• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Poll on .gov heirarchy of firearms regulations.

If any, at what level of government do you approve of firearms regulation?

  • Only the fed.gov should enforce firearms statutes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Combination of fed.gov and state.gov should enforce firearms statutes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Combination of fed.gov, state.gov, and local.gov should enforce firearms statutes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Only the state.gov should enforce firearms statutes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Combination of state.gov and local.gov should enforce firearms statutes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Only the local.gov should enforce firearms statutes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • None of the various .govs should enforce firearms statutes, even though jurisdiction exists.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • None of the various .govs have jurisdiction to enforce firearms statutes; jurisdiction has not been

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'm sovereign and am appalled at the idea of forced .gov regulation of natural rights.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
C

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
imported post

Please read the following before responding:

This poll asks you to state whether you think some level of government should or should not regulate firearms and at what level. Please consider the matters of carry, possession, transport, and sale (typically state and federal regulation). For the purpose of the poll, please ignore discharge of arms (typically local regulation). Therefore, for purposes of the poll, the status quo is represented by the following response: "Combination of fed.gov and state.gov should enforce firearms statutes.".

Please note that there are effectively 6 possible "Yes" and 3 possible "No" responses available regarding whether there should be any .gov regulation at all.

Please explain your response in text. The poll isn't detailed enough to capture different regulations at different levels, but you may clarify this textually as well.

Please answer only if you regularly live in Michigan for part of the year, whether permanent or seasonally.

The poll will remain open for 14 days.

ETA: Please be respectful of the responses from other posters.
 
malignity

malignity

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
1,101
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
imported post

If delegated by the state, can we please make that state Vermont or Arizona that delegates us? :lol:

+1 for shall not be infringed btw. Would be nice for me to be allowed to carry at work, considering we have to call the cops at least 3 times a week.
 
Glock9mmOldStyle

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
imported post

malignity wrote:
If delegated by the state, can we please make that state Vermont or Arizona that delegates us? :lol:

+1 for shall not be infringed btw. Would be nice for me to be allowed to carry at work, considering we have to call the cops at least 3 times a week.
Click to expand...
Yikes! What City or Town? Just curious.
 
FatboyCykes

FatboyCykes

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
942
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
imported post

Glock9mmOldStyle wrote:
malignity wrote:
If delegated by the state, can we please make that state Vermont or Arizona that delegates us? :lol:

+1 for shall not be infringed btw. Would be nice for me to be allowed to carry at work, considering we have to call the cops at least 3 times a week.
Click to expand...
Yikes! What City or Town? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Mal is a male prostitute in Detroit, so it's pretty common.
 
malignity

malignity

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
1,101
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
imported post

Close, not the mentally disabled, the mentally ill.

If sh!t hits the fan and we can't get someone in restraints and seclusion, we have to call the police. For some reason, in the last 6 months, we've called the police about three times as much as we have in the last 2 years combined. Either people are getting more feisty, or we're accepting people who should be in jail to begin with. It's a dirty job, I've been sent to the ER from work related injuries, etc, but hey, someone's gotta do it.

It's Mt. Clemens, where I work, if you were wondering :p
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

malignity wrote:
If delegated by the state, can we please make that state Vermont or Arizona that delegates us? :lol:

+1 for shall not be infringed btw. Would be nice for me to be allowed to carry at work, considering we have to call the cops at least 3 times a week.
Click to expand...
Malignity... I'm going to use your post as a springboard to express a thought. Please do not take the following as a comment about you... :)

Decades of Progressive propaganda has insinuated itself into the very fabric of our psyche to the point where clear thinking people who understand the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment still speak in terms of being allowed to exercise rights.

It is a sad commentary when the word allowed is spoken in reference to rights because the word allowed means someone holds the power to give, or refuse, permission. And rights do not need permission.

Yet "we the people" are already thinking in terms of the government allowing us to have rights.

I, and many others, spend countless hours explaining how open carry is legal here in Michigan... yet if carrying a gun (bearing arms) were truly a right there would not be any legal restrictions concerning how or where a gun could be carried.

And yet the reality is... open carry... and concealed carry... is allowed only in certain places and disallowed (infringed) in others.

If the 2nd Amendment restriction on government infringing on the citizenry's right to keep and bear arms... and Michigan's own Constitution section concerning a person's right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state... were to be followed as individual rights... then there would not be any places, or any manner in which, the citizenry would be disallowed from bearing arms.

The above has nothing to do with private property rights of individuals to disallow anything they wish on their property... including keeping and bearing arms. It only addresses governmental control (infringement) of the right to keep and bear arms.
 
malignity

malignity

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
1,101
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
imported post

I'm with you. The only reason I mentioned either state is because if we must have our rights governed, they have some of the loosest gun laws in the nation (and surprisingly low crime rates). I do agree though that 'shall not be infringed' definitely doesn't mean that anymore unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top