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.
quote:Originally posted by krazy4krags
Gentlemen,
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!
Great post, krazy4krags.
I am particularly struck by how you chose to phrase the highlighted sentances. You will be a welcome addition to these forums.
Don
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
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 guess you all do not get it!!![:(!]
No the 4473 are worthless, why would you even thing I support this crap?
WHAT PART OF VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND??????[:(!]
If you read my posts you will see I have pointed that:
1. We have allowed the progressives to normalize and legalize their extremism for many decades. This crap like the 4473 and DV restriction are perfect examples of which I speak!!
2. Thus I believe that 99.9% of the laws which limit the RTKABA's, which are currently on the books, at all levels of government, are unconstitutional!!
But I do not believe any of the 'rights' addressed in the Constitution are absolute. THEY ALL REQUIRE MANGEMENT!! The RTKABA's should have less restriction than any other because it is the Right which protects ALL THE OTHERS. It is the 'enforcement clause' of the Constitution. When dealing with 'people' the words ALWAYS AND NEVER are nonexistent, and if you say there should be absolutely NO LIMITS to the RTKABA's you are WRONG. You defy and deny human nature and reality.
Can I make it any clearer than that. I am 99.9% in agreement with even the most extreme of you.
I am this way because I had the same, I say again the SAME mind set many here have and I saw the error or fallacy of it. If you want to continue to bad mouth, attack and alienate those who do not have the same CLOSEMINDED view you do so be. You only undermine your own creditability.
If you want to discuss the merits of your point of view, as some here do, you are giving others who happen by something to think about. This why I continue to post here. I know those who have a closed mind will not change, but those who are looking for info can get both sides.
If any here thing I am the 'enemy' you need to see a mental health professional BAD!!![V]
"Either one believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that this country was founded on, as written, or one does not."
You say that you "used to" but no longer. [V]
Just WHO are we to allow to be the judge on what is a "reasonable" infringement?
YOU?
(quote)
I believe that 99.9% of the laws are unconstitutional
(/quote)
So a .01% infringement is OK.
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
The Brady bunch?
one of their goals.....
(quote)
banning military-style assault weapons
(/quote)
Or maybe Dianne Feinstein?
(quote)
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
(/quote)
Just what level of "infringement" are YOU comfortable with?
Exactly which of the .01% laws are OK?
Please name them.
Now you are trying to convince us to accept YOUR level of infringement?
Why? Why stop there? Why not Feinstein's level?
Breaking the contract by .01% or 100% is still breaking the contract.
One more quote....
(QUOTE)
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin
(/QUOTE)
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
OK, even if I take that out of my post,
does it change the basic principal of the post?
Edit,
Redoubtable,
My first post was an initial reaction to your question.
Then, I went to look it up, and could NOT find a "creditable" source.
I deleted that post before I saw yours.
I apologize for that.
I do like to deal with facts.
I admit, I was lazy, saw that quote before, and did not research it, as I should have.
Thanks for pointing that out.
But my above question still remains. [;)][:D][:D]
Geez S! All this because people like me, and a few others, don't think it should be legal for a 5 year old to take a loaded gun to school or to sell guns out of vending machines? It is fricking hopeless.
I have come to the conclusion that gun control is, indeed, NEEDED,.
The TrFoxes of this MUST be disarmed..for their own safety. ..They are not snart enough to teach their children gun safety...nor the difference between 'Rights' and 'responsibilities.'
I am afraid that the trfoxes of this world would become an endangered species, if freedom suddenly broke out.....
Let alone gun ownership issues. The question is whether you agree, or not, with the article references in OP? And why.
I've been discussing the issue with some of my friends and acquaintances and more often than not people tend to think, especially the atheist crowd, that rights of men indeed do not exist. There are some valid arguments that have been presented in the past to support that point of view, and it all comes down to where do these essential rights originate.
I would start here. Weapon ownership is a derivative right of something more fundamental, and the denial of such a right can be, and in my opinion, ought to be seen as denial of those fundamentals.
I hope it's coherent enough for most to comprehend.
"Either one believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that this country was founded on, as written, or one does not."
You say that you "used to" but no longer. [V]
Just WHO are we to allow to be the judge on what is a "reasonable" infringement?
YOU?
(quote)
I believe that 99.9% of the laws are unconstitutional
(/quote)
So a .01% infringement is OK.
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
The Brady bunch?
one of their goals.....
(quote)
banning military-style assault weapons
(/quote)
Or maybe Dianne Feinstein?
(quote)
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
(/quote)
Just what level of "infringement" are YOU comfortable with?
Exactly which of the .01% laws are OK?
Please name them.
Now you are trying to convince us to accept YOUR level of infringement?
Why? Why stop there? Why not Feinstein's level?
Breaking the contract by .01% or 100% is still breaking the contract.
One more quote....
(QUOTE)
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin
(/QUOTE)
"As it is written". I do, but I believe in the 'realistic' application and you believe in the 'idealistic' application of the 'way it is written'. Your views allow for absolutely no interpretation, ie; zero tolerance for those who do not agree with the way you see it. This is not and has never worked for anyone at any time EVER!!!
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend. There are to many variables in the real world to have a 'zero tolerance' in ANY law. I tell people who I discuss 'zero tolerance' with that is great for weak mined people who are afraid to make decisions. (This is not an attack on you, but the point I made to school administrator and police chiefs whom I have disagreed with reference this issue.)
The point I am trying to make is we MUST protect the individuals right, but we also MUST consider the rights of the collective.
I am a traditionalist who say the rights of the individual are the MOST important thing to be considered, and the government should only intervene or limit an individual right when it is absolutely necessary.
Example, drive by shootings. They are a very bad situation and far to common in gang infested community's. If we had NO restriction what so ever on the RTKABA's would the drive by's be with a magazine feed semi auto, as they are now, or a belt feed mini gun?? Do we say everyone who wants to defend themselves should need a belt feed machine gun on their porch just have this 'ideal' world many here want???
The Constitution is not an 'ideal or perfect' document. Is is the best one out to date, and it is VERY good. The people we refer to as 'founders' were not perfect either, but they were VERY good people and they did a very good job a supplying us with a solid foundation to build a free country. BUT we have allow the progressive to undermine this foundation and it MUST be stopped. The RTKABA's is only part of the problem, but is the MOST important part of the problem. To have this TOTALY ridged closed minded stance only plays into there hands and further their goal to dis arm us and force there agenda on us all.
