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.
On Rights
Rockatansky
Member Posts: 11,175
Haven't had any plans to post here, but thought this article could be of some use for some of you guys:
http://www.sidis.net/rights2.htm
http://www.sidis.net/rights2.htm
Comments
Thanks.
BTW are you state side yet?
BTW are you state side yet?
Flying in tomorrow.
Lance
But even this 'right' requires some 'management' of those whom exercise it, much to the dislike of the 'idealists'!
No place to run.....
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Good read. All of this is food for thought. But there are some 'rights' which are more important than others. ie. the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement clause' of the Constitution, thus all other rights are DEPENDENT on the RTKABA's.
But even this 'right' requires some 'management' of those whom exercise it, much to the dislike of the 'idealists'!
good illustration why i shall never post here again...
I am sorry to hear you do not believe the 2nd Amendment is the most important part of the Bill of Rights. Which one do you consider the most important???
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Good read. All of this is food for thought. But there are some 'rights' which are more important than others. ie. the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement clause' of the Constitution, thus all other rights are DEPENDENT on the RTKABA's.
But even this 'right' requires some 'management' of those whom exercise it, much to the dislike of the 'idealists'!
good illustration why i shall never post here again...
I am sorry to hear you do not believe the 2nd Amendment is the most important part of the Bill of Rights. Which one do you consider the most important???
As Rock has stated he will no longer post, I'll take this one.
You know quite well what he meant, Jim.
It should be obvious that having Government 'managing' a right is a compromised arrangement whereby the right no longer truly exists.
Brad Steele
There are those who will follow tyrants to the bloody end. Even promoting the cause of said tyrants along the way.
It is too bad those "idiots" can't see the forest for the trees. They have not a clue what LIBERTY really is.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Good read. All of this is food for thought. But there are some 'rights' which are more important than others. ie. the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement clause' of the Constitution, thus all other rights are DEPENDENT on the RTKABA's.
But even this 'right' requires some 'management' of those whom exercise it, much to the dislike of the 'idealists'!
good illustration why i shall never post here again...
I am sorry to hear you do not believe the 2nd Amendment is the most important part of the Bill of Rights. Which one do you consider the most important???
As Rock has stated he will no longer post, I'll take this one.
You know quite well what he meant, Jim.
It should be obvious that having Government 'managing' a right is a compromised arrangement whereby the right no longer truly exists.
So you do not think 'management' is right in the area of individual rights? Then we should all be able to 'vote early and often' (as acorn does), the cops should not be able to apply for and and get search and arrest warrants, and it is ok for people to make threats of violence to other people, just to name a few times when 'management of rights' are a part of the real world.
In other words you want anarchy to prevail!!!
In other words you want anarchy to prevail!!!
Here we go again, Jim.[:)]
You examples are flawed.
First, Congress is authorized to pass laws related to regulating voting
Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Jim, it looks as if the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to interfere in this area.
On to your Amendment IV analogy (flawed analogy)...
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Oops, I see there are provisions enumerated here also, which establish the ground-rules for getting a warrant.
Last, the act of speech itself should not be sanctioned, barring some tangible action, or some accompanying display of intent to commit a bad-act.
It is perfectly clear to see which individual liberties are considered inviolate and which liberties are constitutionally authorized to be regulated, or breached under specific enumerated circumstances, as part of an orderly society.
It is all spelled out, quite simply.
Don't you think, Jim?
My arguments will always be flawed to an idealist. By the way there is nothing you posted that would restrict any one from voting 'early and often' only regulations which would restrict the government from denying the vote.
I will concede the 'warrant' issue, but still a true 'idealist' would not agree with this provision of 'management' of the right to be secure in your person and property.
Point being, the real world requires 'management' of people, which require the setting of boundaries. Do you believe it is with in individuals 2nd Amendment Right to be armed while intoxicated? It is with the Right to be armed while incarcerated? Is it within the Right for a five year old to take a firearm to school?
Just curious!![?]
Do you believe it is with in individuals 2nd Amendment Right to be armed while intoxicated? Absolutely!!
It is with the Right to be armed while incarcerated?Rights are suspended upon incarceration. All but basic right to life. You know this. Straw man anyone?
Is it within the Right for a five year old to take a firearm to school? Depends on the 5 year old. This is up to mom and dad, not fud.
