Licensing for the 2nd Amendment is bad, but for the 1st?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • phylodog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    59   0   0
    Mar 7, 2008
    18,749
    113
    Arcadia
    Not cool. Not cool when any POTUS speaks in favor of restricting what is protected by the Bill Of Rights. Wasn’t cool when Obama did it, ain’t cool now. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.wash...t-istook-obama-swats-free-speech-gun-control/

    The press should remain free and unrestricted. If people aren’t smart enough to decipher the bull**** being fed to them then we’re on a path to nowhere anyway. May as well let it all disintegrate when they get their way so at least we will have historical proof that the liberal agenda is a dream.
     

    ghuns

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    9,308
    113
    I think he really would violate 1A any chance he got. I suspect if it weren't for alienating his base, we would find out he is that near and dear with any of the BoR.

    I suspect that is true of all presidents. At least starting with Andrew Jackson.

    The difference is that none of them spoke openly of those desires.:rolleyes:
     

    MCgrease08

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Mar 14, 2013
    14,373
    149
    Earth
    What an idiot.

    Why do you say that?

    That's my question as well.

    If restrictions and licensing are OK for the second amendment, then why not the first?

    Pro-choice lawmakers draft ridiculous bills all the time to make a political statement about what they deem to be unfair and unjust requirements and restrictions to abortion access.

    Lucas's bill is no different. It's a political statement meant to shine a light on the hypocrisy of those supporting .gov licensing schemes.
     

    ultra...good

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 30, 2012
    1,372
    83
    I think we should turn the argument back on the MSM and ask why there shouldn't be "reasonable restrictions" or "common sense regulations" on 1A. For instance, how about the FCC fine stations that mention mass shooters names?

    Then sit back and let the MSM argue how 1A is absolute and can't be regulated.

    Wait, first we have to rewrite the 1A adding "shall not be infringed" somewheres near the end. Then we can gut that sucker.
    ultra "made point well"
     

    NyleRN

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Dec 14, 2013
    3,834
    113
    Scottsburg
    This is the way I see it. I find it aggravating that a politician would question the president about the oath he took to preserve the constitution based on his statement but no one gets the same question when it applies to the 2A. Bottom line; if you're going to put restrictions and regulations on amendments then it should apply to all of them, not just 1 or 2 that fit your adgenda.
     

    Denny347

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    13,415
    149
    Napganistan
    [Virtual teal] Trump is talking about a television network, which is already licensed by the FCC in order to broadcast. I believe one of the criteria to obtain/maintain that license is to serve the public interest, and to be found in violation can rezult in fines or broadcast license revocation. I think he is on solid ground as I believe he is de facto head of the FCC, so he's not covering any new ground since at least the profanity actions by the FCC in the last 10yrs.

    By using the formulation that speaking in whispers about restricting the second amendment is verboten, you are minimizing what is a full-throated cry from Clinton and her ilk in favor of confiscation (the love affair with Australian style gun control). I would like to grant your second post request, but you would need to present the two subjects in a much less agenda-driven manner

    Do I think leaning on NBC about standards and licensing is an attempt to muzzle the free press, No. No presses are involved and no one is suggesting licensing print journalism. Do you really think if NBC was brought to heel there would be no other Trump critics left? This is not existential no matter how much hyperventilating goes on. The licensing standards date from probably the 50s, its not something Trump wants to initiate, its a tool he is signaling he might be willing to use

    On the other hand, the types of new restrictions advocated by the likes of Pelosi and Clinton on the second amendment are much more dangerous to freedom, IMO

    What you choose to minimize and what you choose to overamplify causes me to question the motive/agenda of the poster. Fake Ingo News (hereafter to be abbreviated FIN)
    [end virtual teal]

    And yet we'll protest that a bumpfire stock ban is a slippery slope on the 2nd amendment......
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Why do you say that?

    Because you work to support and expand rights, not to seek parity. If someone took him up on his offer to restrict the press, would he be happier then? Would you? Trying to make a point by suggesting the further restriction of rights, is IDIOTIC... why? Because govt has proven itself to be more than willing to take suggestions that increases their power over the citizenry.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,886
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Not cool. Not cool when any POTUS speaks in favor of restricting what is protected by the Bill Of Rights. Wasn’t cool when Obama did it, ain’t cool now. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.wash...t-istook-obama-swats-free-speech-gun-control/

    The press should remain free and unrestricted. If people aren’t smart enough to decipher the bull**** being fed to them then we’re on a path to nowhere anyway. May as well let it all disintegrate when they get their way so at least we will have historical proof that the liberal agenda is a dream.

    A nice thought, but it's not going to happen. How many alibis for the serial failures of socialism/communism have we heard yet its proponents are not the least bit dissuaded

    If we fail to resist this, we are subjected to the troubles needlessly; and there are real barbarians at the gate. If we fall, our like may not be seen again
     

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    Because you work to support and expand rights, not to seek parity. If someone took him up on his offer to restrict the press, would he be happier then? Would you? Trying to make a point by suggesting the further restriction of rights, is IDIOTIC... why? Because govt has proven itself to be more than willing to take suggestions that increases their power over the citizenry.

    That isn't the point of the bill at all. This really is, as Kirk suggests, A Modest Proposal.
     

    Knight Rider

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 10, 2013
    411
    79
    Michiana
    One of the few real powers POTUS has is that of the bully pulpit. Him voicing his opinion does not revoke or restrict anything. Executive orders are valid only to the extent of current law unless Congress chooses to allow overreach as with Obama. I for one enjoy a discussion that starts to compare the expression of Amendments. How about having the same requirements for voting rights as we have for 2nd Amendment rights? Sorry, off topic.

    President Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as those who will stop at nothing to undermine him and the Electors that put him in office.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Because you work to support and expand rights, not to seek parity. If someone took him up on his offer to restrict the press, would he be happier then? Would you? Trying to make a point by suggesting the further restriction of rights, is IDIOTIC... why? Because govt has proven itself to be more than willing to take suggestions that increases their power over the citizenry.

    And sometimes you support and expands rights with satire and wit.

    It is not Lucas's fault that some are self-righteous, unread dolts who would not know Johnny Swift even if you hit them with his entire catalogue.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,886
    149
    Columbus, OH
    One of the few real powers POTUS has is that of the bully pulpit. Him voicing his opinion does not revoke or restrict anything. Executive orders are valid only to the extent of current law unless Congress chooses to allow overreach as with Obama. I for one enjoy a discussion that starts to compare the expression of Amendments. How about having the same requirements for voting rights as we have for 2nd Amendment rights? Sorry, off topic.

    President Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as those who will stop at nothing to undermine him and the Electors that put him in office.

    ^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Well said
     

    Tanfodude

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 25, 2012
    3,886
    83
    4 Seasons
    He is basically throwing the same **** at them about 1stA just like how these people are throwing **** about 2ndA so they'd know how it feels when a right that matters them are attacked. I'm not bothered by it.

    And these freedom of speech is also what causing all the segragation, hatred. But that's freedom and I'm ok with that.
     
    Top Bottom