I apply the 'reality test' to everything I do. If it is not realistic why waste time and resources on anything you know will fail.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is what the idealists have done throughout history, but they keep getting the SAME results!!! Go figure.
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.
quote:Originally posted by cccooper
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.
A transcript of the conversation is there. The above quote is not said in their conversation. Newsbusters is about as right leaning as they come so there would be no reason for them to edit out that comment.
Honestly, doesn't anyone do the most basic fact-checking?
quote:Originally posted by cccooper
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.
Barbara Boxer made a comment about having her way when she was first elected .
Do not remember the exact quote .
I think this is what you are referring to .
quote:Originally posted by trapguy2007
quote:Originally posted by cccooper
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.
Barbara Boxer made a comment about having her way when she was first elected .
Do not remember the exact quote .
I think this is what you are referring to .
Both of them are SPE's (secure progressive extremist) and can't be trusted. They will do and say what ever the must to further their progressive agenda, as we have seen since the SP have taken control of the leadership in all three houses. (white house, house of representatives, and the senate)!!![:(!]
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
Let alone gun ownership issues. The question is whether you agree, or not, with the article references in OP? And why.
I've been discussing the issue with some of my friends and acquaintances and more often than not people tend to think, especially the atheist crowd, that rights of men indeed do not exist. There are some valid arguments that have been presented in the past to support that point of view, and it all comes down to where do these essential rights originate.
I would start here. Weapon ownership is a derivative right of something more fundamental, and the denial of such a right can be, and in my opinion, ought to be seen as denial of those fundamentals.
I hope it's coherent enough for most to comprehend.
In absence of a deity, there is the law of nature.
Even in nature, all things have a right to defend themselves, and do so.
Man, especailly America, lays law so that ALL men have an equal footing. A footing here, so that no matter your rank in the pecking order, you have the same "rights".
quote:"As it is written". I do, but I believe in the 'realistic' application and you believe in the 'idealistic' application of the 'way it is written'. Your views allow for absolutely no interpretation, ie; zero tolerance for those who do not agree with the way you see it. This is not and has never worked for anyone at any time EVER!!!
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend.
I do believe sir, that we may indeed be arguing for the same purposes regarding our freedoms, but it comes to a fundamental question of interpretation.
For certain, the founders themselves argued over the direction of the revolution and what their interpretation would produce in action. The arguments resulted in the development of political parties. To adhere to the fundamentals many would argue, could be an archaic grasp at an idealistic straw. I argue, as does Mcmanus, that keeping a certain standard, no matter the interpretation of how it should be implemented by the imperfect mind and heart of many a man, the standard shall be maintained to hold the men accountable. If we are not accountable to a particular standard, or, we are constantly altering that standard to allow for the imperfections, then we might as well accept the anarchy that would eventually ensue as we have lowered the bar to such a degree that liberty has succumbed to tyranny.
quote:Originally posted by krazy4krags
quote:"As it is written". I do, but I believe in the 'realistic' application and you believe in the 'idealistic' application of the 'way it is written'. Your views allow for absolutely no interpretation, ie; zero tolerance for those who do not agree with the way you see it. This is not and has never worked for anyone at any time EVER!!!
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend.
I do believe sir, that we may indeed be arguing for the same purposes regarding our freedoms, but it comes to a fundamental question of interpretation.
For certain, the founders themselves argued over the direction of the revolution and what their interpretation would produce in action. The arguments resulted in the development of political parties. To adhere to the fundamentals many would argue, could be an archaic grasp at an idealistic straw. I argue, as does Mcmanus, that keeping a certain standard, no matter the interpretation of how it should be implemented by the imperfect mind and heart of many a man, the standard shall be maintained to hold the men accountable. If we are not accountable to a particular standard, or, we are constantly altering that standard to allow for the imperfections, then we might as well accept the anarchy that would eventually ensue as we have lowered the bar to such a degree that liberty has succumbed to tyranny.
Best Regards
I agree completely. My standards are VERY HIGH, just not high enough for those who believe there should be NO limits/restrictions/management of the RTKABA's!
Until I came to this web site I was considered VERY radical/extreme by literally everyone (hundreds of people it not thousands) I know in my stance on the RTKABA's!!! Well there are a few here who are more radical/extreme than I, but very few. For them to label me as the 'enemy' is laughable and only hurts the cause. WE, for the most part, agree in concept, it is the details (as it always is) where we differ.
I believe 99.9% of all laws on the books today which restrict/limit/ manage the RTKABA's are unconstitutional!! Those who believe 100% of these laws are unconstitutional call me and others with similar beliefs the 'enemy', how ridiculous is that????
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!![;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by krazy4krags
quote:"As it is written". I do, but I believe in the 'realistic' application and you believe in the 'idealistic' application of the 'way it is written'. Your views allow for absolutely no interpretation, ie; zero tolerance for those who do not agree with the way you see it. This is not and has never worked for anyone at any time EVER!!!
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend.
I do believe sir, that we may indeed be arguing for the same purposes regarding our freedoms, but it comes to a fundamental question of interpretation.
For certain, the founders themselves argued over the direction of the revolution and what their interpretation would produce in action. The arguments resulted in the development of political parties. To adhere to the fundamentals many would argue, could be an archaic grasp at an idealistic straw. I argue, as does Mcmanus, that keeping a certain standard, no matter the interpretation of how it should be implemented by the imperfect mind and heart of many a man, the standard shall be maintained to hold the men accountable. If we are not accountable to a particular standard, or, we are constantly altering that standard to allow for the imperfections, then we might as well accept the anarchy that would eventually ensue as we have lowered the bar to such a degree that liberty has succumbed to tyranny.
Best Regards
I agree completely. My standards are VERY HIGH, just not high enough for those who believe there should be NO limits/restrictions/management of the RTKABA's!
Until I came to this web site I was considered VERY radical/extreme by literally everyone (hundreds of people it not thousands) I know in my stance on the RTKABA's!!! Well there are a few here who are more radical/extreme than I, but very few. For them to label me as the 'enemy' is laughable and only hurts the cause. WE, for the most part, agree in concept, it is the details (as it always is) where we differ.
I believe 99.9% of all laws on the books today which restrict/limit/ manage the RTKABA's are unconstitutional!! Those who believe 100% of these laws are unconstitutional call me and others with similar beliefs the 'enemy', how ridiculous is that????