Just curious!![?]
You truly fear your fellow citizen.
Fear fud, He's the one to worry about.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
As Rock has stated he will no longer post, I'll take this one.
You know quite well what he meant, Jim.
It should be obvious that having Government 'managing' a right is a compromised arrangement whereby the right no longer truly exists.
So you do not think 'management' is right in the area of individual rights? Then we should all be able to 'vote early and often' (as acorn does), the cops should not be able to apply for and and get search and arrest warrants, and it is ok for people to make threats of violence to other people, just to name a few times when 'management of rights' are a part of the real world.
In other words you want anarchy to prevail!!!
A supposed supporter of the 2nd Amendment, a restraint on government, sees fit to compare simple firearm ownership and possession with illegality. Fascinating.
The right to vote is 'managed' to ensure 1 man 1 vote. If a citizen wishes to vote, governments are mandated to ensure that they be allowed to do so. Those that attempt to exceed this limit of 1 vote are prosecuted because they have exceeded that which is their right.
'Managing' the RTKBA, at least by supporters of the 2nd Amendment, should be viewed in exactly the same manner. The Constitution states that there shall be no infringement upon a person's right to keep and bear arms. The Federal Government is thus mandated to not only not infringe itself; it must also ensure that State and Local Governments do not infringe. There is no 1 man 1 gun limit to manage, there is no type of arms description to manage, there is only the mandate to uphold this freedom. Following the Constitution is not anarchy.
Unwarranted search and seizure violates the Constitution. Warranted search and seizure is supported by the Constitution. Following the Constitution is not anarchy.
Comparison to the First Amendment is equally fallacious. The right to speak freely is only 'managed' when it damages, or can be reasonably expected to damage, another person. There is no preemptive 'management', and thus there is no honest comparison with the preemptive 'management' of people wrt the RTKBA.
How can one possibly even think that following a written charter approaches 'anarchy'? I suppose when one looks to government for too much, one can become conditioned to believe that no specific regulation is by definition anarchy.
I would submit that a Government operating outside its proscribed boundaries, ignoring its charter and implementing laws and restrictions at the whim of the majority is also by definition anarchy.
Brad Steele
Got it the first time Jeff, but, enjoyed your detailed explanation unlike the "slow learner". Well worth the time spemnt.
Be ever vigilant; one knows not the hour.....
WOW! Jim is blind and stubborn. Jeff has the patience of a Saint!
Got it the first time Jeff, but, enjoyed your detailed explanation unlike the "slow learner". Well worth the time spemnt.
Be ever vigilant; one knows not the hour.....
[:)]Thank you Sir.
I am sorry to hear you do not believe the 2nd Amendment is the most important part of the Bill of Rights. Which one do you consider the most important???
It's rather meaningless to consider each amendment in BOR separately, I think BOR only makes sense as a whole.
As Rock has stated he will no longer post, I'll take this one.
yeah... about that... disregard that please, i think i might have been drunk or posting in my sleep or both, last couple of days were somewhat hazy.[:D]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
As Rock has stated he will no longer post, I'll take this one.
yeah... about that... disregard that please, i think i might have been drunk or posting in my sleep or both, last couple of days were somewhat hazy.[:D]
[:)][;)]You would have been missed, Max.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Do you believe it is with in individuals 2nd Amendment Right to be armed while intoxicated? Absolutely!!
It is with the Right to be armed while incarcerated?Rights are suspended upon incarceration. All but basic right to life. You know this. Straw man anyone?
Is it within the Right for a five year old to take a firearm to school? Depends on the 5 year old. This is up to mom and dad, not fud.
Just curious!![?]
You truly fear your fellow citizen.
Fear fud, He's the one to worry about.
You have TOTALY LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY!!!
But I thank you for giving a straight froward answer, and I respect your opinion, even though it will never happen. Unlike some here You can address the subject matter and not attack those with whom you do not agree. Most hear have no real answer to the above questions so they just attack the one who asks.
Have a nice day. And thanks for your honest response!!!
Buy the way, I do not fear my fellow citizens, but I am aware that in the real world 'do-do occurs'!
But I have tried to for years without success.
Up until about 80 years ago every kid over the age of 10 had a pistol in his pocket, hell they could get them for a nickle or send or hand in a cupon and get one for free with the purchase of goods.. Thats the way it was... And we today look back on those times as more clean and better days of goodness..
