In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

States vs. Weapons

HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
I have listened to the arguments concerning states having the 'right' to limit arms to the citizens.
I think perhaps there is fully as much reason to go to war with the State..federal OR state...if there comes bans on weapons.

The Second Amendment merely lays out a few of the Rights understood to be inviolate...never to be trifled with by 'authorities'. I am no more willing to allow locals that power over me then I am the federal.

Are States and Cities Bound by the Second Amendment?

http://reason.com/blog/show/127246.html

Jacob Sullum | June 27, 2008,

Plans for post-Heller challenges to gun control laws throughout the country will come to naught unless the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, a question the Supreme Court did not address in yesterday's decision. Three 19th-century Supreme Court decisions say it doesn't.

In U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), Klansmen who had used arson to intimidate and disarm freed blacks in Louisiana were charged with violating a federal statute that criminalized conspiracies to deprive people of their constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment "means no more than that [the right to keep and bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress." It added, "This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

Likewise, in Presser v. State of Illinois (1886), which dealt with an Illinois law prohibiting private military exercises, the Court said the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." And in Miller v. Texas (1894), a murder case in which the defendant argued that a Texas law prohibiting the carrying of weapons violated the Second and Fourth amendments, the Court said "it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."

As that last example suggests, these cases were all decided before the Supreme Court began to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment (ultimately settling on the Due Process Clause as the main rationale, although the Privileges or Immunities Clause might have been a better fit). Miller v. Texas actually anticipated that development, saying "if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court."

The question for federal courts hearing challenges to state or local gun control laws, then, is whether the right to keep and bear arms, like freedom of speech or the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, is an aspect of the liberty protected from state encroachment by the 14th Amendment. After reading Heller, which emphasizes that the right to arms grows out of the basic right of self-preservation that preceded the Founding and was merely recognized, not created, by the Constitution, it is hard to imagine how the Court could say it should not be added to the list of civil liberties that states and municipalities must respect.

One Supreme Court case that neither the majority nor the dissenters in Heller cited is particularly illuminating on this point. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the notorious 1856 decision in which the Supreme Court rejected a slave's petition for freedom, declaring that a black man had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect," Chief Justice Roger Taney said (emphasis added):

It cannot be supposed that [the states] intended to secure to [blacks] rights and privileges and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

The decision is no longer binding, obviously, but it provides strong evidence that the right to keep and bear arms was considered part of the "privileges or immunities of citizens" that the 14th Amendment was aimed at securing.
«13

Comments

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,121 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I have listened to the arguments concerning states having the 'right' to limit arms to the citizens.
    I think perhaps there is fully as much reason to go to war with the State..federal OR state...if there comes bans on weapons.

    The Second Amendment merely lays out a few of the Rights understood to be inviolate...never to be trifled with by 'authorities'. I am no more willing to allow locals that power over me then I am the federal.

    Are States and Cities Bound by the Second Amendment?

    ....The decision is no longer binding, obviously, but it provides strong evidence that the right to keep and bear arms was considered part of the "privileges or immunities of citizens" that the 14th Amendment was aimed at securing.

    The first amendment specifically limits the power of Congress. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th specifically address the rights of the people. It is unimaginable today, that even the protections of the 1st Amendment not be expanded to include State Legislatures, though it specifically and only restricts Congress.

    Likewise, we will never see an argument that the 4th Amendment is not binding upon the States or the 5th, 6th, or 8th. It is obviously disingenuous for anyone to argue any differently against the 2nd.

    In addition to the clarification provided by the 14th Amendment, Article 4, Section 2, the original 'Privileges and Immunities' clause extends basic protections across state lines for Citizens of the states. The 14th expands the number of Citizens and creates the concept of Citizen of the U.S. as compared with the Article 4's reference to the Citizens of each State. I would question the Dred Scott reference above, as Mr. Scott (prior to the 14th Amendment) was not necessarily a Citizen of his state of origin, and thus may not have been extended otherwise common 'Privileges and Immunities'.