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!![;)]
Yeah?
so you agree with .1% of the gun control laws.
quote:I believe 99.9% of all laws on the books today which restrict/limit/ manage the RTKABA's are unconstitutional!! Those who believe 100% of these laws are unconstitutional call me and others with similar beliefs the 'enemy', how ridiculous is that????
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!!
Before you discount the fundamentalists .01 percent, just realize that the mantra of the American Revolution was not "A little taxation without representation is fine." They drew a line in the sand as we must. I honestly don't feel that anyone who has contributed here would feel that the 2nd Amendment applies to prisoners, the mentally ill, or minors. However, it must be important to note that the concern with the concessions given by the likes of the NRA are akin to my mention of the mantra of the American Revolution...we cannot concede an inch, because the preemptive and restrictive laws have been taking miles.
quote:Originally posted by krazy4krags
quote:I believe 99.9% of all laws on the books today which restrict/limit/ manage the RTKABA's are unconstitutional!! Those who believe 100% of these laws are unconstitutional call me and others with similar beliefs the 'enemy', how ridiculous is that????
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!!
Before you discount the fundamentalists .01 percent, just realize that the mantra of the American Revolution was not "A little taxation without representation is fine." They drew a line in the sand as we must. I honestly don't feel that anyone who has contributed here would feel that the 2nd Amendment applies to prisoners, the mentally ill, or minors. However, it must be important to note that the concern with the concessions given by the likes of the NRA are akin to my mention of the mantra of the American Revolution...we cannot concede an inch, because the preemptive and restrictive laws have been taking miles.
Best Regards,
Hutch
You are wrong!! You are new here so you have not been a part this ONGOING discussion. There are some who state that ANY limits what so ever are unacceptable. I believe in VERY LIMITED controls, like you mentioned above and I am not extreme enough for many here. They are a very closed mined, unbending bunch, but I respect their right to believe this and I support their right to defend their beliefs. I do not support there attacks on EVERYONE who does completely agree with them. If they truly believe in the Constitution they would respect others views and their right to express them without attacking them personally!!!
Reference the question as by someone above exactly what limits do I support. I have stated this MANY times in past posts and I do not have time right now to go into detail, but generally I would support the restriction of 'crew served weapons' to certain people. I would support local laws which prohibit the 'carrying' of weapons by intoxicated people. And some other minor limits which I feel, after spending most of my life on the street in LE, would work to protect the community, but not overly restrict the individual.
Taking up the NRA/trfox mantle of dishonesty, now, Jim Rau ? Going to forget your love of governmental restrictions on full-auto ?
I don't MIND you doing that..but SURELY you are man enough to openly ADMIT that you were wrong about it...ehhh ?
Oh..and just WHAT do you consider quote:And some other minor limits which I feel, after spending most of my life on the street in LE, would work to protect the community, but not overly restrict the individual.
Just one more thing ;
YOU..as an individual..are perfectly free to advocate that everybody has to wear pink tu-tu's on Thursdays.
You even get to vote for your leaders with that sick mindset. You..and your leaders..do NOT, however , get to change the Constitution just becuase you 'feel' something.
Get your * in gear and CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION if you wanr restrictions. How about it ?
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Taking up the NRA/trfox mantle of dishonesty, now, Jim Rau ? Going to forget your love of governmental restrictions on full-auto ?
I don't MIND you doing that..but SURELY you are man enough to openly ADMIT that you were wrong about it...ehhh ?
Oh..and just WHAT do you consider quote:And some other minor limits which I feel, after spending most of my life on the street in LE, would work to protect the community, but not overly restrict the individual.
Just one more thing ;
YOU..as an individual..are perfectly free to advocate that everybody has to wear pink tu-tu's on Thursdays.
You even get to vote for your leaders with that sick mindset. You..and your leaders..do NOT, however , get to change the Constitution just becuase you 'feel' something.
Get your * in gear and CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION if you wanr restrictions. How about it ?
This is a perfect example of what I was saying about those who have nothing to add to the discussion so they personally attack those they can't discuss the issue with.
I am not a liar and HB knows that, but he just can't re fame from attacking me because he has no legitimate argument to support his opinion. Just human nature.
Get use to it if you do not get in 'lock step' with he and his followers you will be personally attacked!!!
I guess "shall NOT be infringed" has a differernt meaning to those whom FEAR their fellow citizens.
Tell us Jim, how infringing on our fundimental rights has made the citizenry safer?
Good things those laws are in place to stop the criminal elements.
Ya, that banning felons ditty sure STOPS those inclined to recommit crimes, don't it?
Jim, you are intellectually dishonest. You won't explain your stance because you think you have another poster on your side.
It is your acceptance of laws, that are unconstitutional, that makes YOU the extremeist, not us.
quote:but generally I would support the restriction of 'crew served weapons' to certain people. I would support local laws which prohibit the 'carrying' of weapons by intoxicated people. And some other minor limits which I feel, after spending most of my life on the street in LE, would work to protect the community, but not overly restrict the individual.
The prohibition of carry to those who have disregarded the laws or the public safety is reactionary to their choice to be intoxicated, etc. A law that preempts your choice violates your freedoms. Thus, I would ask you to delineate which laws do not "overly restrict the individual" that aren't preemptive strikes at the individual's liberty?
BTW, crew served weapons in the hands of only the authorized, say, a military junta, may not be the best way to regulate this type of armament either. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
quote:Originally posted by freemind
I guess "shall NOT be infringed" has a differernt meaning to those whom FEAR their fellow citizens.
Tell us Jim, how infringing on our fundimental rights has made the citizenry safer?
Good things those laws are in place to stop the criminal elements.
Ya, that banning felons ditty sure STOPS those inclined to recommit crimes, don't it?
Jim, you are intellectually dishonest. You won't explain your stance because you think you have another poster on your side.
It is your acceptance of laws, that are unconstitutional, that makes YOU the extremeist, not us.
James,
If you think that I am the 'other poster' who is on his side reference his Amendment II views, it sure isn't me.[;)]
Jim is a man that I came to respect for the strong convictions he displayed and that he stood on in his personal and professional life.
Jim indeed stepped up and did what few would do, that being to put his career, his reputation and his retirement on the line, due to his open and public stance on gun rights and his open and public opposition to anti-gun programs and proposals in his PD/City.
That said, Jim is wrong, right where it matters, on Amendment II's simple text, its easily researched and discernible intent and in his desire to concede power and authority to the government that it clearly does not have, nor was it ever authorized to have.