Do you realize at that same time cocain and opium could be bought through any catalog or at any sundry store.. Drugs where cheap and widely distributed, there was no drug gangs, there was no legion of jones fueled junkies...
You really dont understand much do you? You dont have any concept whatsoever of how things where before Wilson and the roosevelts..
feedom wasnt an ideal then, it was fact and everyone knew what it was... If you call what we live with today feedom and progress your life is far to sheltered, and it can only be sheltered because you are willfully blind. Folks today dont have the foggiest Idea, how could they? for the most part the last generation that enjoyed freedom is long dead..
WE THE PEOPLE, is how this all starts!!
That is ALL of us, not just a few vocal people on both ends of the discussion/argument.
I know many here take offence to being called 'extremists', but that is the term for those 'idealist' who are on one end or other of this argument. You can't call Oboma an extremists if you don't call those on the other end extremists!!![?]
Mr. Wolf, you made a comment about the 'shot heard around the world' as a perfect/pure/ideal environment. Do you realize that when this country was founded black slaves had NO rights, certainly no right to be armed. Women could not vote. And the word 'militia' appeared in the 2nd Amendment, and at this 'ideal' time it referred ONLY to 'able bodied, men, between a certain age'????
I believe the founders were wise beyond their time and had alot of common sense, and if they were here today they would not say the intent of the 2nd was so any one who could afford it could have a thermal nuclear weapon in their home. They would agree there is one 'absolute' right, that is the right of self defense. Regardless of the organism size it has the right to defend it's self if attacked, we humans are the only organism which rely on technology to defend ourselves, thus the need for the 2nd. It is how ever not with it's problems. These MUST be addressed and not ignored, as many of you are doing!
I know many here take offence to being called 'extremists', but that is the term for those 'idealist' who are on one end or other of this argument. You can't call Oboma an extremists if you don't call those on the other end extremists!!![?]
Steadfast support of our founding document is an extreme position?
A thinking man would contemplate whether it is more extreme to advocate adhering to the rule of law or, is it more extreme to concede rights specifically delineated in that law.
It is not our fault, Jim, that you have bought into the left / right myth concocted by the mainstream parties. The country has moved ever closer to socialism and the nanny state every decade since the 1930s. Those that support the pure and ideal 2nd Amendment are the moderates. It is the law, after-all.
Brad Steele
Mr. Wolf, you made a comment about the 'shot heard around the world' as a perfect/pure/ideal environment. Do you realize that when this country was founded black slaves had NO rights, certainly no right to be armed. Women could not vote. And the word 'militia' appeared in the 2nd Amendment, and at this 'ideal' time it referred ONLY to 'able bodied, men, between a certain age'????
The word 'militia' has no bearing on the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. It is not only a freedom thing, it is a language thing.
From paragraph 1(a) in the Heller decision:
'The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.'
Can we finally put this silly 'militia' discussion to bed?
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I believe the founders were wise beyond their time and had alot of common sense, and if they were here today they would not say the intent of the 2nd was so any one who could afford it could have a thermal nuclear weapon in their home. They would agree there is one 'absolute' right, that is the right of self defense. Regardless of the organism size it has the right to defend it's self if attacked, we humans are the only organism which rely on technology to defend ourselves, thus the need for the 2nd. It is how ever not with it's problems. These MUST be addressed and not ignored, as many of you are doing!
The founders may well have thought that the right to self-defense was absolute. They probably also thought it obvious, which is, I would guess, one of the reasons it is not mentioned in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, of course, has nothing to do with self defense, though Gun Controllers love to think that it is about self-defense, hunting, and the shooting sports. Again, the prefatory clause states the purpose, that being 'The Security of a free State', thus ensuring that the population has access to the means to resist a tyrannical government and its agents.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Mr. Wolf, you made a comment about the 'shot heard around the world' as a perfect/pure/ideal environment. Do you realize that when this country was founded black slaves had NO rights, certainly no right to be armed. Women could not vote. And the word 'militia' appeared in the 2nd Amendment, and at this 'ideal' time it referred ONLY to 'able bodied, men, between a certain age'????
The word 'militia' has no bearing on the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. It is not only a freedom thing, it is a language thing.
From paragraph 1(a) in the Heller decision:
'The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.'