    IMO, the clincher is the wording of the 2nd as contrasted with that of the 1st. Clearly there is a different meaning and a different intent. When one couples this with the creation of 'Citizen of the U.S.' by the 14th, it becomes logically inescapable that the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments apply equally to all citizens of this country, regardless of thier State of residence.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    I will buy that, Don.

    Being untutored and unlettered, I am reduced to sort of `gut feelings'...what would I go to war over,.
    What is right...and what is wrong...bluntly.
    I cannot conceive of the Founders plainly prohibiting the federal government from interference with the free movement of weapons in society...only to allow the states to do so.
    I can stand for quite a bit of `restrictions for the public good'...I feel we should have been in the streets in 1968..taking this country back.
    That is the importance I place on the Second Amendment.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    [:(!]This is one of my major complaint with the 'system'. All of the local and state statues which prohibit the ownership, carrying, and use of firearms are unconstitutional, BUT the damn courts refuse to recognize this!!!![:(!] If you discuss 'civil right' reference other rights/amendments they say they have to use the Constitution to determine if the laws are constitutional, but not the RTKABA's. [:(!]
    I say prejudice is alive and well in our legal system!!![V]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Well, Jim Rau, perhaps you too will step back one day and look at the totality of the situation;
    The endless incursions the government has made driving us the people of America into tyranny...and make the decision that fighting them in their venue is impossible.
    They OWN the Courts, they own the media, they own the political machinery..is short..they own every means to take it back peacefully.

    I believe I have the last method availible to us...the one best positioned to eventually regain freedom here in America.

    Step back and allow them to accelerate their agenda..as fast as they wish. Prepare yourself and your loved ones for hard times...and as many others that will listen to you.
    Watch for that one crack that is coming...and determine that you intend driving a wedge into that crack.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Well, Jim Rau, perhaps you too will step back one day and look at the totality of the situation;
    The endless incursions the government has made driving us the people of America into tyranny...and make the decision that fighting them in their venue is impossible.
    They OWN the Courts, they own the media, they own the political machinery..is short..they own every means to take it back peacefully.

    I believe I have the last method availible to us...the one best positioned to eventually regain freedom here in America.

    Step back and allow them to accelerate their agenda..as fast as they wish. Prepare yourself and your loved ones for hard times...and as many others that will listen to you.
    Watch for that one crack that is coming...and determine that you intend driving a wedge into that crack.

    HB,
    I already have stepped back and looked at the totally of the situation, and don't like what I see. But as we have discussed MANY times I see the 'glass half full' and I will continue to try and right this wrong in a peaceful manner until I must exercise the final option, violence.
    I don't know about you, but I have seen and been apart of A LOT of killing and violence so I am reluctant to take that step or to ask others to take that step until ALL of our options are exhausted.
    As we have also discussed, I KNOW, just the same as I know when I am cut I will bleed, that there MUST and WILL be some restrictions on our rights. You refuse to admit this and insist on 'perfection' but we all know in the real world there is no such thing as perfect.
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    I KNOW, just the same as I know when I am cut I will bleed, that there MUST and WILL be some restrictions on our rights.


    A "right" is not subject to restrictions.....a privilege is
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    I KNOW, just the same as I know when I am cut I will bleed, that there MUST and WILL be some restrictions on our rights.


    A "right" is not subject to restrictions.....a privilege is

    Then the plane view doctrine is unconditional??
    The requirement to ID yourself before you vote is unconditional??
    The laws which restrict you from threatening to kill or harm others are unconditional??
    Come back to rality, please!!![;)]
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau

    Come back to rality, please!!![;)]


    What is this "rality" you speak of?

    At any rate, I'm just fine in Kentucky....but thanks [:)]
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau

    Come back to rality, please!!![;)]


    What is this "rality" you speak of?

