The Logic Behind The RKBA And Government Power


PDA






ConstitutionCowboy
July 2, 2009, 08:50 PM
I meant to include this in the now-closed thread on The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations. Though I've posted it in the past, it is certainly relevant to the linked thread as well as it stands on it's own. I believe it can inspire more thoughtful discussion and I would like to hear from those who commented on the linked thread as well as from anyone else who would like to chime in.

Please don't drag it into the nuclear wasteland, OK? There is a way for fissionable materials and other WMD components to be constitutionally controlled, so don't go there.

It's Simple and Basic

The government is forbidden to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The right itself is without limit. All power granted to the government is derived from the inalienable rights of the people. If the right of people to keep and bear arms contained any limits, the people could not grant power to the government for it to keep and bear up unlimited arms to defend the nation. In any scenario, the government cannot limit the people's right to arms to any lesser degree than the power of that government to possess arms as is granted to it by, and from, the people. In granting power to our government to keep and bear arms to defend our nation, we do not surrender any of the right from which that power is derived. To surrender, or even simply deny any portion of the right exists, is to also deny the same derived power to the government.

Without that central or a state government, we would have to defend our land ourselves and would have every right to access, create, bear, and deliver any weapon necessary to that end. We simply grant some power to the government out of convenience. We did not surrender any of that power to the government, either. Purposefully, Article I, Section 8, begins, "Congress shall have power;" and not, "Congress shall have the power;". We still have as much right to any and all weapons as we have granted power to the government to have.

It follows, then, that should the government (by the actions of those chosen to run the government) wish to limit in any way what arms and the fashion in which we so choose to keep and bear them, it can not do so without infringing upon the right. In that the right is inalienable, not even we the people can divest ourselves of it, therefore, we can not grant power to the government to limit our keeping and bearing of arms. We can share our right to keep and bear arms with the government as a power granted to it, but cannot surrender any of it to the government. The bottom line is that the government is, and is of, us. It cannot do to us anything we cannot do to ourselves.

Go read the Preamble to the Constitution. WE ordained and WE established the Constitution. WE had (and still do have) the RIGHT to do that, would you not agree? We have the right to govern ourselves. We exercised that right to establish (construct) the Constitution and ordain (to appoint) it as the foundation for our union. All power granted or delegated to the government is derived from our right to govern ourselves. The power of the government is inferior to any right or rights we the people have. It is the same no matter what the right might be. Just as the government has no power, nor could it ever have the power, to control my right to think, it does not, nor could it ever have, the power to control what arms I choose to keep and how I shall bear them. It is that simple.

Woody

"Revolution is the Right of the People to choose Freedom over Servitude. Those vested with power shall neither deprive the People the means, nor compel such recourse." B.E.Wood

If you enjoyed reading about "The Logic Behind The RKBA And Government Power" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
christcorp
July 2, 2009, 09:54 PM
Well i guess that's one way to read into it. There's a total of 27 words in the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights; yet it is argued that it takes 4 extensive paragraphs to "Clarify" those 27 words. And yet some people want to argue that those 27 words are "Simple and Basic". OK; if you say so.

planetmobius
July 2, 2009, 11:22 PM
You really believe this or are you just looking for entertaining feedback?

ConstitutionCowboy
July 3, 2009, 10:34 AM
You really believe this or are you just looking for entertaining feedback?

Both.

Woody

catspa
July 3, 2009, 11:45 AM
Hey, Cowboy.

I agree with your post if you are speaking in an ethical or moral sense. The government is entitled to exercise the powers that the people granted to it in the Constitution, as long as it uses them to improve the "general welfare", or the common good. And I commend you for your understanding of the principle that citizens cannot grant to the government authority that they do not possess themselves in respect to each other, on an ethical basis.

However, if you look around you will see that today, the government has claimed to itself many additional powers, not on the basis of the consent of the governed, but rather on the threat of force. With regard to these additional powers (the un-just ones, according to Thomas Jefferson), we are back to the law of the jungle, where the weak are afraid of the strong, and the big ones can eat the little ones.

In cases where government power is derived from the illegitimate threat of force, rather than the legitimate consent of the governed, I personally consider compliance to be optional. I believe that to do otherwise is to accept that individuals hold a subservient or inferior status to the group, which I cannot do.

Where the RKBA is concerned, most regulations are based on restricting my actions in response to the actions of others, restricting my actions based on fear of what I MIGHT do, or considering me guilty until proven innocent (or some combination thereof). I see these regulations as unjust, I do not consent to them, and I obey them only when I choose.

Parker

ConstitutionCowboy
July 3, 2009, 11:54 AM
catspa,

There is no doubt that you get it. That's two of us so far...

Woody

runrabbitrun
July 3, 2009, 12:01 PM
I get it too.

Was just waiting on catspa to write it our for me. lol

catspa
July 3, 2009, 12:13 PM
No problem, rabbit, glad to be of service. Anything else I can help you with? Dissertation on the pros and cons of increased carrot consumption in modern society? Wedding poem for your female family member? Snappy comebacks for a person who might insult you?

Parker

Harve Curry
July 3, 2009, 12:14 PM
Count me in as Simple & Basic no.4:)

WinchesterAA
July 3, 2009, 12:36 PM
We're animals.

We were fish like creatures in our father's testicles... We all fought the other fish-like creatures to the egg.. and WON! You came that way.. you fought that fight, that right there was a fight to the death. You were either the one, or dead. You were the one. Did you ever think about it like that?