Can we finally put this silly 'militia' discussion to bed?
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I believe the founders were wise beyond their time and had alot of common sense, and if they were here today they would not say the intent of the 2nd was so any one who could afford it could have a thermal nuclear weapon in their home. They would agree there is one 'absolute' right, that is the right of self defense. Regardless of the organism size it has the right to defend it's self if attacked, we humans are the only organism which rely on technology to defend ourselves, thus the need for the 2nd. It is how ever not with it's problems. These MUST be addressed and not ignored, as many of you are doing!
The founders may well have thought that the right to self-defense was absolute. They probably also thought it obvious, which is, I would guess, one of the reasons it is not mentioned in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, of course, has nothing to do with self defense, though Gun Controllers love to think that it is about self-defense, hunting, and the shooting sports. Again, the prefatory clause states the purpose, that being 'The Security of a free State', thus ensuring that the population has access to the means to resist a tyrannical government and its agents.
Thanks Don, well said.
Jim, in your opinion what are the problems with the 2nd amendment that need managed?
Secondly, Don, once again you */u/me something about me and you are wrong again. There are only two categories of people in my world, traditionalist, and progressives. These two may vary in degree, but this where the 'fight' is. I am a realistic traditionalist, as apposed to a idealist traditionalist, which you appear to be. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Mr. Wolf, you made a comment about the 'shot heard around the world' as a perfect/pure/ideal environment. Do you realize that when this country was founded black slaves had NO rights, certainly no right to be armed. Women could not vote. And the word 'militia' appeared in the 2nd Amendment, and at this 'ideal' time it referred ONLY to 'able bodied, men, between a certain age'????
The word 'militia' has no bearing on the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. It is not only a freedom thing, it is a language thing.
From paragraph 1(a) in the Heller decision:
'The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.'
Can we finally put this silly 'militia' discussion to bed?
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I believe the founders were wise beyond their time and had alot of common sense, and if they were here today they would not say the intent of the 2nd was so any one who could afford it could have a thermal nuclear weapon in their home. They would agree there is one 'absolute' right, that is the right of self defense. Regardless of the organism size it has the right to defend it's self if attacked, we humans are the only organism which rely on technology to defend ourselves, thus the need for the 2nd. It is how ever not with it's problems. These MUST be addressed and not ignored, as many of you are doing!
The founders may well have thought that the right to self-defense was absolute. They probably also thought it obvious, which is, I would guess, one of the reasons it is not mentioned in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, of course, has nothing to do with self defense, though Gun Controllers love to think that it is about self-defense, hunting, and the shooting sports. Again, the prefatory clause states the purpose, that being 'The Security of a free State', thus ensuring that the population has access to the means to resist a tyrannical government and its agents.
Thanks Don, well said.
Jim, in your opinion what are the problems with the 2nd amendment that need managed?
Don,
Go up to the NBC thread and I think you will see the answer to this question, basically, not in detail.
Thanks for asking!
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Thanks Don, well said.
Jim, in your opinion what are the problems with the 2nd amendment that need managed?
Don,
Go up to the NBC thread and I think you will see the answer to this question, basically, not in detail.
Thanks for asking!
That question was asked by buffalobo, Jim.
I believe I understand your take on that pesky little word 'infringe'.[:)]
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Mr. Wolf, you made a comment about the 'shot heard around the world' as a perfect/pure/ideal environment. Do you realize that when this country was founded black slaves had NO rights, certainly no right to be armed. Women could not vote. And the word 'militia' appeared in the 2nd Amendment, and at this 'ideal' time it referred ONLY to 'able bodied, men, between a certain age'????
The word 'militia' has no bearing on the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. It is not only a freedom thing, it is a language thing.
From paragraph 1(a) in the Heller decision:
'The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.'
Can we finally put this silly 'militia' discussion to bed?
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I believe the founders were wise beyond their time and had alot of common sense, and if they were here today they would not say the intent of the 2nd was so any one who could afford it could have a thermal nuclear weapon in their home. They would agree there is one 'absolute' right, that is the right of self defense. Regardless of the organism size it has the right to defend it's self if attacked, we humans are the only organism which rely on technology to defend ourselves, thus the need for the 2nd. It is how ever not with it's problems. These MUST be addressed and not ignored, as many of you are doing!
