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.
NBC nightly news
jaegermister
Member Posts: 692 ✭✭✭✭
Listen to the piece about the 2nd amendment rights. The correspondent states, "the second amendment does not automatically apply to all states". "constitutional rights are subject to state consideration"
What does he mean, only members of the District of Columbia can enjoy the recent ruling on the right to bear arms?
The internet is a useful tool in keeping us informed and unified. I am here, you are there and we are all together.
What does he mean, only members of the District of Columbia can enjoy the recent ruling on the right to bear arms?
The internet is a useful tool in keeping us informed and unified. I am here, you are there and we are all together.
Comments
It beats backs the fuds from sticking their damn fingers, where it doesn't belong.
The FIRST amendment applies to ALL states and territories equally, and so do ALL other amendments.
This isn't brain surgery. ONE might think so however, from the stupidity that infests this country.
Listen to the piece about the 2nd amendment rights. The correspondent states, "the second amendment does not automatically apply to all states". "constitutional rights are subject to state consideration"
What does he mean, only members of the District of Columbia can enjoy the recent ruling on the right to bear arms?
The internet is a useful tool in keeping us informed and unified. I am here, you are there and we are all together.
You have not been following this site very closely if you thing we are 'unified'. There are some here who constantly attack the supporters of the RTKABA's as the enemy because they do not go along with their opinions EXACTLY as they state them. This plays right into the anti-gun crowds hands. I think some of them are actually trolls placed here by the Brady Bunch!!![V]
Free,
You are correct. It is commonsense and common knowledge that ALL THE RIGHTS ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL REGUARDLESS OF WHERE THEY LIVE. And you do not need a black robe to correctly interpret the Constitution!!!
You have not been following this site very closely if you thing we are 'unified'. There are some here who constantly attack the supporters of the RTKABA's as the enemy because they do not go along with their opinions EXACTLY as they state them. This plays right into the anti-gun crowds hands. I think some of them are actually trolls placed here by the Brady Bunch!!![V]
Many attack the concept of being a 'realist' because we know that such a label confirms that a man is willing to compromise before the negotiations begin. We are tacitly on the same side, Jim. You realists, however, choose to enter the fray with one hand tied behind your back.
It is the solemn duty of the idealist to set free your spirit and the spirit of every realist to entrench the achievable goal of individual liberty that once served America so very well.[:)]
Brad Steele
We all should KNOW by now, that the second applies to the FUDS.
It beats backs the fuds from sticking their damn fingers, where it doesn't belong.
The FIRST amendment applies to ALL states and territories equally, and so do ALL other amendments.
This isn't brain surgery. ONE might think so however, from the stupidity that infests this country.
An instructive point, James, particularly because the 1st is the only Amendment in the B.O.R. that specifically limits ONLY the Federal Government. All others specifically guarantee rights to the individual, be it 'the people', 'the Owner', a 'person', or 'the accused'.
A self-evident truth is that the only Amendment that required incorporation was the 1st. The remainder are obvious, and the hi-jinks we see today are the result of judicial manipulation, justifiable fear of nationalism by the States, and public apathy over 20 decades.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You have not been following this site very closely if you thing we are 'unified'. There are some here who constantly attack the supporters of the RTKABA's as the enemy because they do not go along with their opinions EXACTLY as they state them. This plays right into the anti-gun crowds hands. I think some of them are actually trolls placed here by the Brady Bunch!!![V]
Many attack the concept of being a 'realist' because we know that such a label confirms that a man is willing to compromise before the negotiations begin. We are tacitly on the same side, Jim. You realists, however, choose to enter the fray with one hand tied behind your back.
It is the solemn duty of the idealist to set free your spirit and the spirit of every realist to entrench the achievable goal of individual liberty that once served America so very well.[:)]
You are once again wrong my friend. There has NEVER been a time in this world where there have been 'pure/perfect/ideal' implication of any RIGHT of the individual. I do not have any hand tied behind me when I fight for what I believe in, but anyone who is not willing to face reality and has a unbending idealistic stand on any issue has both hands tied behind their back and will be trampled by reality.
You are once again wrong my friend. There has NEVER been a time in this world where there have been 'pure/perfect/ideal' implication of any RIGHT of the individual. I do not have any hand tied behind me when I fight for what I believe in, but anyone who is not willing to face reality and has a unbending idealistic stand on any issue has both hands tied behind their back and will be trampled by reality.
"Don, you are wrong, and here is why I am wrong...."
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You are once again wrong my friend. There has NEVER been a time in this world where there have been 'pure/perfect/ideal' implication of any RIGHT of the individual. I do not have any hand tied behind me when I fight for what I believe in, but anyone who is not willing to face reality and has a unbending idealistic stand on any issue has both hands tied behind their back and will be trampled by reality.
"Don, you are wrong, and here is why I am wrong...."
Mr. Wolf,
Instead of trying to be coy, please give me an example of a time and place in this world where there have been the 'pure/perfect/ideal'(totally unrestricted in any way to anyone) implementation of any human right.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You are once again wrong my friend. There has NEVER been a time in this world where there have been 'pure/perfect/ideal' implication of any RIGHT of the individual. I do not have any hand tied behind me when I fight for what I believe in, but anyone who is not willing to face reality and has a unbending idealistic stand on any issue has both hands tied behind their back and will be trampled by reality.
