Boston Firearms Instructor wants Federal Gun Licensing & Registration?

[oldsoldier29]

Nowhere did i say they are working well. I simply said that, should the discussion shift to reciprocity, its something we should at least be open to. If you think that, somehow, a magic constitution fairy is going to wave a wand, and people suddenly realize that what they want, is a violation of our rights, and change their ways, you are mistaken. Getting them to the bargaining table is what is needed. Look what is happening all over our country-these proposals will fail. Either due to lack of votes, or bring turned over the next time states vote, and through massive non compliance. History works like that. The pendulum swings far one way, then far the other. Somewhere, in the middle, we need to meet. Do i think there should be any licensing at all? Yes. Because, without it, we will have the criminal element grouped with us. But, i think the licensing should be extremely simple; cori check, picture taken, process fee, done. Shall issue. No jumping through hoops. I don't want criminals getting guns, any more than anyone else does. But, i also know that denying someone their right to self protection-even limiting it-is wrong. We gave the worst licensing scheme here in Massachusetts, in the entire country. We need to seriously revamp ours first. But, in a national level, if it takes done sort of licensing discussion to stop the assault on our rights, then do be it. Digging our heels in, and simply stating "no", only gets us so far. Right now, we are shall on the defensive-because of the deluge of anti gun legislation. Once it dies down-and it will-i think it would be in our best interests to start pushing for nation wide reciprocity

Using my galaxy s2 via tapatalk, because I am too lazy to find a computer

 

[Serapis]

Soldier:

From the point of view of a Mass resident, you may be right; from the point of view of a Vermonter, or from somewhere out west....fugeddaboudit.

Their [lack of] laws works just fine, thank you.

Not all states require safety inspections for vehicles, yet there is not a rash of jalopies crashing, unless the MSM is hushing it up.

+1

 

[SamH]

And, what is the reason that the CSM needed to inject the guys race in the story ?

 

[gene]

Nowhere did i say they are working well. I simply said that, should the discussion shift to reciprocity, its something we should at least be open to. If you think that, somehow, a magic constitution fairy is going to wave a wand, and people suddenly realize that what they want, is a violation of our rights, and change their ways, you are mistaken. Getting them to the bargaining table is what is needed. Look what is happening all over our country-these proposals will fail. Either due to lack of votes, or bring turned over the next time states vote, and through massive non compliance. History works like that. The pendulum swings far one way, then far the other. Somewhere, in the middle, we need to meet. Do i think there should be any licensing at all? Yes. Because, without it, we will have the criminal element grouped with us. But, i think the licensing should be extremely simple; cori check, picture taken, process fee, done. Shall issue. No jumping through hoops. I don't want criminals getting guns, any more than anyone else does. But, i also know that denying someone their right to self protection-even limiting it-is wrong. We gave the worst licensing scheme here in Massachusetts, in the entire country. We need to seriously revamp ours first. But, in a national level, if it takes done sort of licensing discussion to stop the assault on our rights, then do be it. Digging our heels in, and simply stating "no", only gets us so far. Right now, we are shall on the defensive-because of the deluge of anti gun legislation. Once it dies down-and it will-i think it would be in our best interests to start pushing for nation wide reciprocity

Using my galaxy s2 via tapatalk, because I am too lazy to find a computer

There is no way I would trust the federal govermnment to manage anything. They don't manage anything well and frankly they bankrupt every program they touch or increase the rate beyond their means. We should learn today about giving them control based on what they have done in the past with the drone program, the patriot act as well as so, so many more programs they control. Can you fathom trying to resolve a problem at the federal level in this day and age? Your better off letting the states make their rules and moving in or out of states that impact your rights. Atleast there you have a change at freedom! The feds don't give freedom, they take it as has been demonstrated over and over and over with federal laws that impose on states.

There is no happy medium with both the states and the feds working together in todays political climate and the lack of constitutional say politicians that are currently being overwealmed in many cased by ardent leftist.

 

[gene]

And, what is the reason that the CSM needed to inject the guys race in the story ?

To most of us it's not an issue and doesn't mean a damn but to them it's that token they need to insure they inject the race bait! They went out of their way to describe who he was and his back round even though his opinion carries that same weight as any other gun owner! In short he has become their expert witness so I hope he got paid. This is not a man I would want responding to a hurricane Katrina as a "National Guard Member"!

 

[SMagee]

Personally I don't agree with the FEDS taking ANY controls over ANYTHING other than the Interstate Highways and the Armed Services (and even this I am leary of).

But playing Devils advocate, he's teaching in Boston. So he knows that 99.9% of his students won't get a CCW license. So maybe he's playing the law of averages. All the other states (other than Mass, NY, NJ, IL,CA, and DE) have reasonable laws and I suppose do not resort the to the discretion of an idiot who can't even make an intelligible sentence in a news brief, to determine who can and cannot protect themselves and their families.

Maybe I am wrong, just thinking on why this guy would state this. Just a guess.

Flame away....

 

[Rick Roma]

To most of us it's not an issue and doesn't mean a damn but to them it's that token they need to insure they inject the race bait! They went out of their way to describe who he was and his back round even though his opinion carries that same weight as any other gun owner! In short he has become their expert witness so I hope he got paid. This is not a man I would want responding to a hurricane Katrina as a "National Guard Member"!

Really? How about deploying to Afghanistan for a combat tour as a "National Guard Member" after a career on active duty? I'm not sure why that was omitted from the article. This thread is so typical NES. Here we have a bunch of people shatting all over a guy who they don't even know. Knowing Clark I know that he was talking about a push for national reciprocity and elimination of arbitrary may issue laws.