The founders may well have thought that the right to self-defense was absolute. They probably also thought it obvious, which is, I would guess, one of the reasons it is not mentioned in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, of course, has nothing to do with self defense, though Gun Controllers love to think that it is about self-defense, hunting, and the shooting sports. Again, the prefatory clause states the purpose, that being 'The Security of a free State', thus ensuring that the population has access to the means to resist a tyrannical government and its agents.
Thanks Don, well said.
Jim, in your opinion what are the problems with the 2nd amendment that need managed?
Don,
Go up to the NBC thread and I think you will see the answer to this question, basically, not in detail.
Thanks for asking!
Jim, thanks for the reply. Due to a shortage of time on my part, I will reread referenced thread and reply later. I think the management of free people and thier rights is not up to the govt. or society as a group.
In a FREE country the rights of the individual MUST come before those of the collective, but the welfare of the collective must also be considered. We should limit the 'laws/management' to as little as is absolutely necessary, and here in lies the problem!!!
I would error on the side of the individual if it were up to me, in other words I am for VERY LIMITED government!!!
Reference the comment about the 2nd A having nothing to do with self defense. How silly is that that, you are the very people who says that is ALL it is about. Whether it is defence against a tyrannical government or your life, home, family, or community. The 2nd Amendment is 100% pure self defense!!!
I guess we are talking semantics here. 'Laws' are what we use in the republican form of government to 'manage' people. So with out any laws to mange people we have anarchy!
In a FREE country the rights of the individual MUST come before those of the collective, but the welfare of the collective must also be considered. We should limit the 'laws/management' to as little as is absolutely necessary, and here in lies the problem!!!
I would error on the side of the individual if it were up to me, in other words I am for VERY LIMITED government!!!
Reference the comment about the 2nd A having nothing to do with self defense. How silly is that that, you are the very people who says that is ALL it is about. Whether it is defence against a tyrannical government or your life, home, family, or community. The 2nd Amendment is 100% pure self defense!!!
Not semantics, Jim, philosophy. Laws are put in place in order that government has a written legal method to address people who refuse to manage themselves and who, by those actions harm or damage others. Obviously people owning and carrying firearms are expected to manage themselves, and in the event they do not, these laws will be used to address those actions that have caused harm. Managing these people is restricting their actions and activities in order to prevent them from harming others. A futile path to be sure, but one that you and the Bradys' seem to embrace.
Regarding the concept that preserving the ability to secure our state of freedom is just self-defense:
Even that comparison is not semantics, it is simply wrong. The reality (I know you like that concept) of gun rights advocacy has focused on personal self defense against a criminal element. It is almost never brought up as a means to preserve our liberties. This touchy-feely view, the self-defense view, distorts the intent of the 2nd, and leaves our youth believing that the 2nd is all about hunting, the shooting sports, and protecting oneself from a criminal. Read the prefatory clause again, Jim. It states the true purpose; 'the security of a free State'. Nothing what-so-ever to do with self-defense.
As previously stated, self-defense is obvious. The fact that our Founders implemented a policy whereby the governed were guaranteed the capacity to resist their own government is brilliance.
Brad Steele
Just touches the surface...
'We The People' WERE the government in the days of the Founders...we were SOVEREIGN CITIZENS then.
Those brilliant men were FULLY aware that men would gravitate to position of authority...and would seize ever greater power to themselves, and a centralized government.
They FULLY intended to NEVER allow that to happen....and phrased the Second Amendment to alert us, their descendants, to their ultimate aims.
A pox on those that not ONLY have turned their backs on the Founders...but vilify those of us that have not.
The most important right is one that almost never gets mentioned when it comes talking about rights as it's not included in the Bill of Rights but is in the Constitution; Habeas Corpus. It is that a person cannot be kept in prison for any meaningful length of time unless they have first been brought before a court of law, which decides whether it is legal for them to be kept in prison. Because if the government can make you essentially disappear, they can easily stop any dissent. Any attempt to protest or object to government outrages or abuses will be ended by the government arresting the key members who will never be seen again.
bush took care of that pesky little detail...now mccain is putting the finishing touches on it.
All that you are saying may well be true.
Is it is...enjoy living with the killing fields and slit trenches, won't you ?
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I guess we are talking semantics here. 'Laws' are what we use in the republican form of government to 'manage' people. So with out any laws to mange people we have anarchy!