Then we all grew into a meatbag floating along in amniotic fluid for almost a year so we can grow all the crap we need to work. Then we're thrust out into this big world.

Now, let's consider two things. One, is that before the invention of invention, people were still alive.

and Two, is that in 2009, nobody knows sh*t about life. Nobody can prove who, what, when, why, or how anything has ever happened.

So, you take the trip through life, and before you know it, you start picking up on the fact that people are manipulating you. They're trying to get you to dance, or to smile, or to do some goofy toddler stunt, then you get older and that starts to wear off. Plus, your family hopefully has gotten over your entertainment value, and instead wishes to put you to work so you don't go out of your mind. You start to "grow up", start to respect your environment more, etc, I think everyone knows what I mean..

THEN, all of a sudden.. Just like your parents and family did to you when you were a kid, you have .gov doing the same thing to you when you're an adult. Back to infancy, back to irresponsibility, back to oblivious behavior..

But not everyone wants that.

Also in this world, we notice deeply "tragic" circumstances, such as monkeys ripping people's faces, genitalia, etc off and being genuinely devastating to the human body, and in this situations the people could have done not one thing aside from say.. "No, I don't want to go anywhere near that monkey."

If they were bribed, they would respond with force
If they were coerced, they would be extremely offended

I don't want near your monkey. Attack any who force you to confront the monkey. You can say no. They didn't, and as a result they were roughed up a bit.

SO, when you have a human being in a position of power over you, and he's leading you where you don't wish to be, and you don't support his ideals, and you don't support his directive, and you don't support his advisors, and you don't support anything else about the man.. what do you do?

Say no.. I don't want your sh*t. I don't want your medicare, I don't want your gun regs, I don't want your vehicle regs, I don't want your omnipotent behavior, I don't want to pay you for anything, not sales tax, not income tax, no taxes on NFA weapons, no property taxes, nada. I don't want to pay the fine you're trying to pass through for not having health insurance, don't want to pay more for the carbon I produce, don't want to pay you to implement BS programs like "No Child Left Behind" and "Affirmative Action", "The Patriot Act", and "The National Firearms Act" I don't want to pay the government do manage these things. *

It's all BS. We had a winner of an idea, but we got careless and we let the wrong people try to tell us how to do it. We can't ask ANYONE how to do this. We determine how we operate. We always will.

The difference between subservience and independence is this..

"NO!"

So, I vote for a reboot.. we can survive without all the useless crap decades of crooks have tried to tell the USofA would be in her best interest. We can survive without hate crime laws, and gun laws. I rather enjoyed the bill of rights, and would support that same document.

I suggest we, the people make the constitution stand out a little bit more. It should be terrifying for someone to consider violating our rights. Not because the jail time and fines exceed 10 years and 10,000 dollars...

but because millions of people will be very angry if you do. Don't care who you are, don't care what town you're in.. If you're making gun laws, stealing people's stuff under the color of law, or anything else of a seedy nature, you will be made aware of that fact, and punishment is discretionary, and considered by group vote via cellphone applications.


OUR LIVES need to be about more than what you can illustrate on paper with your various committees and sub-committees designed to nitpick every detail of the HUMAN ANIMAL to exploit every last option. People in charge need to know that screwing up is a really bad thing. REALLY bad, and if you do it on purpose, no one's gunna feel bad for what happens. After all.. We're animals.

Mohawk
July 3, 2009, 01:20 PM
I commend you Constitutional Cowboy on a well thought out, perfectly reasoned position concerning the powers of the government and how it is derived from the will of the people. I especially like the part about how the people can’t even legally give the government power to enact laws and regulations as these powers are held collectively and we, as “The people” cannot abrogate our responsibility to the government.

With your permission I would like to make a copy of your post and then I will immediately convert a couple black rifles to F/A and go to the range and shoot the hell out of them. When the range officer tries to intervene I will hand your excellent post to him and continue shooting; knowing I have the clear, concise interpretation of "the Peoples" intent as stated in the constitution. I hope the guy in the booth to my right will pick up my brass for me as ammo is very expensive. I will also send a copy of your irrefutably, logical post to the IRS in lieu of my 2009 tax payments. Based on your inspiring words I will now open carry everywhere so there is no time when I compromise my personal safety. I will carry a very large Desert Eagle with a 100 round bandolier in all the malls, day care centers and my grandsons school when I go to pick him up. A copy of your post should convince anyone who objects that I’m sincere in my adherence to the constitution and the Bill Of Rights and as a citizen bound by the constitution and BOR I can, in good conscience, do nothing less.
Thank You

(Hey! You wanted entertainment :-)

Harve Curry
July 3, 2009, 01:32 PM
A well thought out post from Cornville Arizona, the Founding Fathers would be proud to count as one of them.

Ruggles
July 3, 2009, 06:13 PM
"Say no.. I don't want your sh*t. I don't want your medicare, I don't want your gun regs, I don't want your vehicle regs, I don't want your omnipotent behavior, I don't want to pay you for anything, not sales tax, not income tax, no taxes on NFA weapons, no property taxes, nada. I don't want to pay the fine you're trying to pass through for not having health insurance, don't want to pay more for the carbon I produce, don't want to pay you to implement BS programs like "No Child Left Behind" and "Affirmative Action", "The Patriot Act", and "The National Firearms Act" I don't want to pay the government do manage these things. *"

And if enough voters agree with you then non of these programs or laws would exist. The fact that they do not agree with you in the numbers needed to repeal or change these laws and programs is what you're upset about.