    At any rate, I'm just fine in Kentucky....but thanks [:)]

    You failed to answer my questions. Are the above restrictions unconstitutional?
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Beginning to sound like an alter-ego of TRfox.
    quote:
    Then the plane view doctrine is unconditional??
    The Constitution doesn't give people the right to commit crimes. It CERTAINLY doesn't maintain that stupid criminals leaving evidence lying about in plain view are somehow protected from their stupidity.

    Now...that assumes that you haven't kicked the door down or stopped somebody just because you can.


    quote:The requirement to ID yourself before you vote is unconditional?? ..I.d.ing yourself to the local precinct worker to exercise the franchise appears a rather minor 'infringment' to me.
    quote:The laws which restrict you from threatening to kill or harm others are unconditional??There is nothing in the Constitution allowing individuals the 'Right' to kill, injure, threaten, or to do harm to other Citizens.
    Unless, of course, said people are engaged in depriving the individual of HIS Rights....

    As mentioned...your examples are in the...ehhhh...'finest' tradition of trfox.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,121 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I cannot conceive of the Founders plainly prohibiting the federal government from interference with the free movement of weapons in society...only to allow the states to do so.
    One would think that to be self-evident, HB.

    Evidently it is not.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau

    Then the plane view doctrine is unconditional??

    No
    quote:
    The requirement to ID yourself before you vote is unconditional??


    No
    quote:
    The laws which restrict you from threatening to kill or harm others are unconditional??


    No
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    [:D]
    I love simple answers. Even when they are better then mine.
  • codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931
    edited November -1
    Been watching this whole thing with Jim going for a while, so I feel compelled to chime in.

    Jim fails to understand a simple concept-and don't take offense to this Jim. The concept is this...a right-all rights are absolute and not subject to restriction by the government. Any government fed,state, local. As thus any prior restraint to any of these rights, no differently than if you had kidnapped someone, is a criminal offense. No right at all has any prior restraint condition, save the 2nd Amendment. You may commit all manner of crimes, but none are so until they have been committed. Not so with the second. All restriction or regulation stems from the possibility that a crime may be committed. Not even the likelihood is considered, only the possibility.

    All restrictions being prior restraint compels the argument that any potential for a crime must be regulated. Using this example, you (assuming you are male) must be incarcerated for rape merely for posessing a BallPark Frank. The fact that you are as unlikely to commit this crime as any of the rest of us makes no difference. The mere possibility that you may is enough to regulate your actions enough to prevent it.

    Therefore, the second amendment,as all other rights, must be absolute in its application. This includes the Lautenberg restrictions, background checks, the '68 and '34 GCA's, age or infirm limitations. Any restriction on the size, number, caliber, rate of fire, or any other potential for destruction is far from relavent because none of it considers that fact that no crime has been committed. Any governmental entity willing to restrict and then imprison or worse those who fail to abide by that restriction, must be considered tyrannical and be treated accordingly.

    I hope you are reading this too Fox. I hope this clarifies the issue some.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
    Been watching this whole thing with Jim going for a while, so I feel compelled to chime in.

    Jim fails to understand a simple concept-and don't take offense to this Jim. The concept is this...a right-all rights are absolute and not subject to restriction by the government. Any government fed,state, local. As thus any prior restraint to any of these rights, no differently than if you had kidnapped someone, is a criminal offense. No right at all has any prior restraint condition, save the 2nd Amendment. You may commit all manner of crimes, but none are so until they have been committed. Not so with the second. All restriction or regulation stems from the possibility that a crime may be committed. Not even the likelihood is considered, only the possibility.

    All restrictions being prior restraint compels the argument that any potential for a crime must be regulated. Using this example, you (assuming you are male) must be incarcerated for rape merely for posessing a BallPark Frank. The fact that you are as unlikely to commit this crime as any of the rest of us makes no difference. The mere possibility that you may is enough to regulate your actions enough to prevent it.

