would be able to hypothetically take them away from me, I care that the government has been stockpiling this information for reasons other than was intended. Yes, I care that the government, which is supposed to represent law and order, has once again conducted an illegal action. When the Constitution changes and says we don't have the right to bear arms, then we can start discussing hypothetical abilities to take away our guns. Until then it is a complete waste of time to even speculate.
August 4, 201610 yr When the Constitution changes and says we don't have the right to bear arms, then we can start discussing hypothetical abilities to take away our guns. Until then it is a complete waste of time to even speculate. In case you missed it, arguments are already being made that the second amendment doesn't apply to today's society.
August 4, 201610 yr Frankly, as long as your background check is a federal one to purchase firearms, the argument the judge makes about it being a states issue is silly, in my opinion.
August 4, 201610 yr If you buy a gun your information is already stored some where, so we only care if the Government has it? The point is the government is not suppose to be doing this.
August 4, 201610 yr Icymi, arguments are already being made that the second amendment doesn't apply to today's society. Haven't missed it. We will never lose our right to bear arms. It may change in some way (which I don't think would necessarily be a bad thing), but we will always be allowed to have firearms.
August 4, 201610 yr Frankly, as long as your background check is a federal one to purchase firearms, the argument the judge makes about it being a states issue is silly, IMO. Exactly.
August 4, 201610 yr When the Constitution changes and says we don't have the right to bear arms, then we can start discussing hypothetical abilities to take away our guns. Until then it is a complete waste of time to even speculate. At that moment it will be too late. "Nip it! Nip it in the bud!" -- Deputy Barney Fife.
August 4, 201610 yr At that moment it will be too late. "Nip it! Nip it in the bud!" -- Deputy Barney Fife. Well that time will never come, so...
August 4, 201610 yr We are a nation of laws. No one is above the law. When we fail to enforce laws because they don't agree with a political opinion and break laws because they don't fit our political agenda, we are whittling away at the one thing that holds our society together. If a law can be ignored now, it becomes irrelevant later and someone who thinks the constitution is a living breathing entity that must change because its point of view is archaic may just start re-writing it. Or they begin to infringe upon our rights around the edges. And those edges creep further toward the center as time goes on. Nip it!!
August 4, 201610 yr Haven't missed it. We will never lose our right to bear arms. It may change in some way (which I don't think would necessarily be a bad thing), but we will always be allowed to have firearms. This is just as much conjecture as is the premise that the government may someday try to take guns.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.