"Don, you are wrong, and here is why I am wrong...."
Mr. Wolf,
Instead of trying to be coy, please give me an example of a time and place in this world where there have been the 'pure/perfect/ideal'(totally unrestricted in any way to anyone) implementation of any human right.
Battle of Lexington and Concord. Bye now.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Many attack the concept of being a 'realist' because we know that such a label confirms that a man is willing to compromise before the negotiations begin. We are tacitly on the same side, Jim. You realists, however, choose to enter the fray with one hand tied behind your back.
It is the solemn duty of the idealist to set free your spirit and the spirit of every realist to entrench the achievable goal of individual liberty that once served America so very well.[:)]
You are once again wrong my friend. There has NEVER been a time in this world where there have been 'pure/perfect/ideal' implication of any RIGHT of the individual. I do not have any hand tied behind me when I fight for what I believe in, but anyone who is not willing to face reality and has a unbending idealistic stand on any issue has both hands tied behind their back and will be trampled by reality.
But you do, Jim. You handcuff yourself with the pre-knowledge that your government has the power to exert a control over you that specifically violates its charter. The door to any and all forms of registration, licencing, regulation, and yes, restriction is wide open when that power is conceded. You place yourself in a position of being forced to argue the merits of this regulation vs. that regulation, with the absolute best result being a compromise that leaves you with the lessor of two evils.
Holding onto the ideal will shift the argument towards the ideal at a minimum, and as has been seen recently, based upon an optimistic view of Heller, a few municipalities have simply dropped restrictions because they did not want to face a plaintiff in court. In these cases, the ideal has won, and will continue to do so absent continued encouragement from gun owning Gun Controllers who insist that Cities, States, and the Federal Government really do have this power.
We may never reach the 100% ideal situation. Fine. The incremental success of idealism that is so very obvious today would not have occurred if the starting point was simply that any specific law was a bit too intrusive. Successful suits have struck down laws, not replaced them, and that is very real.
Brad Steele
You FINALLY got one right, Rau ;
You and the trfoxes/selectfires/rosies/johnws do INDEED attack those few of us that support the Right to keep and Bear Arms.
If we do not support your chosen government interference with our liberties, WE are the enemy !!
Simply because we read four simple words, and apply the logic that the Founders had NO intention of allowing a government EVER again to gain total control over citizens by controlling weapons...you denigrate, harass, ridicule and defame us.....simply because we point out the utter simplicity and beauty of those words.
Those four words swill set you free, Jim..as SOON as you learn what they mean.
"Shall Not Be Infringed".
I URGE you to study them.
There are Nazis running the Dept. of Homeland Security, thinking it's gonna be a breeze.
Obama pushing healthcare to eliminate the sneeze. His true agenda though is to destroy our economy, healthcare and take away our rights....he didn't know the Tea Parties would put up such a fight.
Racist! Racist! Yelled the puppet media all night.
Face us, Face us, but you won't cause we are right.
Rangel got the boot after caught with all the loot and Tim Geithner don't pay taxes, but that's because he's slick you see and lied in all his faxes.
It all paid off and in the end, he's head of the Federal Reserve System, cause when Obama looked around, deep down he really missed him. The people took his thorny crown and one year later he looks like a real clown trying to explain his broken system.
Corruption is a lovely thing, when it goes well it makes them sing.
They drop a dime on conservatives and stop in time to add preservatives to taxes long thought buried. We're pushing it through, we're pushing it through, the health care bill is needed.
So in the dark on a weekend night the left they really hurried.
But we all watched and we all knew they lied, and we all pleaded.
Pelosi laughed and Reid he cried, Michelle Obama waved with pride.
But we all know that they all lied, their intentions were so clear now.
Progressively, they've stimulated, often debated, campaigned and
fascinated....but now we've proof Obama's a goof and has been overrated.
The BATFE has orders to shoot and shoot and shoot so you'd better stop when they yell freeze. Mitt Romney thinks his turn is next, but Obama won't give up the White House keys. McCain is pleading to be reelected, but hopefully they've seen enough and he won't be selected.
Massachusettes RINOs had his fun, Tea Parties all are stunned.
So if you see a RINO near me, I must have gone astray and, drank so much my eyes got blurred just like some sort of wino.
Look at the time, look at all the crimes these liberals committed.
If George Washington were alive today, he'd know he'd been oatmealted.
As the world turns and the new world orders...
all guns must go, take them away...it's been too long we've waited.
Tea Parties know and they say no.
Our guns have kept us free from all enemies foreign and domestic, we won't allow you to control us all, our guns won't be confiscated.
And if we must, then we will trust in God whom we believe in.
To pull us through the things that we must do
To keep our children free.
When We The People form what may and tell the communists we've had enough and stop Obama's spending spree.
If you like Tea, then take a stand and let your vote be counted.
Then hopefully, it's gonna be so grand and the left will be astounded.
Somehow, I get the distasteful impression that this ditty is a plea to vote republican.
Sorry about that...I find the 'right' to be equally as slug-ugly as I do the left. Slimy trails showing where they ate the fruit in the dark of night.....