His position on this issue is flat wrong and as some have challenged....if one doesn't like the Constitution, or its strict limitations on government, there is an established process to make those changes constitutionally; that being, the amendment process.
Positions such as Jim advocates, are simply more of the same ol', same ol' in a long and sordid line of perversions and erosions of the Constitution itself and of the Republic that it established.
If you're going to argue from the point of strict interpretation of the Second Amendment as justification for being able to own anything that goes bang which causes a projectile to fly out from barrel, just know that there are other ways to strictly interpret the Second Amendment which aren't so beneficial to gun ownership. Like someone intent on limiting gun rights could say that at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, a gun was a flintlock or similar, so that and that alone is what you get to bear without infringement; everything else would then be not covered so therefore not legal to own.
Just saying that the strategy of being a rules lawyer can be a double-edged sword.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by freemind
I guess "shall NOT be infringed" has a differernt meaning to those whom FEAR their fellow citizens.
Tell us Jim, how infringing on our fundimental rights has made the citizenry safer?
Good things those laws are in place to stop the criminal elements.
Ya, that banning felons ditty sure STOPS those inclined to recommit crimes, don't it?
Jim, you are intellectually dishonest. You won't explain your stance because you think you have another poster on your side.
It is your acceptance of laws, that are unconstitutional, that makes YOU the extremeist, not us.
James,
If you think that I am the 'other poster' who is on his side reference his Amendment II views, it sure isn't me.[;)]
Jim is a man that I came to respect for the strong convictions he displayed and that he stood on in his personal and professional life.
Jim indeed stepped up and did what few would do, that being to put his career, his reputation and his retirement on the line, due to his open and public stance on gun rights and his open and public opposition to anti-gun programs and proposals in his PD/City.
That said, Jim is wrong, right where it matters, on Amendment II's simple text, its easily researched and discernible intent and in his desire to concede power and authority to the government that it clearly does not have, nor was it ever authorized to have.
His position on this issue is flat wrong and as some have challenged....if one doesn't like the Constitution, or its strict limitations on government, there is an established process to make those changes constitutionally; that being, the amendment process.
Positions such as Jim advocates, are simply more of the same ol', same ol' in a long and sordid line of perversions and erosions of the Constitution itself and of the Republic that it established.
It is as simple as that.
No Jeff I DO NOT advocate 'same ol' in any way shape or form. I advocate 'reality' in the application and interpretation of our Constitution. Do you not see the likeness in your and the CA's mentally and thought process to the current administration of IDEALISTS who do not give a damn about 'We The People'??? They are elitists who 'know what is best for us' regardless of what 'We The People' want, just like you folks!!! You are entitled to your opinions of how things should be done, and how we should be governed, but so are the rest of us!! The Founders were not so close minded as to have the same position as those here. They would, without a doubt, tell you and those like minded "YOU ARE WRONG"!
As pointed out above, this is NOT the same world it was when the Constitution was framed!!! Does it still apply, BY ALL MEANS IT DOES!!
But it , like ALL laws was not intended to be applies 'to the word'. There are to many medicating and aggravating circumstances in this ever changing world. You of all people should be aware of this due to your chosen profession.
But back to the problem at hand. You did not personally attack me, you simply pointed out the fact that you do not agree with me. Calling me 'wrong' is not a personal attack. You are not the one(s) whom I address the complaint to, but you are guilt of egging those who do on by agreeing with their personal attacks.[;)]
As I have said, I respect your views, and WISH we could achieve them, BUT THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THIS WORLD!!![V]
quote:They are elitists who 'know what is best for us' regardless of what 'We The People' want, just like you folks!!! You are entitled to your opinions of how things should be done, and how we should be governed, but so are the rest of us!! The Founders were not so close minded as to have the same position as those here. They would, without a doubt, tell you and those like minded "YOU ARE WRONG"!
Funny, that.
For nearly those PRECISE WORDS are the unending song of those of us wanting GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS !!
The Founders TOLD us...in SIMPLE language..what they demanded of us. What WE are trying to do is GET YOU AND YOU TORTURED OPINIONS OUT OF OUR LIVES !!!
Restore the Republic and slink away with your twisted views of the world...THAT is what we ask. If regaining freedom is too strenuous for you...leave the country for a few years...we Americans will clean up the streets so you can feel safe again.
They are elitists who 'know what is best for us' regardless of what 'We The People' want, just like you folks!!! You are entitled to your opinions of how things should be done, and how we should be governed, but so are the rest of us!! The Founders were not so close minded as to have the same position as those here. They would, without a doubt, tell you and those like minded "YOU ARE WRONG"!
Funny, that.
For nearly those PRECISE WORDS are the unending song of those of us wanting GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS !!
The Founders TOLD us...in SIMPLE language..what they demanded of us. What WE are trying to do is GET YOU AND YOU TORTURED OPINIONS OUT OF OUR LIVES !!!
Restore the Republic and slink away with your twisted views of the world...THAT is what we ask. If regaining freedom is too strenuous for you...leave the country for a few years...we Americans will clean up the streets so you can feel safe again.
[/quote
You seen to forget, the only way to achieve your gaols is have
TOTAL power over "We the people", in other words our Republic would not allow you to do as you advocate!!! You advocate tyranny of your own right, like all idealists do, it has been tried by MANY and it has NEVER lasted, because We the people will not support this for long, only the hungry and afraid will follow you and then only until they see the error of your ways.
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
quote:I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
The Constitution is designed PRECISELY TO ADDRESS THIS EXACT SITUATION !!
It is designed to protect the MINORITY from the tyranny of the majority.
You weak-kneed government lovers are in power today. Enjoy it...that sort of thing never lasts very long.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
No one is telling them they have to own them. Just don't restrict others from owning them. If a person behaves in a responsible manner and does not infringe on the rights of others? Those that do not behave in a responsible manner or cause harm to others can be dealt with harshly.
Jim, your argument appears to hinge on the belief that if I owned some large piece of very destructive artillary I would use it to harass society. The number of people who behave irresponsibly and cause harm to others is small in comparison to those who do not. Unrestricted ownership of weapons would not substantially change this ratio of good to bad behavior.
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
No one is telling them they have to own them. Just don't restrict others from owning them. If a person behaves in a responsible manner and does not infringe on the rights of others? Those that do not behave in a responsible manner or cause harm to others can be dealt with harshly.
