# Got "Nads?"



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

One Missouri lawmaker shoots holes in a proposal to restrict Second Amendment rights. The literal translation is here:


----------



## bar-d (Feb 3, 2010)

glenway said:


> One Missouri lawmaker shoots holes in a proposal to restrict Second Amendment rights. The literal translation is here:


 :thumbsup:

:hunter:


----------



## prairiewolf (Feb 19, 2012)

This is the kind of news that needs to be on the networks !


----------



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

If you like that, you'll appreciate this one, too.

One Missouri State Representative wants so badly to protect his constituents' right to bear arms that he's trying to take away his colleagues' rights to pass bills. Republican State Rep. *Mike Leara*, who represents St. Louis county, has submitted a piece of legislation that would make it a felony for lawmakers to simply propose legislation that would restrict Second Amendment rights.

The bill can be found on the Missouri House of Representatives website, as seen below, and reads: "Specifies that any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual's right to bear arms will be guilty of a class D felony."


----------



## prairiewolf (Feb 19, 2012)

Now thats a law I would support !!


----------



## sneakygroundbuzzard (Nov 1, 2012)

prairiewolf said:


> Now thats a law I would support !!


and a politician worthy of keeping his office


----------



## prairiewolf (Feb 19, 2012)

+1 on that SGB


----------



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

The proposal most likely won't get any traction but it's still good to see some "push-back." I'm sure the gun grabbers will label these lawmakers as radicals, but our Founding Fathers would have worn that badge with pride - as do I and so many others of us.

What follows is Obama's Department of Justice explaining the folly of his schemes.

In a white paper dated January 4 and obtained by NRA-ILA, the deputy director of the National Institute for Justice-DOJ's research and evaluation agency-said that the proposals before Congress are unlikely to have an effect unless they are made even more draconian. For instance, the document makes clear that the effectiveness of "universal" background checks "depends on &#8230; requiring gun registration." On the topic of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, NIJ writes, "In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession." As for popular semi-automatic firearms, the NIJ notes, "Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective."


----------



## sneakygroundbuzzard (Nov 1, 2012)

they can do what they i want

i for one will never registor any of my guns,never allow them in for their yearly inspections,and never sell them back on a buy pack program,and definatly never surrender any of them.

as far as i am concerned,my back ground was checked when i purchased them,they were registered at the time of purchase

they need no more than that from me.

isnt it enough that had to wait three weeks to have my background checked so that i could get a permit to purchase hand guns and AR style rifles in my state.isnt it enough that i have to wait for a half hour to and hour every time i buy a rifle so that they can call in and make sure it is legal to sell to me.

in my opinion thats is more than enough

and enough is enough.


----------



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

Ditto, SGB. It's been well beyond infringement far too long.


----------