    Therefore, the second amendment,as all other rights, must be absolute in its application. This includes the Lautenberg restrictions, background checks, the '68 and '34 GCA's, age or infirm limitations. Any restriction on the size, number, caliber, rate of fire, or any other potential for destruction is far from relavent because none of it considers that fact that no crime has been committed. Any governmental entity willing to restrict and then imprison or worse those who fail to abide by that restriction, must be considered tyrannical and be treated accordingly.

    I hope you are reading this too Fox. I hope this clarifies the issue some.

    Can any of you give me an example where this 'concept' is in force any where on this earth???? I have never seen in my life time or my study of history where a government has applied ANY right in the ABSOLUTE, no restrictions WHAT SO EVER. If you have seen this or can tell me where it now or ever has occured I am very interested.[?]
  • codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931
    edited November -1
    You totally missed the point.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Even worse then that;
    quote:my study of history where a government has applied ANY right in the ABSOLUTE, no restrictions WHAT SO EVER. If you have seen this or can tell me where it now or ever

    He thinks that government APPLY Rights.

    He just will never understand that governments can only TAKE AWAY Rights...Rights being from a higher source then government.
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Jim, have you ever taken the time to read your own sig line?
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    Jim, have you ever taken the time to read your own sig line?

    Yes I have. Any living think has the right to fight back when attacked. This is a natural right. Be it a deer, a dog, or a human. This is absolute.
    There is no document I know where this is expressed in law or statute.
    Do you know one.
    I use this example to point out the human is the only animal who must rely on technology to exercise this right. To unreasonably restrict the access to the technology necessary to exercise this right is a violation of the right it's self.
    By the way you failed to answer my question. Is it because you have no answer which will support your believe?[;)]
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau

    By the way you failed to answer my question.


    No, I answered your questions. Here are my answers again, in order

    No
    No
    No
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
    Been watching this whole thing with Jim going for a while, so I feel compelled to chime in.

    Jim fails to understand a simple concept-and don't take offense to this Jim. The concept is this...a right-all rights are absolute and not subject to restriction by the government. Any government fed,state, local. As thus any prior restraint to any of these rights, no differently than if you had kidnapped someone, is a criminal offense. No right at all has any prior restraint condition, save the 2nd Amendment. You may commit all manner of crimes, but none are so until they have been committed. Not so with the second. All restriction or regulation stems from the possibility that a crime may be committed. Not even the likelihood is considered, only the possibility.

    All restrictions being prior restraint compels the argument that any potential for a crime must be regulated. Using this example, you (assuming you are male) must be incarcerated for rape merely for posessing a BallPark Frank. The fact that you are as unlikely to commit this crime as any of the rest of us makes no difference. The mere possibility that you may is enough to regulate your actions enough to prevent it.

    Therefore, the second amendment,as all other rights, must be absolute in its application. This includes the Lautenberg restrictions, background checks, the '68 and '34 GCA's, age or infirm limitations. Any restriction on the size, number, caliber, rate of fire, or any other potential for destruction is far from relavent because none of it considers that fact that no crime has been committed. Any governmental entity willing to restrict and then imprison or worse those who fail to abide by that restriction, must be considered tyrannical and be treated accordingly.

    I hope you are reading this too Fox. I hope this clarifies the issue some.

    Can any of you give me an example where this 'concept' is in force any where on this earth???? I have never seen in my life time or my study of history where a government has applied ANY right in the ABSOLUTE, no restrictions WHAT SO EVER. If you have seen this or can tell me where it now or ever has occurred I am very interested.[?]


    Rack,
    This is the question I am referring to![;)]
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just out of curiousity, what restrictions were placed on the ownership of weapons in 1800?
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    originally posted by Jim Rau:

    Any living think has the right to fight back when attacked. This is a natural right. Be it a deer, a dog, or a human. This is absolute.
    There is no document I know where this is expressed in law or statute.
    Do you know one.
    I use this example to point out the human is the only animal who must rely on technology to exercise this right.