Jim, your argument appears to hinge on the belief that if I owned some large piece of very destructive artillary I would use it to harass society. The number of people who behave irresponsibly and cause harm to others is small in comparison to those who do not. Unrestricted ownership of weapons would not substantially change this ratio of good to bad behavior.
I guess, as I have said all along, you try to deny reality!!!
I spent 26 years on the street. I have VAST experience with both the good and bad guys in this country. The good guys, of which make up about 99.9% of the population, will not allow their government to give totally unrestricted access to ALL arms to everyone. And they are correct in their 'right' to prevent this. The bad guys will arm themselves to the teeth and go to 'war' with each other and the government. Can you say collateral damage like you see in an war torn country. This is not the same as the prediction made by the anti gunners when the CCW permits are issued. You would allow ALL people the same access to WMD's, the bad guys will take advantage of this and victimize 'We the people' just as they are now in countries like Somalia. You are true 'idealist' just like the progressives in power today. You don't care about people, only your 'ideals'!!![V]
Comments
Gentlemen,
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!
Great post, krazy4krags.
I am particularly struck by how you chose to phrase the highlighted sentances. You will be a welcome addition to these forums.
Don
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
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 guess you all do not get it!!![:(!]
No the 4473 are worthless, why would you even thing I support this crap?
WHAT PART OF VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND??????[:(!]
If you read my posts you will see I have pointed that:
1. We have allowed the progressives to normalize and legalize their extremism for many decades. This crap like the 4473 and DV restriction are perfect examples of which I speak!!
2. Thus I believe that 99.9% of the laws which limit the RTKABA's, which are currently on the books, at all levels of government, are unconstitutional!!
But I do not believe any of the 'rights' addressed in the Constitution are absolute. THEY ALL REQUIRE MANGEMENT!! The RTKABA's should have less restriction than any other because it is the Right which protects ALL THE OTHERS. It is the 'enforcement clause' of the Constitution. When dealing with 'people' the words ALWAYS AND NEVER are nonexistent, and if you say there should be absolutely NO LIMITS to the RTKABA's you are WRONG. You defy and deny human nature and reality.
Can I make it any clearer than that. I am 99.9% in agreement with even the most extreme of you.
I am this way because I had the same, I say again the SAME mind set many here have and I saw the error or fallacy of it. If you want to continue to bad mouth, attack and alienate those who do not have the same CLOSEMINDED view you do so be. You only undermine your own creditability.
If you want to discuss the merits of your point of view, as some here do, you are giving others who happen by something to think about. This why I continue to post here. I know those who have a closed mind will not change, but those who are looking for info can get both sides.
If any here thing I am the 'enemy' you need to see a mental health professional BAD!!![V]
I havent had the chance to tell ya yet, But its good to see you posting again Jim..
"Either one believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that this country was founded on, as written, or one does not."
You say that you "used to" but no longer. [V]
Just WHO are we to allow to be the judge on what is a "reasonable" infringement?
YOU?
(quote)
I believe that 99.9% of the laws are unconstitutional
(/quote)
So a .01% infringement is OK.
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
The Brady bunch?
one of their goals.....
(quote)
banning military-style assault weapons
(/quote)
Or maybe Dianne Feinstein?
(quote)
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
(/quote)
Just what level of "infringement" are YOU comfortable with?
Exactly which of the .01% laws are OK?
Please name them.
Now you are trying to convince us to accept YOUR level of infringement?
Why? Why stop there? Why not Feinstein's level?
Breaking the contract by .01% or 100% is still breaking the contract.
One more quote....
(QUOTE)
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin
(/QUOTE)
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
Look it up yourself, I did.
I did look it up. All I found was circular references. If she said this, then when and where did she say it?
Be careful of what you'll accept as true without question. If someone is going to manipulate you, they'll do so by telling you what you want to hear.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
OK, even if I take that out of my post,
does it change the basic principal of the post?
Edit,
Redoubtable,
My first post was an initial reaction to your question.
Then, I went to look it up, and could NOT find a "creditable" source.
I deleted that post before I saw yours.
I apologize for that.
I do like to deal with facts.
I admit, I was lazy, saw that quote before, and did not research it, as I should have.
Thanks for pointing that out.
But my above question still remains. [;)][:D][:D]
Man, some of us are our own worst enemies.
The TrFoxes of this MUST be disarmed..for their own safety. ..They are not snart enough to teach their children gun safety...nor the difference between 'Rights' and 'responsibilities.'
I am afraid that the trfoxes of this world would become an endangered species, if freedom suddenly broke out.....
And I believe fox knows this.
I've been discussing the issue with some of my friends and acquaintances and more often than not people tend to think, especially the atheist crowd, that rights of men indeed do not exist. There are some valid arguments that have been presented in the past to support that point of view, and it all comes down to where do these essential rights originate.
I would start here. Weapon ownership is a derivative right of something more fundamental, and the denial of such a right can be, and in my opinion, ought to be seen as denial of those fundamentals.
I hope it's coherent enough for most to comprehend.
Jim,
"Either one believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that this country was founded on, as written, or one does not."
You say that you "used to" but no longer. [V]
Just WHO are we to allow to be the judge on what is a "reasonable" infringement?
YOU?
(quote)
I believe that 99.9% of the laws are unconstitutional
(/quote)
So a .01% infringement is OK.
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
The Brady bunch?
one of their goals.....
(quote)
banning military-style assault weapons
(/quote)
Or maybe Dianne Feinstein?
(quote)
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
(/quote)
Just what level of "infringement" are YOU comfortable with?
Exactly which of the .01% laws are OK?
Please name them.
Now you are trying to convince us to accept YOUR level of infringement?
Why? Why stop there? Why not Feinstein's level?
Breaking the contract by .01% or 100% is still breaking the contract.
One more quote....
(QUOTE)
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin
(/QUOTE)
"As it is written". I do, but I believe in the 'realistic' application and you believe in the 'idealistic' application of the 'way it is written'. Your views allow for absolutely no interpretation, ie; zero tolerance for those who do not agree with the way you see it. This is not and has never worked for anyone at any time EVER!!!
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend. There are to many variables in the real world to have a 'zero tolerance' in ANY law. I tell people who I discuss 'zero tolerance' with that is great for weak mined people who are afraid to make decisions. (This is not an attack on you, but the point I made to school administrator and police chiefs whom I have disagreed with reference this issue.)
The point I am trying to make is we MUST protect the individuals right, but we also MUST consider the rights of the collective.