It's called Democracy, it's a good thing.

You will continue to have your tax dollars used to support these programs until you have the political power (i.e. votes) to change it. You can not pick and choose what parts of society to accept and to ignore, it does not work like that. I am sure there are programs and laws you support that others who are being taxed to pay for them do not. They like you are stuck with it unless they can muster the political power to change it.

You are not 10 and you can not take you're football and go home because you do not like the rules of the game.

WinchesterAA
July 3, 2009, 11:00 PM
Preface - I never got a really good history teacher, or atleast not one that could keep the room quiet long enough to teach, so I skipped most of that til now. A lot of what I write may not seem fully thought out, and that's because it's not. It's what I've got to go on, so in the interests of myself, and anyone else in a similar position as myself, please explain your views with as much detail as possible. I also don't expect anyone to agree with me. (Mostly because I have nothing to do with government, but I know a lot about people, and government is people..)



Ruggles, what do you suggest, my friend? I mean, I don't want to back down, or go home as you say. I also don't think violence is necessary, but I think the country is headed south.

I think it's not unreasonable to assume that in 50 years much of the USA may nolonger belong to the USA. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that society is going to take a very similar path as our counterparts across the pond.

I also think that with the increased acceptance of medications to treat every little thing without regard for personal safety in the use of these medications, we may see an even greater apathetic approach to life as exhibited by just about everybody, and the consequences inaction brings.

I mean, am I wrong or what? Are my eyes playing tricks on me? Is what I see false?


If I were to ask myself how many people I've seen..
Sign a contract without reading it.
Shout praises for someone
Shout profanities at the same person for the exact opposite reason for the praise this person was given initially.
touting their high horse lines from the TV, meanwhile I see further erosion of our constitutional rights, and when asked about this, people really don't know, or care, how to respond.



Well good.. apathy(.gov) runs my life(country).. Could it get any better than that, I mean for real.. Look how far we've come.

What do we do? Follow along til it comes time for us to engage in America's Next Top President to see WHO WILL FINALLY BE.. America's Next Top President. Don't miss the awards ceremony afterward detailing America's Next Top Vice President. In other news, senator XXX condones beastiality, citing examples of his first girlfriend on the farm.. a mule.. as well as getting caught one day out and about with the mistress on tax payer's dime.. he's still confused as to whether or not he'll resign.. wait, no, he doesn't want to resign.


No. I vote against that. I vote against a government that bases itself on manipulating gullible people, and half-cocked opportunism. I also vote against crooks, wherever they are, and whoever they are.

How many times do I watch clueless individuals play around on their toy computer's, blissfully divulging confidential information these very same individuals might fight you over in person. The government's response to this is to.. copy them. It's a great strategy. Or take it a step further and get bank records, cable records, etc etc.. It doesn't matter. Whatever you do, someone's watching so that if .gov needs it, it's there.

and it's because they say you're a terrorist, and because they say you're a terrorist, those who don't know better might also think you're a terrorist, and might also call for more anti-terrorist (anti-YOU) measures. Then .gov has no choice but to "Do as the people wish! because we said so originally, and now they believe us...."



I would appreciate the input from our older members here (>70) if any read this far.

What would you do if you were 22 years old right now?

ConstitutionCowboy
July 3, 2009, 11:25 PM
I especially like the part about how the people can’t even legally give the government power to enact laws and regulations as these powers are held collectively and we, as “The people” cannot abrogate our responsibility to the government.

Wow, you really know how to misquote, don't you! I presented an epexegesis and you interpolated it. Was it an attempt at reductio ad absurdum? There has to be truth in such a demonstration for it to work.

Be careful how you use that post of mine. Your mileage may vary. But I must admit, you are entertaining. It would be informative if you crafted something that explains your view on the subject. How 'bout it?

[redacted]

And if enough voters agree with you then non of these programs or laws would exist. The fact that they do not agree with you in the numbers needed to repeal or change these laws and programs is what you're upset about.

It's called Democracy, it's a good thing.

If this were a democracy, you'd be right. Since this is a constitutional republic, these laws should never have been proposed let alone passed. We have these laws only because of usurpation of power.


Woody

General Geoff
July 3, 2009, 11:27 PM
It's called Democracy, it's a good thing.

Democracy is evil. It is a tyranny of the majority.

Harve Curry
July 4, 2009, 12:07 AM
Look on your money, your state emblem and flag, The Pledge of Allegiance. There is no mention of democracy in or on any of it. A Republic recognizes the rights of minorities , an important feature absent from a democracy.

dogrunner
July 4, 2009, 12:14 AM
Thank you Gnl' Geoff...........don't know if I'd use the adjective 'evil'..........but it is a flawed system, our founders recognized that and therefore tried to create that Constitutional Republic.......but maybe that was just a dreamers fantasy........certainly what we have is NOT what was envisioned. Still, it's what we got, and like the trite sayin' goes.......you 'dance with who brung you'.....Truly, I deplore the idiots amongst us that rant and rail about the gun laws, the corrupt politicians, the taxes et al.....ad nauseum! AND yet don't register to vote, don't join the NRA, don't attend political meetings and generally don't do anything but preach to the choir.....US........Which way is our way of life going to go! Who the hell knows, all I know is that I do what I can when I can.....I try to influence youth, I've ponied up with the NRA, done a Natl. Ad for them during my LEO/CLEO time (took heat for that too) sponsored and encouraged the Eddie Eagle program in local schools when I was in a position to do it...........You all NEED to do the same....that's the sort of stuff that keeps the wolf from the door fellas!