    How do you figure?
  • IAMAHUSKERIAMAHUSKER Member Posts: 2,479 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The statement below tells me all I need to know about the poster. I figured as much.

    quote:I use this example to point out the human is the only animal who must rely on technology to exercise this right.
  • codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931
    edited November -1
    I have come to the conclusion that Jim has no idea what he's trying to defend. He totally missed the point that the right of bearing arms is the only one that includes the concept of prior restraint. To flip the question-What right is restricted BEFORE any crime has been committed?

    To counter your most ignorant point I'll tell you that far more people are killed with items other than guns than with. I can just as easily break your neck or strangle you as shoot you. One is merely more efficient.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    Just out of curiousity, what restrictions were placed on the ownership of weapons in 1800?

    How many 'blacks' were allowed to be armed then??[;)]
    Many of our 'anti-gun' laws date back to the 1800's. The large political machines in the large eastern cities restrict the carrying/ownership of firearms and either issued permits or selectively enforced these laws to disarm their oppositions and the new immigrants. The ones with the guns have the power, always have and always will be.
    The Colorado state Constitution (1876) specifically prohibits the CCW.
    With a little research you could many more examples.

    Now will any of you please answer my question???[:)]
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    originally posted by Jim Rau:

    Any living think has the right to fight back when attacked. This is a natural right. Be it a deer, a dog, or a human. This is absolute.
    There is no document I know where this is expressed in law or statute.
    Do you know one.
    I use this example to point out the human is the only animal who must rely on technology to exercise this right.

    [blue]
    WS,
    Would you come unarmed to a gun fight???[}:)] Would you refuse to give your wallet to a robber if he was armed and you were not???[}:)]
    You figure it out.
  • chaoslodgechaoslodge Member Posts: 790 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Can any of you give me an example where this 'concept' is in force any where on this earth???? I have never seen in my life time or my study of history where a government has applied ANY right in the ABSOLUTE, no restrictions WHAT SO EVER. If you have seen this or can tell me where it now or ever has occured I am very interested.[?]


    So that makes it OK in your world to have restrictions on your rights. A lack of precedent in your world would nullify the entire Constitution.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
    Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
    The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
    We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
    Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!

    What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]

    And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???

    496, I would really be interested in your input here!
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
    I have come to the conclusion that Jim has no idea what he's trying to defend. He totally missed the point that the right of bearing arms is the only one that includes the concept of prior restraint. To flip the question-What right is restricted BEFORE any crime has been committed?

    To counter your most ignorant point I'll tell you that far more people are killed with items other than guns than with. I can just as easily break your neck or strangle you as shoot you. One is merely more efficient.

    You are preaching to the choir![}:)] "just as easily" I don't think so!!![;)]
  • codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931
    edited November -1
    I thought I had, but to clarify: A government makes no rights. Rights are inherent in one's being.

    Government, has a rule, just one-power must be usurped at every opportunity.

    You question "I have never seen in my life time or my study of history where a government has applied ANY right in the ABSOLUTE, no restrictions WHAT SO EVER."

    The premise is not restriction. It is prior restraint. No right is restricted. There are only penalties for abuse of that right (the old screaming fire in a crowded theater, or defamation/libel for example) but my flip-which you ignored completely-is what right has a restriction prior to any law being broken? The gov cannot tell me what car or house I can buy or how big of one I can own or where I can live. But seemingly it is just fine in your mind for them to limit any other of my personal property regarding firearms-regardless of whether or not I have ever committed a crime, am likely to, or am even capable of committing one.

    Are you getting it yet?
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
    Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
    The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
    We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
    Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!

    What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]

    And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???

    496, I would really be interested in your input here!


    I got it years ago, ARE YOU GETTING IT YET!!![?]
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
    Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
    The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
    We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
    Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!

    What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]


    And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???

    496, I would really be interested in your input here!


    I got it years ago, ARE YOU GETTING IT YET!!![?]