I am a traditionalist who say the rights of the individual are the MOST important thing to be considered, and the government should only intervene or limit an individual right when it is absolutely necessary.
Example, drive by shootings. They are a very bad situation and far to common in gang infested community's. If we had NO restriction what so ever on the RTKABA's would the drive by's be with a magazine feed semi auto, as they are now, or a belt feed mini gun?? Do we say everyone who wants to defend themselves should need a belt feed machine gun on their porch just have this 'ideal' world many here want???
The Constitution is not an 'ideal or perfect' document. Is is the best one out to date, and it is VERY good. The people we refer to as 'founders' were not perfect either, but they were VERY good people and they did a very good job a supplying us with a solid foundation to build a free country. BUT we have allow the progressive to undermine this foundation and it MUST be stopped. The RTKABA's is only part of the problem, but is the MOST important part of the problem. To have this TOTALY ridged closed minded stance only plays into there hands and further their goal to dis arm us and force there agenda on us all.
I apply the 'reality test' to everything I do. If it is not realistic why waste time and resources on anything you know will fail.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is what the idealists have done throughout history, but they keep getting the SAME results!!! Go figure.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/04/07/abcs-robin-roberts-hits-pelosi-left-guns
A transcript of the conversation is there. The above quote is not said in their conversation. Newsbusters is about as right leaning as they come so there would be no reason for them to edit out that comment.
Honestly, doesn't anyone do the most basic fact-checking?
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.
Barbara Boxer made a comment about having her way when she was first elected .
Do not remember the exact quote .
I think this is what you are referring to .
quote:Originally posted by cccooper
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.
Barbara Boxer made a comment about having her way when she was first elected .
Do not remember the exact quote .
I think this is what you are referring to .
Both of them are SPE's (secure progressive extremist) and can't be trusted. They will do and say what ever the must to further their progressive agenda, as we have seen since the SP have taken control of the leadership in all three houses. (white house, house of representatives, and the senate)!!![:(!]
Let alone gun ownership issues. The question is whether you agree, or not, with the article references in OP? And why.
I've been discussing the issue with some of my friends and acquaintances and more often than not people tend to think, especially the atheist crowd, that rights of men indeed do not exist. There are some valid arguments that have been presented in the past to support that point of view, and it all comes down to where do these essential rights originate.
I would start here. Weapon ownership is a derivative right of something more fundamental, and the denial of such a right can be, and in my opinion, ought to be seen as denial of those fundamentals.
I hope it's coherent enough for most to comprehend.
In absence of a deity, there is the law of nature.
Even in nature, all things have a right to defend themselves, and do so.
Man, especailly America, lays law so that ALL men have an equal footing. A footing here, so that no matter your rank in the pecking order, you have the same "rights".
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend.
I do believe sir, that we may indeed be arguing for the same purposes regarding our freedoms, but it comes to a fundamental question of interpretation.
For certain, the founders themselves argued over the direction of the revolution and what their interpretation would produce in action. The arguments resulted in the development of political parties. To adhere to the fundamentals many would argue, could be an archaic grasp at an idealistic straw. I argue, as does Mcmanus, that keeping a certain standard, no matter the interpretation of how it should be implemented by the imperfect mind and heart of many a man, the standard shall be maintained to hold the men accountable. If we are not accountable to a particular standard, or, we are constantly altering that standard to allow for the imperfections, then we might as well accept the anarchy that would eventually ensue as we have lowered the bar to such a degree that liberty has succumbed to tyranny.
Best Regards
"If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns that is, guns for self-defense, would be banned."
Originally came from Deborah Prothrow-Stith, then Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health. Her book is "Deadly Consequences" published in 1991.
Granted, Prothrow-Stith is not quite the "name dropper" that Pelosi is.
quote:"As it is written". I do, but I believe in the 'realistic' application and you believe in the 'idealistic' application of the 'way it is written'. Your views allow for absolutely no interpretation, ie; zero tolerance for those who do not agree with the way you see it. This is not and has never worked for anyone at any time EVER!!!
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend.
I do believe sir, that we may indeed be arguing for the same purposes regarding our freedoms, but it comes to a fundamental question of interpretation.
For certain, the founders themselves argued over the direction of the revolution and what their interpretation would produce in action. The arguments resulted in the development of political parties. To adhere to the fundamentals many would argue, could be an archaic grasp at an idealistic straw. I argue, as does Mcmanus, that keeping a certain standard, no matter the interpretation of how it should be implemented by the imperfect mind and heart of many a man, the standard shall be maintained to hold the men accountable. If we are not accountable to a particular standard, or, we are constantly altering that standard to allow for the imperfections, then we might as well accept the anarchy that would eventually ensue as we have lowered the bar to such a degree that liberty has succumbed to tyranny.
Best Regards
I agree completely. My standards are VERY HIGH, just not high enough for those who believe there should be NO limits/restrictions/management of the RTKABA's!
Until I came to this web site I was considered VERY radical/extreme by literally everyone (hundreds of people it not thousands) I know in my stance on the RTKABA's!!! Well there are a few here who are more radical/extreme than I, but very few. For them to label me as the 'enemy' is laughable and only hurts the cause. WE, for the most part, agree in concept, it is the details (as it always is) where we differ.
I believe 99.9% of all laws on the books today which restrict/limit/ manage the RTKABA's are unconstitutional!! Those who believe 100% of these laws are unconstitutional call me and others with similar beliefs the 'enemy', how ridiculous is that????
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!![;)]
quote:Originally posted by krazy4krags
quote:"As it is written". I do, but I believe in the 'realistic' application and you believe in the 'idealistic' application of the 'way it is written'. Your views allow for absolutely no interpretation, ie; zero tolerance for those who do not agree with the way you see it. This is not and has never worked for anyone at any time EVER!!!
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend.
I do believe sir, that we may indeed be arguing for the same purposes regarding our freedoms, but it comes to a fundamental question of interpretation.
For certain, the founders themselves argued over the direction of the revolution and what their interpretation would produce in action. The arguments resulted in the development of political parties. To adhere to the fundamentals many would argue, could be an archaic grasp at an idealistic straw. I argue, as does Mcmanus, that keeping a certain standard, no matter the interpretation of how it should be implemented by the imperfect mind and heart of many a man, the standard shall be maintained to hold the men accountable. If we are not accountable to a particular standard, or, we are constantly altering that standard to allow for the imperfections, then we might as well accept the anarchy that would eventually ensue as we have lowered the bar to such a degree that liberty has succumbed to tyranny.