This is likely one of the most interesting threads I've seen in quite a while. The most striking comment I think is AA's query to us old timers........"what would you do it you were 22"................well I'm not QUITE at that plus 7 decade point yet (close 'nuff tho!). And I'd like to toss a considered answer.......tho likely, knowing human nature and self I really gotta' believe I'd likely do just as I did!.........Still, I'd assure myself of a THOROUGH education, and not just an academic one, tho that OUGHT to come into play too. I would acquire every day, saleable skills such as welding or perhaps a machinist course or two.......I would not overlook a stint in the military as there is real value to had just virtue of that experience.
IF I had the benefit of all this hindsight at that age sure I'd align life a bit differently and position myself for a more secure financial future too.......and that just might not mean gettin' more funds but perhaps by locating myself in an area where that sort of stress is minimized..................IF...............biggest damn word in the English language!

WinchesterAA
July 4, 2009, 01:38 AM
Thank you ConstitutionCowboy, I wish I could speak that directly about this subject..

So that this stays on topic with firearms I'd like to note that my concerns stem from my career interests. What I want to do is heavily jeopardized by todays world, and where it is going.

I want a better pistol, and some better rifles. I like what I have now, but if I had my say in it, I'd do it a little bit differently. New technology allows me to renegotiate some old technological constraints to come up with some pretty useful designs. Naturally, I understand that high prices today are a bad thing. I have a pretty good idea about a way to make a really fine firearm for next to nothing. My main goal is to create the firearms for myself, because I want them, but also because it will provide the opportunity for anyone, regardless of who or what got them there, to have the best possible firearm, and it's also the cheapest. If everyone has the ability to own one without consequence, not even financial, then a lot will be bought buy people who otherwise wouldn't have.

and that will hopefully keep a roof over my head.

The problem I get nowadays is a thorough spread of incompetency here in Houston. Let alone the fact I can hardly communicate with anybody here, and not necessarily because I don't try, but because it's a fast city. The only people who aren't in a hurry are crackheads or people who will definitely make you late to wherever it is you're going.

Most of the answers you get from anyone if you try to ask a direct question will either get you a brushed off answer, a lie for convenience, a lie out of ignorance, or you might be presented with a redirected question seeking more information about what you're ACTUALLY trying to do, BUT.. that doesn't work. The voodoo I speak does not register with the woman behind the desk, the sales guy, the technician, the customer, the cashier, or the cashier and she does not know how to help me, who to ask for help, or if they even offer that service/product.

How this applies to school - You'd figure Houston would have a lot of opportunities. Well, it does if you're into what everyone else is doing. That is, lawncare, plant work (layoffs all the time), remodeling (speaking spanish a requirement for longevity), and minimum wage jobs. or .gov jobs.

HCC had a machining department, until a few days before I decided to go there when the head of the department quit without notice. They're not sure when it's gunna be back up, but I can go for career automotive technician making $11.50/hr. No thank you.. that sounds like a waste of my time. I'll leave out how uninformative the counselors were.

College of the mainland has a CAST program, or atleast that's what their website says. Nobody on the phone knows about it, the phone numbers they provide lead me to civilian phone numbers unassociated with anything I'm interested in.

The school systems are so pathetic here. It doesn't even seem like I should bother with it, but then again.. I need that seal of approval that guarantees that I can tolerate gross incompetency, and a seriously disorganized educational environment. I have higher standards than that. What I see is the result of a consumer driven lifestyle where what a person does to make money does not mean anything at all to that person, and the consumer doesn't really care either as long as the service tech says job's done, everything's good, and they've got the TV on. Seriously, if you look at the way the people around me live, the crappy jobs they put up with from the people who keep the community running, you'll notice that they really don't care. They don't know much about it, and they don't want to, they just want everything to be OK, but it's not. We, as a nation, need to seriously get our butts in gear. I'm tired of being praised for how great a job I did, and how horrible everyone else is at it. I'm not that good!

and these same people are the people who work in the schools, work in the stores, work in the plants, work in the shops, work in the police departments, etc etc.

WHAT is wrong? Why is it that, even though I have plenty of money, that I can go to any school I want to, and what I want to learn is how to make great things happen with a drill press, mill, late, cnc machines (I've got a feeling that, based on my prior programming skills, CNC will be pretty natural for me. I've already taught myself a good bit about cad software as well, so there's a lot of really awesome possibilities with all of this technology, and if I had a good place to learn about it, I might actually get my business rolling.

I need to dive into a few other realms as well, and these fields are quite prevalent and growing, highly sought after positions blah blah etc etc so I figure I could do that, but that stuff is pretty cheap, and not too complicated, what I really need is the expensive machining tools to build components of another machine, and the knowledge it takes to do that.

but no.. smart people either don't exist, or wish to remain anonymous. I can see both as being true. There's definitely not an abundance of smart people, so that some of these blessed souls would end up teaching me what I need to know, otherwise it'd be a little simpler.

Of course, in the long run all it boils down to is me needing money and the internet. All the information in the world is right here on the internet, complete with video tutorials and reviews, etc etc..