In a FREE country the rights of the individual MUST come before those of the collective, but the welfare of the collective must also be considered. We should limit the 'laws/management' to as little as is absolutely necessary, and here in lies the problem!!!
I would error on the side of the individual if it were up to me, in other words I am for VERY LIMITED government!!!
Reference the comment about the 2nd A having nothing to do with self defense. How silly is that that, you are the very people who says that is ALL it is about. Whether it is defence against a tyrannical government or your life, home, family, or community. The 2nd Amendment is 100% pure self defense!!!
Not semantics, Jim, philosophy. Laws are put in place in order that government has a written legal method to address people who refuse to manage themselves and who, by those actions harm or damage others. Obviously people owning and carrying firearms are expected to manage themselves, and in the event they do not, these laws will be used to address those actions that have caused harm. Managing these people is restricting their actions and activities in order to prevent them from harming others. A futile path to be sure, but one that you and the Bradys' seem to embrace.
Regarding the concept that preserving the ability to secure our state of freedom is just self-defense:
Even that comparison is not semantics, it is simply wrong. The reality (I know you like that concept) of gun rights advocacy has focused on personal self defense against a criminal element. It is almost never brought up as a means to preserve our liberties. This touchy-feely view, the self-defense view, distorts the intent of the 2nd, and leaves our youth believing that the 2nd is all about hunting, the shooting sports, and protecting oneself from a criminal. Read the prefatory clause again, Jim. It states the true purpose; 'the security of a free State'. Nothing what-so-ever to do with self-defense.
As previously stated, self-defense is obvious. The fact that our Founders implemented a policy whereby the governed were guaranteed the capacity to resist their own government is brilliance.
Don, as usual, well stated.
Jim, why do you feel these laws are needed? Do the 4473 forms and checks actually keep bad guys from getting guns or commiting crimes? What will be accomplished if gun shows are eliminated? Are we really any safer due to the thousands of gun control laws enacted?
I am rather amused, disheartened, and enraged when I read through this thread. Great points have been made about the philosophy of the founding fathers. The reliance on the primary sources for our government are based not on any fanaticism, but are meant to keep us focused on the fundamentals.
Stepping away from the 2nd Amendment, but staying within the realm of political philosophy, a statement by Mr. Rau caught my eye:
"In a FREE country the rights of the individual MUST come before those of the collective, but the welfare of the collective must also be considered. We should limit the 'laws/management' to as little as is absolutely necessary, and here in lies the problem!!!"
I see elsewhere that Mr. Rau may espouse the words of James Madison when Madison stated that "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." However, the founders themselves made no suggestion that they were angels and, in fact, felt that they should not trust even themselves with that absolute power. Thus the "seperation of powers" and "checks and balances" on those powers were established in the new government. This is, therefore, the very reason that adherance to the Constitution is necessary and neither idealistic nor fanatical.
Regarding rights of the individual and representation of the "collective," a word that I believe smacks of socialism, there appears to be some confusion. The supremecy clause of the Constitution and the establishment of a bicameral legislature in Article 1 are set to assure that the rights of the individual are respected, but that the majority rules. Without getting into a littany of quotes from the Federalist Papers or the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, I would like to point out to Mr. Rau that it is because of the possibility of the tyranny of the majority, or of a government destructive of the rights it is prescribed to protect, that the first 10 amendments were added to the Constitution, of which the 2nd is most important, in order to retain all others listed.
Another flaw I see with Mr. Rau's argument is that he may not fully comprehend what a society of self-restraint might look like, though he seemingly touts this belief in his signature. IF the government could be restrained, or, better yet, self-restrained, perhaps we would all have a clearer model to pattern ourselves upon. In conclusion, and, with what has been mentioned, I would ask Mr. Rau: who shall be deemed worthy to determine precisely what level of law or management is absolutely necessary?
Best Regards!
Lincoln did it nearly 150 years ago. How could he liberate the oppressed while at the same time destroy all the freedom that those once oppressed were supposed to now enjoy.
A revolution would not be easy I am certain, but what rights to habeas corpus were limited also by the King's men? Perhaps that is why roughly a third of the nation supported revolution at it's dawn, but those brave few wanted what their rights that were infringed upon and would not be denied.
Best Regards!