Perhaps MORE so...because they hide behind motherhood, apple pie and the flag...as they do their filthy work of dismantling America.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Many attack the concept of being a 'realist' because we know that such a label confirms that a man is willing to compromise before the negotiations begin. We are tacitly on the same side, Jim. You realists, however, choose to enter the fray with one hand tied behind your back.
It is the solemn duty of the idealist to set free your spirit and the spirit of every realist to entrench the achievable goal of individual liberty that once served America so very well.[:)]
You are once again wrong my friend. There has NEVER been a time in this world where there have been 'pure/perfect/ideal' implication of any RIGHT of the individual. I do not have any hand tied behind me when I fight for what I believe in, but anyone who is not willing to face reality and has a unbending idealistic stand on any issue has both hands tied behind their back and will be trampled by reality.
But you do, Jim. You handcuff yourself with the pre-knowledge that your government has the power to exert a control over you that specifically violates its charter. The door to any and all forms of registration, licencing, regulation, and yes, restriction is wide open when that power is conceded. You place yourself in a position of being forced to argue the merits of this regulation vs. that regulation, with the absolute best result being a compromise that leaves you with the lessor of two evils.
Holding onto the ideal will shift the argument towards the ideal at a minimum, and as has been seen recently, based upon an optimistic view of Heller, a few municipalities have simply dropped restrictions because they did not want to face a plaintiff in court. In these cases, the ideal has won, and will continue to do so absent continued encouragement from gun owning Gun Controllers who insist that Cities, States, and the Federal Government really do have this power.
We may never reach the 100% ideal situation. Fine. The incremental success of idealism that is so very obvious today would not have occurred if the starting point was simply that any specific law was a bit too intrusive. Successful suits have struck down laws, not replaced them, and that is very real.
Don,
Any time you govern/manage people you MUST have boundaries/laws. THIS IS REALITY!!! You can not EVER have an 'idealistic' state.
How is this idealistic attitude working out for the 'idealists' who are now in control of our government right now??
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You are once again wrong my friend. There has NEVER been a time in this world where there have been 'pure/perfect/ideal' implication of any RIGHT of the individual. I do not have any hand tied behind me when I fight for what I believe in, but anyone who is not willing to face reality and has a unbending idealistic stand on any issue has both hands tied behind their back and will be trampled by reality.
"Don, you are wrong, and here is why I am wrong...."
Mr. Wolf,
Instead of trying to be coy, please give me an example of a time and place in this world where there have been the 'pure/perfect/ideal'(totally unrestricted in any way to anyone) implementation of any human right.
Battle of Lexington and Concord. Bye now.
You proved my point. This battle was a result of reality. Your example is one of the opposite, here there was DEFANTLY not an ideal situation. You can only push people so far before they rebel!!
Now to my original question. An answer please???
How is this idealistic attitude working out for the 'idealists' who are now in control of our government right now??Jim,
First off, I am glad to see you back. Argue or not, I like you. You are a man of principle, albeit misplaced principle in some cases.[:)]
The arguments, rationalizations and justifications that you pose are critical in the quest some of us are on to illustrate the differences between 'witting concession' and the advocacy for individual liberty.
These arguments also provide a perfect chalkboard to draw a comparison between the commonly accepted predatory government paradigm that we live in and the founding principles and the ethic & philosophy of Individualism.
The 'reality' is simply that our founders set up a Republic, creating our Constitution as the framework of government and as 'The Contract' between The People, The States and The Federal Government.
The 'reality' is that this Constitution established strict limitations on government and in fact, established some absolute prohibitions on government which are clearly enumerated.
There is nothing 'idealistic' about these truths, they are already and long ago established as the Supreme Law of The Land and as such, they are established 'fact' and law, not 'ideals'.
Now, the problem is that many, unfortunately many like you, Jim, have conceded that the government has the authority to breach 'The Contract' and to exceed those clear boundaries.
This Republic DOES have laws, Jim. This Republic DOES provide for a perfectly orderly society, albeit one that is intended to hold its citizens strictly accountable and liable for those actions that transgress upon other individuals, rather than to be governed by the ethic & philosophy of 'Collectivism', Jim.
This collectivist ethic & philosophy is exactly what is destroying the Republic and what is eroding our individual liberties.
We are simply meant to be government and held to account under a different ethic & philosophy, that being 'Individualism', the principle, ethic and philosophy of our founding, Jim.
The 'reality' is that those of us who simply advocate for a return to the provisions and the terms of 'The Contract', are incorrectly labeled as 'idealists' and as being 'unrealistic', along with some much more disparaging terminology.
Those of you who misdirect, concede and mumble about the 'real world' are those who are the clear enablers of predatory government and of government excess and you are those who are clearly preventing a restoration of the Republic, due to your concessions and your ceding of extra-constitutional and anti-constitutional authority and powers that the government clearly does not have.
Why is it that some insist, that since mankind has lived under various rules and dictators of tyranny, that it must always be this way? That we must continuously kneel down and beg to have a sliver of freedom? Then rejoyce when we are temporarily granted the "privilege" of minuscule amounts of freedom.
Who gets off on this crap and why? [:(!]
After reading many posts, just not here alone, though this thread did remind me of it once again.