I need the tools, that's all I need. I guess I could always start completely from scratch. I could assume that society around me is incapable of supplying me with anything I deem useful, and that if I have children, and they are in any way influenced by me, they too will feel as perplexed as I did going through the school system.. "You can be anything you want to be! Do anything you want to do!" only to realize that you kinda have to be part of the club to get a job doing that kind of stuff. Have someone "in the loop" that'll get you a spot. It'd help a whole lot to have the tools, and chances are you do if you got into the club. That's fine, I understand that. Those that have do, it's simple. It's primitive, too.. It's not conducive to progress.

I want more people like me, but damned if I can find someone that isn't buried in a cellphone, video game, or grinding, or.. you know.. not really thinking at all, on pills or something.

but it doesn't have to be that way. If people actually realized that they themselves are the answer to all of their questions, and that everyone elses results are going to be pretty predictable, then maybe we could put together a real effort to restore this country. We could get rid of the telephone pole infrastructure, ditch the underground system that sticks the utility boxes in your backyard, and gets all kinds of land uprooted. We could have far faster connectivity, and we could contemplate ways to defraud the internet so that the prevalence of fraudulent software isn't so severe as to overflow into the retail stores. This will really help out, because for some odd reason a lot of people who are wise to the ways of people, and in some instances they themselves are masterful at their conniving ways, but when they get on a computer, all of a sudden everyone is their friend, everything is interesting and fun and new and it's like a new world where you don't disagree with everybody, but it's the same people you don't get along with, and they're doing the same things they do in the real world, except now you're buying it, because all you have to do to buy it is click this button, and the adware/spyware specialist has all the info he needs to collect a fat check. For added bonus, he might hit your contact lists too, and sell their email addys to marketing and statistical groups, who then send them a ton of spam.


I could do that.. but I don't want to. I remember when the internet was still semi-new and everyone didn't have it. Man it was awesome. The games were better, the threads were better, the stories were more genuine, and then the kids got ahold of the internet too, new restrictions came about, new scams based on those restrictions came about, etc etc.. now you have all kinds of special organizations dedicated to keeping the kiddies safe by telling everyone to stop doing things a certain way.

Half of me wants to say, well.. maybe kids shouldn't be on the net..
but the other half of me says.. wow.. it's all here, boy.. everything you need to know. Be careful.


Either way, I'll make my own guns, whether or not I make them for anybody else depends on everybody else. If everyone keeps letting our government "randomly flip switches" in hopes of eventually hitting the right one, then it might be illegal for me to continue. That'd be a shame.. I mean, the technology I want is useful for all kinds of stuff, including manufacturing firearms.


Where am I gunna go for that?

Forklift352
July 4, 2009, 03:08 AM
I like how you guys think.Most people don't understand that we didn't need all these
laws in the first place!!!! I ride a bicycle and some times a motorcycle.Both cases
I were the appropriate safety gear. Not because their are laws but because I want to
increase the chances of survival....and it looks cool. LOL. I like to were my seat belt
in my car. Again in the improbable case of a crash I would like to increase my chances
of survival.

So I would like to own a select fire rifle. I don't mind the 200.00 tax so much...
Its the 10,000-20,000 that suxxxxx. But the gov. makes the decision that we the people
cant handle full auto but we the filthy rich and powerful can.
We don't need so many laws.... We need folks to cultivate "common sense."
And pass it on. I could care less if they repealed the helmet law.... I'll still wear mine.
And if they opened the NFA registry to include "light" machine guns of all years
I'll still just "pack" my .45.

ArfinGreebly
July 4, 2009, 03:31 AM
We try to encourage civil discussions here at THR.

Baiting and sniping and ridicule are not civil.

Discuss the topic, argue the merits, propose a thesis, or whatever.

Leave the personal jabs out of it.

I won't offer this advice a second time.

rmodel65
July 4, 2009, 05:47 AM
i believe there is no such thing as legal gun control i even have the(possibly radical) standpoint that felons can not be disarmed(since they have paid their debt with a prison term and i they cant be trusted to bear arms they should have had a stiffer penalty to sit a little longer)

rights cant be taken away ever by anyone they can only be stolen by force from the barrel of the governments guns

Ruggles
July 4, 2009, 07:29 AM
"Democracy is evil. It is a tyranny of the majority."

"We have these laws only because of usurpation of power."

"I see these regulations as unjust, I do not consent to them, and I obey them only when I choose."

"If you're making gun laws, stealing people's stuff under the color of law, or anything else of a seedy nature, you will be made aware of that fact, and punishment is discretionary, and considered by group vote via cellphone applications."

I know when I start to read these types of simplistic and uneducated statements it's time to realize that debate is no longer profitable for me.

Have a nice 4th Of July.

Seminole
July 4, 2009, 11:19 AM
CC, as usual, we're pretty much in 100% agreement. I guess that makes two of us simplistic uneducated rubes who actually have read and thought carefully not only the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence but the writers whose ideas informed them. Would that more people today would do so before spouting off on how unedumacated those ideas are. Radical, quite. Simplistic, anything but.

runrabbitrun
July 4, 2009, 11:31 AM
Make that three simplistic uneducated rubes who actually have read
the Constitution and understand what it means.

It's really not a hard document to understand, nor is the concept of FREEDOM.

Those who have bastardized it and twisted it's words over the years
are indeed enemies of the United States and not to be trusted.

People have died to defend these God given rights
and I suspect people will die to defend them again,
if and when it becomes necessary.

Cohibra45
July 4, 2009, 11:41 AM
I know when I start to read these types of simplistic and uneducated statements it's time to realize that debate is no longer profitable for me.