    Now back to reality please. Have you ever seen a time or place where your 'ideal' reference rights has occurred?????
  • codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931
    edited November -1
    Jeez, Jim-you are obtuse man! And you are not getting it at all.

    All other rights are totally unrestricted. Free speech, voting, search and seizure, religion, etc. All are unrestricted until you abuse that right or break the law. Only the right to bear arms carries restrictions to the right prior to any law being broken.

    Please, tell me you are getting this!
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,121 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
    Jeez, Jim-you are obtuse man! And you are not getting it at all.

    All other rights are totally unrestricted. Free speech, voting, search and seizure, religion, etc. All are unrestricted until you abuse that right or break the law. Only the right to bear arms carries restrictions to the right prior to any law being broken.

    Please, tell me you are getting this!

    Agreed, CNP:

    I would have responded sooner, but I had to contact my local Bureau of Typing and Talking (BTT)to get the lock removed from my keyboard, which required the instant background check and the approval of the post I had prepared to send.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931
    edited November -1
    THANK YOU!!!!!!!
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    CNP;
    The problem, of course...those of us that support the Constitution as written understood your point instantly.

    Those that allow their own fears to cloud their vision will NEVER understand..they prefer the safety and security of government intervention in other peoples daily lives.

    The fact the the Second Amendment ..indeed, the entire Constitution... has been circumvented, ignored, perverted and twisted beyond recognition since the ink was drying SHOULD have no bearing on the validity OR MEANING of that document in ones' own mind.

    Trust NO ONE that refuses to admit the intent of that document. It matter not one particle what 'is'...for there can be no hope at all for freedom unless enough of us realize and fight for what is "supposed" to be.
    ONLY by losing sight of original intent can we cheer CCWs, or any other so-called 'regaining rights' laws so dearly loved by the near-blind.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
    Jeez, Jim-you are obtuse man! And you are not getting it at all.

    All other rights are totally unrestricted. Free speech, voting, search and seizure, religion, etc. All are unrestricted until you abuse that right or break the law. Only the right to bear arms carries restrictions to the right prior to any law being broken.

    Please, tell me you are getting this!




    So if the laws says you can't threaten people it does not apply until you do so and are caught right?
    If the law says you can't CCW it does not apply until you do so and are caught Right?

    Back to one of my UNANSEWRED questions:
    What is the difference between the idealists in academia and the idealists on this site (in the CA bunch here)???
    You have not been keeping up with this. For many years I was of the same idealistic state of mind many here are. But when I looked at it closely I saw how unrealistic I was and how was not accomplishing any thing good by being a 'marauder' for the cause.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    CNP;
    The problem, of course...those of us that support the Constitution as written understood your point instantly.

    Those that allow their own fears to cloud their vision will NEVER understand..they prefer the safety and security of government intervention in other peoples daily lives.

    The fact the the Second Amendment ..indeed, the entire Constitution... has been circumvented, ignored, perverted and twisted beyond recognition since the ink was drying SHOULD have no bearing on the validity OR MEANING of that document in ones' own mind.

    Trust NO ONE that refuses to admit the intent of that document. It matter not one particle what 'is'...for there can be no hope at all for freedom unless enough of us realize and fight for what is "supposed" to be.
    ONLY by losing sight of original intent can we cheer CCWs, or any other so-called 'regaining rights' laws so dearly loved by the near-blind.


    Very eloquent as usual HB! Are you sure you were not a politician in another life.[;)]
    But I can assure you, you are more 'in fear' than I am![;)]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Really ?
    I do not fear a full auto, unregistered, in the hands of my neighbor.

    While I know of no such weapons, I am confident that there ARE such out there. I am pretty sure the government hasn't cowed an ENTIRE nation of men...just most of them.

    I don't fear them at all.
    Odd thing. I think full autos are a joke. My frugal nature shrivels at the idea of blasting all that ammo down range.
    Still..it is none of your nor the governments business who owns them.
Sign In or Register to comment.