Why is it that some insist, that since mankind has lived under various rules and dictators of tyranny, that it must always be this way? That we must continuously kneel down and beg to have a sliver of freedom? Then rejoyce when we are temporarily granted the "privilege" of minuscule amounts of freedom.
Who gets off on this crap and why? [:(!]
A good point, Hunter and a fair question.
This is a question that, although I have pondered it many times, I can't arrive at a concrete answer to.
I believe that there is simply something 'inherent' in people.
In a massive percentage of people, this 'inherent trait' is for being led, living within boundaries established by some 'controlling authority' ceding certain elements of your life to others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from some accountability, some responsibility and/or the necessary brutal defense of self and family, as an individual.
I believe that these people have an 'inherent need' and desire, to whatever degree, to 'follow'.
In a much smaller percentage of people, I submit it is around 3%, there is an 'inherent' desire and drive to live free of the confines put in place by whatever is the 'controlling authority'.
These people are driven to be individually responsible and individually accountable for their own actions and they demand that others be held to the same standard.
This 3% of people rebel against the very 'concept' of any controlling authority which attempts to order their individual actions (even those which do not impact on another individual), or to rule their lives and/or which attempts to control their Natural or God-given liberties.
This then, is the root-cause of the battle between 'collectivism and individualism'; two opposing ethics & philosophies.
Collectivism inevitably leads to totalitarianism.
Don,
Any time you govern/manage people you MUST have boundaries/laws. THIS IS REALITY!!! You can not EVER have an 'idealistic' state.
How is this idealistic attitude working out for the 'idealists' who are now in control of our government right now??
The boundaries and laws for firearms should be the same as those for toothpicks. You hurt someone with a toothpick without cause - you get prosecuted. You hurt someone with a firearm without cause - you get prosecuted. Those laws and boundaries exist without preemptive restriction, Jim. What is it about that reality you find so objectionable?
Brad Steele
The words insecure,greed,elitist/arrogance and error/faults come to mind. I'll explain.
Some feel the need to be supreme/elite to the rest of us. Like the government for example, recently this healthcare that no one wants is being shoved down our throats but the government is exempt from it. Also social security the government is exempt from that too. But I wount bable on about these things it would take all day.
Next is greed and this goes hand in hand with elitism and also ties in with being insecure,having faults/error and arrogance. The "I'm better than you" philosophy to boost self esteem. We can see/feel this when others suffer, are less fortunate. The "I deserve this and you don't" helps in subsiding insecurity.
How many times do we see in everyday life people cutting in front of one another, in line,driving ect. Purely selfish acts in everyday life. We see co-workers cutting each others throat for another 10 cents on the paycheck.
I honestly think we will never get away from it. It's just human nature to be rude,crude and vindictive towards everyone we're around.[xx(]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
Any time you govern/manage people you MUST have boundaries/laws. THIS IS REALITY!!! You can not EVER have an 'idealistic' state.
How is this idealistic attitude working out for the 'idealists' who are now in control of our government right now??
The boundaries and laws for firearms should be the same as those for toothpicks. You hurt someone with a toothpick without cause - you get prosecuted. You hurt someone with a firearm without cause - you get prosecuted. Those laws and boundaries exist without preemptive restriction, Jim. What is it about that reality you find so objectionable?
Don, what is your definition of a 'fire arm'???
quote:Any time you govern/manage people you MUST have boundaries/laws. THIS IS REALITY!!! You can not EVER have an 'idealistic' state.
How is this idealistic attitude working out for the 'idealists' who are now in control of our government right now??Jim,
First off, I am glad to see you back. Argue or not, I like you. You are a man of principle, albeit misplaced principle in some cases.[:)]
The arguments, rationalizations and justifications that you pose are critical in the quest some of us are on to illustrate the differences between 'witting concession' and the advocacy for individual liberty.
These arguments also provide a perfect chalkboard to draw a comparison between the commonly accepted predatory government paradigm that we live in and the founding principles and the ethic & philosophy of Individualism.
The 'reality' is simply that our founders set up a Republic, creating our Constitution as the framework of government and as 'The Contract' between The People, The States and The Federal Government.
The 'reality' is that this Constitution established strict limitations on government and in fact, established some absolute prohibitions on government which are clearly enumerated.
There is nothing 'idealistic' about these truths, they are already and long ago established as the Supreme Law of The Land and as such, they are established 'fact' and law, not 'ideals'.
Now, the problem is that many, unfortunately many like you, Jim, have conceded that the government has the authority to breach 'The Contract' and to exceed those clear boundaries.
This Republic DOES have laws, Jim. This Republic DOES provide for a perfectly orderly society, albeit one that is intended to hold its citizens strictly accountable and liable for those actions that transgress upon other individuals, rather than to be governed by the ethic & philosophy of 'Collectivism', Jim.
This collectivist ethic & philosophy is exactly what is destroying the Republic and what is eroding our individual liberties.
We are simply meant to be government and held to account under a different ethic & philosophy, that being 'Individualism', the principle, ethic and philosophy of our founding, Jim.
The 'reality' is that those of us who simply advocate for a return to the provisions and the terms of 'The Contract', are incorrectly labeled as 'idealists' and as being 'unrealistic', along with some much more disparaging terminology.