Ruggles,

You do know the difference between a true 'Democracy' and a 'Republic' is don't you???

Forklift352
July 4, 2009, 02:22 PM
I think the founding fathers had in mind that people that are fair and kind but
strong and armed would advance liberty.

Somehow Americans figured that we need a gov. to babysit and coddle. Pay for those that can't (or won't) take care of themselves.

And of course that comes at a steep price.

rainbowbob
July 4, 2009, 02:53 PM
All power granted to the government is derived from the inalienable rights of the people....

All power granted or delegated to the government is derived from our right to govern ourselves...

The power of the government is inferior to any right or rights we the people have...

These concepts are the essence of our unique experiment in self-governance. Thanks, CC, for this thought-provoking essay (did you author it?)

jakemccoy
July 4, 2009, 03:20 PM
Might makes right.

It is that simple sometimes, unfortunately.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 4, 2009, 03:36 PM
... Thanks, CC, for this thought-provoking essay (did you author it?)

Yes. It began as an analysis. For me, it delineates the origin of government power and its real place in our society. The Second Amendment being absolute makes the line between our rights and our governance the biggest and brightest of all the lines between our rights and the powers we grant to government. I equate the RKBA to our right to breathe the oxygen we need to survive. Our right to breathe oxygen shall not be infringed just as our right to keep and bear arms, and our right to defend ourselves, shall not be infringed.

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
July 4, 2009, 03:39 PM
Might makes right.

It is that simple sometimes, unfortunately.

Might can make you the winner, but not necessarily right.

Woody

General Geoff
July 4, 2009, 03:42 PM
I know when I start to read these types of simplistic and uneducated statements it's time to realize that debate is no longer profitable for me.

Those "simplistic and uneducated statements" are the closest to the principles of the founders and their visions/intentions of a governmental infrastructure designed to protect individual liberty at its core. To call them simplistic and uneducated is to call the founding fathers the same. I do not hold to that.

yokel
July 4, 2009, 04:26 PM
History will have to record that there has never been a truly benevolent government. Government is about power, and power is a zero-sum process. We are either leaders or we are led. When the government gains more power, it gains that power at the expense of the people it governs. When we agree to give the government more power, we are surrendering some of our own power. As government gains more power, we lose more and more of our freedom. If we surrender enough power, if we become dependent on the government, the government gains the advantage and we move closer and closer to tyranny and dictatorship. We will either control our government, as our Founding Fathers intended, or our government will control us.

Ruggles
July 4, 2009, 04:53 PM
"Those "simplistic and uneducated statements" are the closest to the principles of the founders and their visions/intentions of a governmental infrastructure designed to protect individual liberty at its core. To call them simplistic and uneducated is to call the founding fathers the same. I do not hold to that."

The following is all IMO and worth exactly what you paid for it!

The reality of the matter is that individual rights should not and do not have the ability to superseded the rights of society (and thus other individuals) as a whole. There are and should be limits to all rights, you can not have a society functions without those limits.

The debate since day one has been and continues to be the clash of personnel rights vs the rights of society. No one has or should have unlimited rights. You do not, I do not nor does anyone else. You can not reasonably expect to reap the benefits of society without having to take some of the parts you may not care for. That view, that some on here have expressed, that they can indeed "take what they want and ignore the rest" is simplistic and uneducated IMO.

Yours, mines or anyone else's interpretation of the founding documents is not absolute. The debate of what should be included in those documents was long and bitter, the debate over what those documents mean has been even longer and more bitter. 230+ years and the debate rages on with greater minds than anyone on here and yet no resolution. It is not as simple as some on here attempt to make it sound.

Funny how the founders knew this and put in procedures to allow changes to be made by "the people" thru their elective officials to those documents, almost like they knew times and situations would change and thus changes would be warranted and needed.


My intent is simply to let those interested (i.e newcomers) know that to support the 2nd A does not mean you have to desire or support the abolishing of existing firearms legislation. To read some of the post on these types of threads that could easily be the message they received. I do not want to lose them as allies in the current and upcoming fights for reasonable guns laws and thus I offer them a different view.

The vast majority of American favor certain types of gun laws, if this was not the case politicians long ago would have been placed into office to remove those laws. You or I may not like majority rules when it does not work in our favor but you and I are stuck with it non the less. To try and present a case to them (i.e. the American public) that we need no gun laws at all would be playing right into the hands of the anti 2nd A crowd. I hope we are all a little smarter than that.

Sad thing is that we all want to get to the same destination more or less but we all see differently the best way to get there. Sometimes along the way we disagree and say things in ways that are not very conducive to maintaining an alliance, which IMO is what we must do. I freely admit my fault as much as anyone here in this regard. I did not mean to insult or step on toes (well maybe just a little bit LOL) and apologize to anyone I came off to as a jerk.

I am as passionate about this subject as many of you are, I just see it needing to be handled a different way to reach a successful conclusion.

yenchisks
July 4, 2009, 05:19 PM
I've seen this on thr: The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on: so what or how can we make change???

yokel
July 4, 2009, 05:56 PM
The reality of the matter is that individual rights should not and do not have the ability to superseded the rights of society (and thus other individuals) as a whole. There are and should be limits to all rights, you can not have a society functions without those limits.