Best Regards
I agree completely. My standards are VERY HIGH, just not high enough for those who believe there should be NO limits/restrictions/management of the RTKABA's!
Until I came to this web site I was considered VERY radical/extreme by literally everyone (hundreds of people it not thousands) I know in my stance on the RTKABA's!!! Well there are a few here who are more radical/extreme than I, but very few. For them to label me as the 'enemy' is laughable and only hurts the cause. WE, for the most part, agree in concept, it is the details (as it always is) where we differ.
I believe 99.9% of all laws on the books today which restrict/limit/ manage the RTKABA's are unconstitutional!! Those who believe 100% of these laws are unconstitutional call me and others with similar beliefs the 'enemy', how ridiculous is that????
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!![;)]
Yeah?
so you agree with .1% of the gun control laws.
WHICH ones specifically do you agree with?
Sorry to hear you're leaving Rock. I hope we'll see you back again eventually.
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!!
Before you discount the fundamentalists .01 percent, just realize that the mantra of the American Revolution was not "A little taxation without representation is fine." They drew a line in the sand as we must. I honestly don't feel that anyone who has contributed here would feel that the 2nd Amendment applies to prisoners, the mentally ill, or minors. However, it must be important to note that the concern with the concessions given by the likes of the NRA are akin to my mention of the mantra of the American Revolution...we cannot concede an inch, because the preemptive and restrictive laws have been taking miles.
Best Regards,
Hutch
quote:I believe 99.9% of all laws on the books today which restrict/limit/ manage the RTKABA's are unconstitutional!! Those who believe 100% of these laws are unconstitutional call me and others with similar beliefs the 'enemy', how ridiculous is that????
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!!
Before you discount the fundamentalists .01 percent, just realize that the mantra of the American Revolution was not "A little taxation without representation is fine." They drew a line in the sand as we must. I honestly don't feel that anyone who has contributed here would feel that the 2nd Amendment applies to prisoners, the mentally ill, or minors. However, it must be important to note that the concern with the concessions given by the likes of the NRA are akin to my mention of the mantra of the American Revolution...we cannot concede an inch, because the preemptive and restrictive laws have been taking miles.
Best Regards,
Hutch
You are wrong!! You are new here so you have not been a part this ONGOING discussion. There are some who state that ANY limits what so ever are unacceptable. I believe in VERY LIMITED controls, like you mentioned above and I am not extreme enough for many here. They are a very closed mined, unbending bunch, but I respect their right to believe this and I support their right to defend their beliefs. I do not support there attacks on EVERYONE who does completely agree with them. If they truly believe in the Constitution they would respect others views and their right to express them without attacking them personally!!!
Reference the question as by someone above exactly what limits do I support. I have stated this MANY times in past posts and I do not have time right now to go into detail, but generally I would support the restriction of 'crew served weapons' to certain people. I would support local laws which prohibit the 'carrying' of weapons by intoxicated people. And some other minor limits which I feel, after spending most of my life on the street in LE, would work to protect the community, but not overly restrict the individual.
I don't MIND you doing that..but SURELY you are man enough to openly ADMIT that you were wrong about it...ehhh ?
Oh..and just WHAT do you consider quote:And some other minor limits which I feel, after spending most of my life on the street in LE, would work to protect the community, but not overly restrict the individual.
Just one more thing ;
YOU..as an individual..are perfectly free to advocate that everybody has to wear pink tu-tu's on Thursdays.
You even get to vote for your leaders with that sick mindset. You..and your leaders..do NOT, however , get to change the Constitution just becuase you 'feel' something.
Get your * in gear and CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION if you wanr restrictions. How about it ?
Taking up the NRA/trfox mantle of dishonesty, now, Jim Rau ? Going to forget your love of governmental restrictions on full-auto ?
I don't MIND you doing that..but SURELY you are man enough to openly ADMIT that you were wrong about it...ehhh ?
Oh..and just WHAT do you consider quote:And some other minor limits which I feel, after spending most of my life on the street in LE, would work to protect the community, but not overly restrict the individual.
Just one more thing ;
YOU..as an individual..are perfectly free to advocate that everybody has to wear pink tu-tu's on Thursdays.
You even get to vote for your leaders with that sick mindset. You..and your leaders..do NOT, however , get to change the Constitution just becuase you 'feel' something.
Get your * in gear and CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION if you wanr restrictions. How about it ?
This is a perfect example of what I was saying about those who have nothing to add to the discussion so they personally attack those they can't discuss the issue with.
I am not a liar and HB knows that, but he just can't re fame from attacking me because he has no legitimate argument to support his opinion. Just human nature.
Get use to it if you do not get in 'lock step' with he and his followers you will be personally attacked!!!
Tell us Jim, how infringing on our fundimental rights has made the citizenry safer?
Good things those laws are in place to stop the criminal elements.
Ya, that banning felons ditty sure STOPS those inclined to recommit crimes, don't it?
Jim, you are intellectually dishonest. You won't explain your stance because you think you have another poster on your side.
It is your acceptance of laws, that are unconstitutional, that makes YOU the extremeist, not us.
The prohibition of carry to those who have disregarded the laws or the public safety is reactionary to their choice to be intoxicated, etc. A law that preempts your choice violates your freedoms. Thus, I would ask you to delineate which laws do not "overly restrict the individual" that aren't preemptive strikes at the individual's liberty?
BTW, crew served weapons in the hands of only the authorized, say, a military junta, may not be the best way to regulate this type of armament either. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Best Regards,
Hutch
I guess "shall NOT be infringed" has a differernt meaning to those whom FEAR their fellow citizens.
Tell us Jim, how infringing on our fundimental rights has made the citizenry safer?
Good things those laws are in place to stop the criminal elements.
Ya, that banning felons ditty sure STOPS those inclined to recommit crimes, don't it?
Jim, you are intellectually dishonest. You won't explain your stance because you think you have another poster on your side.
It is your acceptance of laws, that are unconstitutional, that makes YOU the extremeist, not us.
James,
If you think that I am the 'other poster' who is on his side reference his Amendment II views, it sure isn't me.[;)]
Jim is a man that I came to respect for the strong convictions he displayed and that he stood on in his personal and professional life.
Jim indeed stepped up and did what few would do, that being to put his career, his reputation and his retirement on the line, due to his open and public stance on gun rights and his open and public opposition to anti-gun programs and proposals in his PD/City.