 

[MaverickNH]

Really? How about deploying to Afghanistan for a combat tour as a "National Guard Member" after a career on active duty? I'm not sure why that was omitted from the article. This thread is so typical NES. Here we have a bunch of people shatting all over a guy who they don't even know. Knowing Clark I know that he was talking about a push for national reciprocity and elimination of arbitrary may issue laws.

...and that's the sort of answer I was looking for in my OP - did the article misrepresent him or not? I think we have the answer. Clark should push for a retraction/correction from the author. I have written the author myself to ask that he contact Clark and revise the article, as he totally missed the point.

 

[jcetto0351]

Anyone know this guy Clark? Perhaps he was misquoted - it all seemed good up to the last bit...

I know Melvin Clark personally... He is one of us and he explained to me how he was "selectively" quoted by the author of this article.

Now you may still disagree with his actual position but it won't be because he's a FUDD anti because he definately is not

 

[gene]

Really? How about deploying to Afghanistan for a combat tour as a "National Guard Member" after a career on active duty? I'm not sure why that was omitted from the article. This thread is so typical NES. Here we have a bunch of people shatting all over a guy who they don't even know. Knowing Clark I know that he was talking about a push for national reciprocity and elimination of arbitrary may issue laws.

The issue with the National Guard is how often they are used in civilian situations which is the concern over where they served. Many of us have also served and because of we have a strong sense of what happens when the gubberment has control, we know by example they don't manage anything well and we also know that they will continue to add more red tape to the process.

When the Governor has control over the Natrional Guard withing the borders of the US, we should have significant reservations about that Govenor and how or she will use them. I personally think twice about a guard member that indicates we need federal controls or central control rights such as 2A. I prefer laws that prevent the goverment and NG from any control over law abiding citizens.

What we are seeing today at the state levels for restrictions is being driven in large part by the Federal Government and the minions of the current administration. As usually is the case with Odumbo, his strategy has been and continues to be divide and conquer. I can see this with the media stories where the new story line is to talk about kids in Chicago and how they are somehow attached to Obumbo since his visit.

You can see it in the people they interveiw as well that tow the party line. After three months the new story is the kid that killed the kids in Sandy hook was following a mass murderer in Norway that was against Muslims.

I don't know the context of the full interveiw but like many others, I respond to what was reported. If it was a set up because they needed certain characteristics to publish, then he was had by the media.

 

[Cap]

So the framers didn't live in a world where there were still people fighting with sticks and rocks while they had cannons and small arms? They didn't think advancement was possible?

 

[Garys]

There is a lot more fail to this article than that. While it's better than most main stream media gun articles, it still perpetuates a lot of gun grabber myths. While the article indicates that there is some sort of vast "silent majority" of gun owners who would be agreeable to some sort of gun control, most of the people that they quote aren't saying that at all. They also state twice that the power of the NRA is waning. I guess they haven't seen the number of new members signed up since Newtown.

It's interesting that they quote all of these professors, but the professors mostly seem to be saying that the issue is very complex and then try to simplify it.

I think the author is trying to convince himself that there is some sort of gun owner pro gun control movement, even though there isn't a lot of evidence of it.

One other thing that I notice, and it's concerning, is that the people who are in favor of banning some things, all seem to be in favor of banning someone else's guns, not theirs. That type of thinking is dangerous since coming for one type of gun is the same as coming for all types of guns.

 

[Garys]

So the framers didn't live in a world where there were still people fighting with sticks and rocks while they had cannons and small arms? They didn't think advancement was possible?

That too was a particularly stupid statement. As I've said before, if they couldn't foresee the advancements in firearms, what makes these people think that they could foresee the advances in communications technology? Maybe we should have tight regulation of TVs, computers, and smart phones too.

I love the part about Obama convening a Constitutional Convention to repeal the Second Amendment. Obviously the author has not clue how the Constitutional amendment process works.

 

[TonyDedo]

Would you trade national (guaranteed unless Federally disqualified) licensing for relief from arbitrary licensing and national reciprocity? I think I would. Sure as hell beats this "red town, green town" and "which state can I carry in?" bullshit.

 

[Cap]

Would you trade national (guaranteed unless Federally disqualified) licensing for relief from arbitrary licensing and national reciprocity? I think I would. Sure as hell beats this "red town, green town" and "which state can I carry in?" bullshit.

Shall not be infringed.

 

[gene]

Would you trade national (guaranteed unless Federally disqualified) licensing for relief from arbitrary licensing and national reciprocity? I think I would. Sure as hell beats this "red town, green town" and "which state can I carry in?" bullshit.

You can't possibly beleive that States in places like NY, NJ, DC, MA among many others displaying their leftist principles are going to let the feds determine who can carry and who cannot without adding so many limitations that it's impossible to meet the states requirements.

Some of these states already have city specific requirements for guns and ammo such as Boston vs. the rest of MA. Anything done at the federal level would be an anti 2A picnic for these politicians and their states. They are not going to turn around their bans but pack more and more on.

A gun owner has a better chance of carrying with two or three selected licenses that have high levels reciprical agreements than with the Feds being a clearing house for every gun banner wish ever lodged.

 

[wimsey1]

They were brilliant, but they could not see the future," says Mr. Clark. "But if you were to ask them if Americans should be armed as well as any British soldier, what might they say?"

They might say "you're using the Brown Bess and we're using a more modern rifled arm." The British didn't update their weaponry to rifles until about 1850. By issuing rifles and forming rifle squads our forefathers demonstrated their ability to put the most modern techniques to use.