Don't forget that pure democracy is a form of collectivism -- it readily sacrifices individual rights to majority wishes. Since it involves no Constitutional Bill of Rights, or at least, no working and effective one, the majority-of-the-moment can and does vote away the rights of the minority-of-the-moment, even of a single individual. This has been called 'mob rule,' the 'tyranny of the majority' and many other pejorative names. It is one of the greatest threats to liberty, the reason why America's Founding Fathers wrote so much so disparagingly of pure democracy.

Collectivism demands that the group be more important than the individual. It requires the individual to sacrifice himself for the alleged good of the group.

It sounds humane because it stresses the importance of human needs. In reality, it is little more than a rationalization for sacrificing you and me to the desires of others.

WinchesterAA
July 4, 2009, 06:02 PM
It's no problem, Ruggles.. I do wish to ask you, though, when the Americans decided to have the tea party, how do you think they decided how to handle that?

I mean, let's consider a hypothetical scenario that plays out, maybe not in your favor, but in the favor of a system you support..

If the majority of people in the country want to forfeit their ability to have children, and to enforce this law of no reproduction, the majority calls for the merciless slaughter of all who disobey, including their unborn or newborn child.

What would you if you had no children, but you did have a wife, and you both wanted children, but you would be killed if you did.. because of the majority of your countrymen?

For the sake of clarity, world population levels are fine, no overcrowding, and society is so pristine and shiney that the prisons are rarely needed.

still, if you get her pregnant..

I'm just interested in your perspective.

Ruggles
July 4, 2009, 06:12 PM
"It's no problem, Ruggles.. I do wish to ask you, though, when the Americans decided to have the tea party, how do you think they decided how to handle that?

I mean, let's consider a hypothetical scenario that plays out, maybe not in your favor, but in the favor of a system you support..

If the majority of people in the country want to forfeit their ability to have children, and to enforce this law of no reproduction, the majority calls for the merciless slaughter of all who disobey, including their unborn or newborn child.

What would you if you had no children, but you did have a wife, and you both wanted children, but you would be killed if you did.. because of the majority of your countrymen?

For the sake of clarity, world population levels are fine, no overcrowding, and society is so pristine and shiney that the prisons are rarely needed.

still, if you get her pregnant..

I'm just interested in your perspective."


Good question. My answer is a simple one, there comes a time when armed resistance is mandatory. I would put your example very much in that camp.

Just for the record I in no way think that current firearms legislation is oppressive, and it is not even near the armed resistance level. I do not realistically see anything in the near future that would cause me to choose arms over ballots.

I guess the line at which we decided that arms are the answer is different for everyone, same as it was back on this day in 1776.

christcorp
July 4, 2009, 06:19 PM
In a perfect world; where EVERYONE respected EVERYONE ELSE'S rights; society, the people, and government could in fact be the way some here want it to be. And believe that it was designed. But the reality is; and I believe that the founding fathers understood this too; is that not everyone respects each other's rights or opinions. So instead of people refraining, modifying, or tempering THEIR RIGHTS in the spirit of mutual cooperation, and knowing that others would do the same for them; rules/laws/policies/etc... are required so that a set of boundaries are established that define WHERE one person's rights stop and another person's rights begin. This has existed since the beginning of time and I believe that according to the founding fathers, that THIS TOO WAS SELF EVIDENT in preserving a civil society. But unfortunately, there are some that don't see it that way. They prefer to believe that their rights are more important than anyone else's rights. They forget the entire purpose of the declaration and the constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT. Not to limit the citizens. But when a person doesn't respect other's rights and try to make their rights paramount, they in fact do limit other citizens. Cooperation among the citizens is understood to be self evident. And there are times when socially accepted laws/rules/norms/policies/etc... are written and accepted by consensus of the citizenry.

Ruggles
July 4, 2009, 06:25 PM
"sacrificing you and me to the desires of others"

And in turn sacrificing others for the desire of you or I.

Some feel we need to cut the national defense budget drastically, I do not agree with this. On the other hand some think that the National Endowment for Arts should receive more tax dollars, I do not agree with this. Now seeing how both are funded by tax dollars from the American citizen and they disagree on how to spend that money how do we resolve this? We cut the defense budget some and raise the NEA budget some, neither side gets the amount of increase or decrease they want but we compromise on an amount. That in a nutshell is how our government has worked since it's inception (even during the great debates over the Bill Of Rights itself) and I have absolutely no problem with it working like that now and into the future.

300+ million people can not live in a society together without compromise. I no more want Obama as president than the liberals wanted Bush as president, too bad the American people over rule both of our desires or the way we think it should be.

WinchesterAA
July 4, 2009, 06:27 PM
Well, so the problem seems to stem from the majority populations views on who should lead, and where he should lead us to. Currently, it would appear that long time conspiracy theorists weren't hitting too far from the truth.

No privacy is a problem.
Victimless crimes are a problem.
Our government believes we have a hard enough time wiping our behinds, and seeks to compensate for our incompetency by disarming us, reducing our financial wellbeing, increasing their influence on us, all the while encouraging the mindset that allows one to surrender oneself to someone else for little or no benefit. This is a problem.
We have no money.
Our infrastructure is aging and weak. Also very ugly, and with the large amounts of contract work going on, the jobs being done fall far short of passing in too many cases. This is a really big problem.
Our country is no longer independent. We hardly do anything for ourselves anymore, and we acquire most of what we have from another country. Not just that, but the products we have access to are crap. This is a problem. (Quick question for all.. Does the American flag you may or may not have put outside your house today have a made in china mark on it?)