Those of you who misdirect, concede and mumble about the 'real world' are those who are the clear enablers of predatory government and of government excess and you are those who are clearly preventing a restoration of the Republic, due to your concessions and your ceding of extra-constitutional and anti-constitutional authority and powers that the government clearly does not have.
Jeff, of all people you should know I DO NOT except 'predatory government'!!!
I do believe we need to set some realistic limits/boundaries on people. I think our founders would laugh at many here who state there should be no limits/boundaries with the weapon technology today. If we were give them a simple fire power demonstration of basic conventional weapons they would not believe we have progressed so far so fast. And THEY would agree there MUST some limits set on there procurement, ownership, and use!! If you want to see what our country would look like with no management of these WMD's you need to only look to countries like Somalia!!!
Jeff, you and others here are denying 'human nature'!!!
but they do make better self defence weapones then civilians can own, thats probably why police use them when faceing an armed threat.
I dont think any one person should have access a to nuclear weapones, howitzers, grenade launchers, tanks, large quantities of high explosives, attack helos, fighter jets, tanks, or anything like that, as you say human nature is what it is.. But if a group who train as a malitia want to own anything less then nukes, and can buy them, and which are under guard, and properly trained on I'm all for it, because thats they way it should be.
But if you read the second amendment it is clear the the people, all people have the right to keep and bare arms, it does not say (NOT) arms that are short, shoot fast or quietly.. or after signing forms. It isnt in there. therfore the restriction is an infringement.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The boundaries and laws for firearms should be the same as those for toothpicks. You hurt someone with a toothpick without cause - you get prosecuted. You hurt someone with a firearm without cause - you get prosecuted. Those laws and boundaries exist without preemptive restriction, Jim. What is it about that reality you find so objectionable?
Don, what is your definition of a 'fire arm'???
In the context of the above, I was referring to any rifle or pistol up to an including full-auto weapons.
In the context of the 2nd Amendment, I consider 'arms' to be anything that provides the citizenry with the ability to pose a credible threat to a government that wishes to enslave it.
Brad Steele
quote:The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. In the past the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine certain provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the states, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, in 1833 the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, government. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
The problem here the idealist will say ANY restriction is not acceptable!!!
As I said above we MUST set boundaries and limits on people to manage them. This is simple fact of life. If you want a FREE society you MUST limit these boundaries, and make the individual more important than the collective. But we still must consider the safety and needs of the collective.
Thus it is my belief that 99.9% of our current 'gun laws' are unconstitutional!!!
Well we are in some what of an agreement here. I do not thing we should have basic restrictions on INDIVIDUAL weapons. This is basically shoulder fired (hand held) weapons, not crew served. I have no problem with short barrels, silencers, or even full auto in none crew served machine guns. This right we are discussing is an 'individual right', thus weapons individuals use, not those 'crews' use.
The problem here the idealist will say ANY restriction is not acceptable!!!
As I said above we MUST set boundaries and limits on people to manage them. This is simple fact of life. If you want a FREE society you MUST limit these boundaries, and make the individual more important than the collective. But we still must consider the safety and needs of the collective.
Thus it is my belief that 99.9% of our current 'gun laws' are unconstitutional!!!
Unless they like you better than me (which is quite likely) your reasonable thinking will not get you very far here with the extremists. I have shared your position on gun rights for years and all I get is to be called a "traitor" , etc.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well we are in some what of an agreement here. I do not thing we should have basic restrictions on INDIVIDUAL weapons. This is basically shoulder fired (hand held) weapons, not crew served. I have no problem with short barrels, silencers, or even full auto in none crew served machine guns. This right we are discussing is an 'individual right', thus weapons individuals use, not those 'crews' use.
The problem here the idealist will say ANY restriction is not acceptable!!!
As I said above we MUST set boundaries and limits on people to manage them. This is simple fact of life. If you want a FREE society you MUST limit these boundaries, and make the individual more important than the collective. But we still must consider the safety and needs of the collective.
Thus it is my belief that 99.9% of our current 'gun laws' are unconstitutional!!!
Unless they like you better than me (which is quite likely) your reasonable thinking will not get you very far here with the extremists. I have shared your position on gun rights for years and all I get is to be called a "traitor" , etc.
I thing your reasoning is correct. Prior to my arrival here I understand you got into a BIG wee wee contest and wee'd off a bunch of the 'idealists' here and thus there is still this lingering resentment on both sides. This is normal.
I too got into a BIG wee wee contest primarily with Jeff. It got totally out of hand and when we decided to get this settled off this site we found we were both saying things we regretted and we both apologized. We actually found we had A LOT more in common than we had difference. I have learned a lot from our NEW relationship, and I am sure I have caused some here to THINK, which is my goal. Some here have a very closed mind!! Jeff does not, and many others do not. They will argue the points of discussion and not simply attack the person. But again, this is normal, human nature. I have great respect for many of those who do not totally agree with me. As I said earlier, I was of this same mind set MANY years ago and saw it got me nowhere.
Well we are in some what of an agreement here. I do not thing we should have basic restrictions on INDIVIDUAL weapons. This is basically shoulder fired (hand held) weapons, not crew served. I have no problem with short barrels, silencers, or even full auto in none crew served machine guns. This right we are discussing is an 'individual right', thus weapons individuals use, not those 'crews' use.