That said, Jim is wrong, right where it matters, on Amendment II's simple text, its easily researched and discernible intent and in his desire to concede power and authority to the government that it clearly does not have, nor was it ever authorized to have.
His position on this issue is flat wrong and as some have challenged....if one doesn't like the Constitution, or its strict limitations on government, there is an established process to make those changes constitutionally; that being, the amendment process.
Positions such as Jim advocates, are simply more of the same ol', same ol' in a long and sordid line of perversions and erosions of the Constitution itself and of the Republic that it established.
It is as simple as that.
Just saying that the strategy of being a rules lawyer can be a double-edged sword.
Junior Member
Please shut down your computer and back away from it slowly.
There is NO First Amendment Right for you to be using it Nor the Internet...since NEITHER were even the VAGUEST notions of the Founders.
Oh..yeah.
Go ahead..ban everything except single shots. We shall soon see whom has bigger balls.
quote:Originally posted by freemind
I guess "shall NOT be infringed" has a differernt meaning to those whom FEAR their fellow citizens.
Tell us Jim, how infringing on our fundimental rights has made the citizenry safer?
Good things those laws are in place to stop the criminal elements.
Ya, that banning felons ditty sure STOPS those inclined to recommit crimes, don't it?
Jim, you are intellectually dishonest. You won't explain your stance because you think you have another poster on your side.
It is your acceptance of laws, that are unconstitutional, that makes YOU the extremeist, not us.
James,
If you think that I am the 'other poster' who is on his side reference his Amendment II views, it sure isn't me.[;)]
Jim is a man that I came to respect for the strong convictions he displayed and that he stood on in his personal and professional life.
Jim indeed stepped up and did what few would do, that being to put his career, his reputation and his retirement on the line, due to his open and public stance on gun rights and his open and public opposition to anti-gun programs and proposals in his PD/City.
That said, Jim is wrong, right where it matters, on Amendment II's simple text, its easily researched and discernible intent and in his desire to concede power and authority to the government that it clearly does not have, nor was it ever authorized to have.
His position on this issue is flat wrong and as some have challenged....if one doesn't like the Constitution, or its strict limitations on government, there is an established process to make those changes constitutionally; that being, the amendment process.
Positions such as Jim advocates, are simply more of the same ol', same ol' in a long and sordid line of perversions and erosions of the Constitution itself and of the Republic that it established.
It is as simple as that.
No Jeff I DO NOT advocate 'same ol' in any way shape or form. I advocate 'reality' in the application and interpretation of our Constitution. Do you not see the likeness in your and the CA's mentally and thought process to the current administration of IDEALISTS who do not give a damn about 'We The People'??? They are elitists who 'know what is best for us' regardless of what 'We The People' want, just like you folks!!! You are entitled to your opinions of how things should be done, and how we should be governed, but so are the rest of us!! The Founders were not so close minded as to have the same position as those here. They would, without a doubt, tell you and those like minded "YOU ARE WRONG"!
As pointed out above, this is NOT the same world it was when the Constitution was framed!!! Does it still apply, BY ALL MEANS IT DOES!!
But it , like ALL laws was not intended to be applies 'to the word'. There are to many medicating and aggravating circumstances in this ever changing world. You of all people should be aware of this due to your chosen profession.
But back to the problem at hand. You did not personally attack me, you simply pointed out the fact that you do not agree with me. Calling me 'wrong' is not a personal attack. You are not the one(s) whom I address the complaint to, but you are guilt of egging those who do on by agreeing with their personal attacks.[;)]
As I have said, I respect your views, and WISH we could achieve them, BUT THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THIS WORLD!!![V]
Funny, that.
For nearly those PRECISE WORDS are the unending song of those of us wanting GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS !!
The Founders TOLD us...in SIMPLE language..what they demanded of us. What WE are trying to do is GET YOU AND YOU TORTURED OPINIONS OUT OF OUR LIVES !!!
Restore the Republic and slink away with your twisted views of the world...THAT is what we ask. If regaining freedom is too strenuous for you...leave the country for a few years...we Americans will clean up the streets so you can feel safe again.
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
The Constitution is designed PRECISELY TO ADDRESS THIS EXACT SITUATION !!
It is designed to protect the MINORITY from the tyranny of the majority.
You weak-kneed government lovers are in power today. Enjoy it...that sort of thing never lasts very long.
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
No one is telling them they have to own them. Just don't restrict others from owning them. If a person behaves in a responsible manner and does not infringe on the rights of others? Those that do not behave in a responsible manner or cause harm to others can be dealt with harshly.
Jim, your argument appears to hinge on the belief that if I owned some large piece of very destructive artillary I would use it to harass society. The number of people who behave irresponsibly and cause harm to others is small in comparison to those who do not. Unrestricted ownership of weapons would not substantially change this ratio of good to bad behavior.
The Constitution is designed PRECISELY TO ADDRESS THIS EXACT SITUATION !!
It is designed to protect the MINORITY from the tyranny of the majority.
You weak-kneed government lovers are in power today. Enjoy it...that sort of thing never lasts very long.
A point that seems to be lost on that very majority today, HB. Well stated.
Pure and unadulterated abject democracy is the goal of that majority; the ultimate tyranny of Mob Rule.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
No one is telling them they have to own them. Just don't restrict others from owning them. If a person behaves in a responsible manner and does not infringe on the rights of others? Those that do not behave in a responsible manner or cause harm to others can be dealt with harshly.
Jim, your argument appears to hinge on the belief that if I owned some large piece of very destructive artillary I would use it to harass society. The number of people who behave irresponsibly and cause harm to others is small in comparison to those who do not. Unrestricted ownership of weapons would not substantially change this ratio of good to bad behavior.
I guess, as I have said all along, you try to deny reality!!!
I spent 26 years on the street. I have VAST experience with both the good and bad guys in this country. The good guys, of which make up about 99.9% of the population, will not allow their government to give totally unrestricted access to ALL arms to everyone. And they are correct in their 'right' to prevent this. The bad guys will arm themselves to the teeth and go to 'war' with each other and the government. Can you say collateral damage like you see in an war torn country. This is not the same as the prediction made by the anti gunners when the CCW permits are issued. You would allow ALL people the same access to WMD's, the bad guys will take advantage of this and victimize 'We the people' just as they are now in countries like Somalia. You are true 'idealist' just like the progressives in power today. You don't care about people, only your 'ideals'!!![V]