The problem here the idealist will say ANY restriction is not acceptable!!!
As I said above This is simple fact of life. If you want a FREE society you MUST limit these boundaries, and make the individual more important than the collective. But we still must consider the safety and needs of the collective.
Thus it is my belief that 99.9% of our current 'gun laws' are unconstitutional!!!
I suspect we are not in as close an alignment as you seem to think.
The US is a signatory to any number of international treaties that limit WMD, and through those treaties I assume there are restrictions that signatory nations must place upon their citizens regarding these weapons. Therefore, I am forced to concede that these restrictions are Constitutional, as the Constitution recognizes the commitments of international treaties.
I disagree with the 'hand-held' vs. 'crew-served' concept, as technically my 1919A4 is a crew-served weapon, and there is no justification for its regulation any more than for a shoulder fired M4. In the event our tyrannical government moves too far, which it seems inclined to do, a crew-served Ma Deuce would be a very helpful tool in preserving the security of our freedom. Limiting the citizenry to implements that are significantly less effective than those of the State destroys the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
I believe that 100% of the gun laws on the books are unconstitutional, primarily because that is what the Constitution says. I recoil at the ease with which you toss about phrases such as 'we MUST set boundaries and limits on people to manage them.' We obviously need laws to punish actions that damage others, but limiting and managing people in a preemptive manner is a totally different concept, and can do nothing but diminish freedom and limit liberty of those that have no intention of damaging others.
If you truly believe that people are to be limited and managed, please have the courage to push for a Constitutional Amendment to that effect which modifies the 2nd Amendment to read the way you wish it to read. At least that will force 3/4 of the State Legislatures to go on record rather than have the mob mentality of a simple majority limiting and managing those that would prefer our Government to work within its own defined limits.
Freedom and liberty is not without cost, Jim. We can pay that cost through the occasional damage caused by someone bent upon doing harm. Paying that cost, as you suggest, by limiting and managing that very freedom and liberty is counter-intuitive at best, and makes a mockery of the very concept of freedom and liberty, IMO. We cannot accept a government working outside the very charter that is supposed to limit and manage it.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well we are in some what of an agreement here. I do not thing we should have basic restrictions on INDIVIDUAL weapons. This is basically shoulder fired (hand held) weapons, not crew served. I have no problem with short barrels, silencers, or even full auto in none crew served machine guns. This right we are discussing is an 'individual right', thus weapons individuals use, not those 'crews' use.
The problem here the idealist will say ANY restriction is not acceptable!!!
As I said above This is simple fact of life. If you want a FREE society you MUST limit these boundaries, and make the individual more important than the collective. But we still must consider the safety and needs of the collective.
Thus it is my belief that 99.9% of our current 'gun laws' are unconstitutional!!!
I suspect we are not in as close an alignment as you seem to think.
The US is a signatory to any number of international treaties that limit WMD, and through those treaties I assume there are restrictions that signatory nations must place upon their citizens regarding these weapons. Therefore, I am forced to concede that these restrictions are Constitutional, as the Constitution recognizes the commitments of international treaties.
I disagree with the 'hand-held' vs. 'crew-served' concept, as technically my 1919A4 is a crew-served weapon, and there is no justification for its regulation any more than for a shoulder fired M4. In the event our tyrannical government moves too far, which it seems inclined to do, a crew-served Ma Deuce would be a very helpful tool in preserving the security of our freedom. Limiting the citizenry to implements that are significantly less effective than those of the State destroys the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
I believe that 100% of the gun laws on the books are unconstitutional, primarily because that is what the Constitution says. I recoil at the ease with which you toss about phrases such as 'we MUST set boundaries and limits on people to manage them.' We obviously need laws to punish actions that damage others, but limiting and managing people in a preemptive manner is a totally different concept, and can do nothing but diminish freedom and limit liberty of those that have no intention of damaging others.
If you truly believe that people are to be limited and managed, please have the courage to push for a Constitutional Amendment to that effect which modifies the 2nd Amendment to read the way you wish it to read. At least that will force 3/4 of the State Legislatures to go on record rather than have the mob mentality of a simple majority limiting and managing those that would prefer our Government to work within its own defined limits.
Freedom and liberty is not without cost, Jim. We can pay that cost through the occasional damage caused by someone bent upon doing harm. Paying that cost, as you suggest, by limiting and managing that very freedom and liberty is counter-intuitive at best, and makes a mockery of the very concept of freedom and liberty, IMO. We cannot accept a government working outside the very charter that is supposed to limit and manage it.
Don, no disrespect intended, but what you sound like an anarchist!!!
Don, no disrespect intended, but what you sound like an anarchist!!!
I advocate for my government to adhere to the limitations placed upon it by the very contract, ratified by the states, that created it. I fail to see how that makes me an anarchist.
Anarchy is a system that operates without law. I submit that our current government that operates outside the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution is anarchy, and that supporters of governmental laws and decrees that exceed that charter (the law of the land) are more closely related to anarchists than am I.
You wish to change our Constitution by fiat, Jim. I only suggest that if you want to change it, follow the law and change it through the methods proscribed. You really need to evaluate which of these methods is closer to anarchy.
Brad Steele
You sunk it with that demolition charge.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don, no disrespect intended, but what you sound like an anarchist!!!
I advocate for my government to adhere to the limitations placed upon it by the very contract, ratified by the states, that created it. I fail to see how that makes me an anarchist.
Anarchy is a system that operates without law. I submit that our current government that operates outside the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution is anarchy, and that supporters of governmental laws and decrees that exceed that charter (the law of the land) are more closely related to anarchists than am I.
You wish to change our Constitution by fiat, Jim. I only suggest that if you want to change it, follow the law and change it through the methods proscribed. You really need to evaluate which of these methods is closer to anarchy.
Don,
You made another */u/metion which was wrong. I DO NOT WANT THE CONSTITUTION CHANGED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!
Correct me if I am wrong here please. This country was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy, right? Which means we are governed by LAWS made by those we (the people) elect to represent us, correct? We do not require a majority vote of the citizens on every matter of government, but can call for a referendum if we feel the need.
If this is true our 'representatives' have went astray and no longer represent 'we the people'. This is the main problem we face today in ALL aspects of our life in the USA, not just the RTKABA's!!!
But unless I am miss understanding you, you say the government has no power to make ANY laws which would effect the RTKABA's???
If this is what you are saying it would result in anarchy!! Because as history has show, with the arms go the power and if there were NO restrictions what so ever the people with the most resources (wealth) would simply buy all the arms they want and they would be in control of this society, ie; war lords!!!
Don,
You made another */u/metion which was wrong. I DO NOT WANT THE CONSTITUTION CHANGED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!
Correct me if I am wrong here please. This country was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy, right? Which means we are governed by LAWS made by those we (the people) elect to represent us, correct? We do not require a majority vote of the citizens on every matter of government, but can call for a referendum if we feel the need.
If this is true our 'representatives' have went astray and no longer represent 'we the people'. This is the main problem we face today in ALL aspects of our life in the USA, not just the RTKABA's!!!
But unless I am miss understanding you, you say the government has no power to make ANY laws which would effect the RTKABA's???
If this is what you are saying it would result in anarchy!! Because as history has show, with the arms go the power and if there were NO restrictions what so ever the people with the most resources (wealth) would simply buy all the arms they want and they would be in control of this society, ie; war lords!!!
I have assumed nothing, Jim.
You advocate for Governmental limits on and Governmental management of peoples' access to firearms, and the 2nd Amendment states that Government Shall Not Infringe upon that access. You either want to change the Constitution or you want your Government to operate outside limits placed upon it. There is no other honest choice, Jim. If you want to limit peoples' access and if you want to manage peoples' access, you want to change that which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Providing justification and rationalization for this advocacy does not change that very simple and obvious fact.
Your comment that 'with the arms go the power' shows, in my opinion, either confusion, or an acceptance of governmental control antithetical to our founding, as well. Obviously if a government can limit and manage its peoples' access to firearms, it then has the final say as to who has the power, does it not? Where then is the security for the state of freedom of the individual citizen?
Brad Steele
Funny thing happened in the world of 'reality'....Because of government actions,(MANY restrictions) the rich are able to afford nearly ANYTHING they want in the way of weapons...and as many as they want.
The ONLY people barred from effective weapons.ARE...horrors..the less well to do...unable or unwilling to spend half a years wages on an effective defensive weapon.....
You advocate for Governmental limits on and Governmental management of peoples' access to firearms, and the 2nd Amendment states that Government Shall Not Infringe upon that access. You either want to change the Constitution or you want your Government to operate outside limits placed upon it.
There isn't one right in the Bill of Rights or in any other Amendment to the Constitution that is absolute. They all can be limited in certain situations.
Would you want to allow convicted felons in prison to have unrestricted access to firearms?
There isn't one right in the Bill of Rights or in any other Amendment to the Constitution that is absolute. They all can be limited in certain situations.
Would you want to allow convicted felons in prison to have unrestricted access to firearms?
Your first statement is false. There is only one right that is limited preemptively. When was the last time you had to register your vocal chords or be vetted by government in order to buy a pen or a Bible? Limits in all other cases are simply laws which punish behavior that damages others, and as such the proper use and exercise of these rights is not limited. Limits wrt gun ownership and possession occur prior to behavior of any kind and as such, many are prevented from the proper use and exercise of this right.
In answer to your question: No, allowing prisoners unrestricted access to firearms would be silly, just as would allowing them unrestricted access to cutting torches. The limited access to these two items is a direct result of the actions that resulted in their incarceration. Prisons, as you apparently are unaware, are facilities designed and constructed to house people that for whatever reason, society has deemed it necessary to confine. Firearms and/or cutting torches could be used by these prisoners in an attempt to escape from confinement.
A prisoner, for example, could point his firearm at a corrections officer and threaten * harm to that officer if said prisoner was not released. This would make the officer's job much more difficult, and would probably result in any number of people who are supposed to be incarcerated being set free.
Likewise, unlimited access to cutting torches for prisoners would provide those prisoners with a means to cut through the steel structures that confine them. This also would make a corrections officer's job much more difficult, and would also result in any number of people who are supposed to be incarcerated freeing themselves.
I hope this helps in your understanding of prisons and why we need to treat those in these prisons differently than those of us outside prisons.
All the best,
Don
EDIT:
If you want the big boy version:
Prisoners are being legally and Constitutionally compelled to do something against their will. In order for a government to ensure that people will do things against their will, they must first be disarmed.
Our Founders understood this.
Some on this Forum understand this.
Many on this forum do not.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
There isn't one right in the Bill of Rights or in any other Amendment to the Constitution that is absolute. They all can be limited in certain situations.
Would you want to allow convicted felons in prison to have unrestricted access to firearms?
Your first statement is false. There is only one right that is limited preemptively. When was the last time you had to register your vocal chords or be vetted by government in order to buy a pen or a Bible? Limits in all other cases are simply laws which punish behavior that damages others, and as such the proper use and exercise of these rights is not limited. Limits wrt gun ownership and possession occur prior to behavior of any kind and as such, many are prevented from the proper use and exercise of this right.
In answer to your question: No, allowing prisoners unrestricted access to firearms would be silly, just as would allowing them unrestricted access to cutting torches. The limited access to these two items is a direct result of the actions that resulted in their incarceration. Prisons, as you apparently are unaware, are facilities designed and constructed to house people that for whatever reason, society has deemed it necessary to confine. Firearms and/or cutting torches could be used by these prisoners in an attempt to escape from confinement.
A prisoner, for example, could point his firearm at a corrections officer and threaten * harm to that officer if said prisoner was not released. This would make the officer's job much more difficult, and would probably result in any number of people who are supposed to be incarcerated being set free.
Likewise, unlimited access to cutting torches for prisoners would provide those prisoners with a means to cut through the steel structures that confine them. This also would make a corrections officer's job much more difficult, and would also result in any number of people who are supposed to be incarcerated freeing themselves.
I hope this helps in your understanding of prisons and why we need to treat those in these prisons differently than those of us outside prisons.
All the best,
Don
EDIT:
If you want the big boy version:
Prisoners are being legally and Constitutionally compelled to do something against their will. In order for a government to ensure that people will do things against their will, they must first be disarmed.
Our Founders understood this.
Some on this Forum understand this.
Many on this forum do not.
Don,
From your answer you are contradicting yourself. You DO believe in placing SOME restrictions/limits/boundaries on the RTKABA's (2nd A)!!!
I believe our founders had more common sense than may here give them credit for and would not be in the least upset with the use of common sense in the 'management of arms'. I guess I would ask, if prisoners should have limits on the RTKABA's, would be fair to say a five (5) year old should be allowed to bring a loaded gun to school with him, or would it an infringement on his RTKABA's to prevent this??
Don,
From your answer you are contradicting yourself. You DO believe in placing SOME restrictions/limits/boundaries on the RTKABA's (2nd A)!!!
I believe our founders had more common sense than may here give them credit for and would not be in the least upset with the use of common sense in the 'management of arms'. I guess I would ask, if prisoners should have limits on the RTKABA's, would be fair to say a five (5) year old should be allowed to bring a loaded gun to school with him, or would it an infringement on his RTKABA's to prevent this??
No contradiction, Jim. Read for understanding and you will do so. Open your mind to thinking like a free individual, rather than a vassal of the state.
If you believe the Founders meant something other than that which they wrote, correct the record through the Amendment process so that the imposition of the restrictions you desire are made Constitutional. The idiocy of playing fast and loose with the rules is self-evident.
And yes, you can ask any stupid question you wish to ask. We can get into discussions about the age of majority, the relative status of a minor vs. an adult, the responsibility of parents, etc.
It is, however, you simply evading the fact that you wish to rationalize away my rights because you are comfortable with giving up your rights.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
From your answer you are contradicting yourself. You DO believe in placing SOME restrictions/limits/boundaries on the RTKABA's (2nd A)!!!
I believe our founders had more common sense than may here give them credit for and would not be in the least upset with the use of common sense in the 'management of arms'. I guess I would ask, if prisoners should have limits on the RTKABA's, would be fair to say a five (5) year old should be allowed to bring a loaded gun to school with him, or would it an infringement on his RTKABA's to prevent this??
No contradiction, Jim. Read for understanding and you will do so. Open your mind to thinking like a free individual, rather than a vassal of the state.
If you believe the Founders meant something other than that which they wrote, correct the record through the Amendment process so that the imposition of the restrictions you desire are made Constitutional. The idiocy of playing fast and loose with the rules is self-evident.
And yes, you can ask any stupid question you wish to ask. We can get into discussions about the age of majority, the relative status of a minor vs. an adult, the responsibility of parents, etc.
It is, however, you simply evading the fact that you wish to rationalize away my rights because you are comfortable with giving up your rights.
That is a good laugh, me a 'vessel of the state', it is fair to say you sure do not know me very well.[;)]
You are the one with the closed mind, Don, not me!!!!
If you read my post on the 'Rights' thread it states where I am on this and other issues. Ask Jeff if I am a 'vessel of the state'. How many here put their job and pension on the line to support the RTKABA's???? I would like to know what sacrifices many of you have made to support your close mined views!!! It is easy to 'talk the talk', but how many of you have 'walked the walk'???????????[;)]