So how do you change these things? We know what's wrong. Our countrymen don't understand life. Not even close. They don't understand nature, and the nature of evil men. They also hold a lot of power that they freely give away at a moment's notice.

Well, what if we had our own media outlet? We can make photoshopped advertisements that'd give hollywood a run for their money, and would that not be effective?

Ruggles
July 4, 2009, 06:29 PM
"set of boundaries are established that define WHERE one person's rights stop and another person's rights begin"

IMO the problem arises when that boundary is not agreed upon by 2 parties. What / who decides then where or what that boundary is? I would say that you have to let the majority decide in most cases. Are there exceptions? Of course but they are far and few between IMO.

Ruggles
July 4, 2009, 06:45 PM
Well Winchester I really do not see it as being anywhere as bad as you do honestly. I do not feel the end of America (even as we know it) is anywhere near, we like everyone else have our problems but our positives far far outweigh our negatives.

I can not remember when the last time I had any direct contact with anyone from the government outside of the postal service. I just do not see or feel the government control you speak of.

I have the privacy I choose to have. If I post on the internet, use my cell phone or credit cards I make the choice to give that privacy away for the sake of the benefit of those items. It is my choice to make. I do not fear having government officials knocking on my door, in 40+ years it has never happened to me. I do not dry thru checkpoints on the road nor do I have to request travel papers when I travel in the country. In terms of firearms I can sell and buy from / to private citizens without any government involvement at all and with complete privacy.

I see absolutely no way 300+ million people can live in a structured society and maintain 100% or even 90% of their privacy. The fact that we do have to sacrifice some privacy to reap the benefits of that society is one I am willing to make. Others can choose to do otherwise. I do have a problem with those that want the benefits but want to moan and groan about the sacrifice.

I guess we could go problem by problem you mentioned but I think you can see my train of thought so I am not sure it would prove worth our time.

While I am worried about certain aspects of my / our futures overall I am optimistic about where we are headed.

yokel
July 4, 2009, 07:09 PM
"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816

The authors of the Constitution felt that if the whole population were trained to arms and were in fact armed, no one would dare try to overthrow the Republic. What they established was a balance of power akin to the Mutually Assured Destruction concept which prevented a nuclear war during the Cold War. It was not that an armed population would have an easy time forcing a rogue army to behave, but the resulting civil war would be long, bloody, and as destructive as anything we have seen in Lebanon, the Balkans or Africa. It was an assurance that no one could profit from an attempt to seize power. It was not a preferred form of action. It was a result so terrible that no one would wish to risk the event.

Ruggles
July 4, 2009, 07:20 PM
"It was a result so terrible that no one would wish to risk the event."

Good post. I agree which is why I see nothing in the near future that could make me choose to resort to an armed response.

Although countless times in the past soldiers have turned and used their weapons on their own citizens I wonder how the completely volunteer forces we now have would react if ordered to do so under questionable circumstances. I do not think we would see a very unified response against U.S. citizens from them.

yokel
July 4, 2009, 07:48 PM
It has been a long while since there was a land-based war in the United States. If such a war took place, our cities would look just as devastated as those in Afghanistan or Iraq. Our children would be just as pathetic. Our population would starve just as readily. It is not an undertaking that any sane person would willingly engage in.

The American military have a long, honorable and good tradition of not being political. The Constitution places the military under the control of civil authorities elected by, and responsible to, the people. That is as it should be.

Seminole
July 4, 2009, 07:59 PM
The reality of the matter is that individual rights should not and do not have the ability to superseded the rights of society (and thus other individuals) as a whole. There are and should be limits to all rights, you can not have a society functions without those limits.

Please define "rights."

DRZinn
July 4, 2009, 09:09 PM
That in a nutshell is how our government has worked since it's inception... and I have absolutely no problem with it working like that now and into the future.I say your house belongs to me, you say it does not. Let's compromise.

There are and should be limits to all rights,Why? you can not have a society functions without those limits.Why not?

WinchesterAA
July 5, 2009, 12:29 AM
In response to ruggles - This is what I see, and this is what I want to see..

but first, the reason why I see it this way. I believe life is exceptional. As common as it is, it is still incredibly rare.. You'll only get one. It is everything. I respect it, and wish I could do more. Not so surprising...

What I see right now is a nation that isn't trying. We've, as a country, given up on our own success a long time ago. Since that point, we've been eating away at our system like the acid in your stomach eats away the lining when you're starving.

This probably has a lot to do with our politicians and media. With the politicians lying about everything from blowjobs to being a hunter, and the media emphasizing all of these different whacky details like they make so and so special.. It creates a really unhappy atmosphere for me. I don't enjoy living here, where I'm assumed incompetent and full of sh*t until proven otherwise, and when interacting with the government, the majority of the time they'd have me believing they're scared of me.. What the hell did I ever do to anybody to deserve that? Well, as I can see, that's not the question to be asking.. What the hell did everyone else do to bring society down to that point, where all of a sudden people are afraid, or unnerved by me.. I dress fine.. clean clothes, tidy appearance, respectful demeanor.. why does that indicate mistrust? Could it be that these employers might have seen something similar to the effect of joe shmo the drug dealer decides he wants to get a job.. He cuts his hair, changes his clothes, packs the fake pee into his pants, and heads out the door..

All of a sudden, the wolf and the sheep are indistinguishable, and now it's entirely possible that anyone could be both, metaphorically speaking of course.. the wolf and sheep thing is pretty stupid, but the associations related to wolf/sheep are fairly sound IMO, so for the purpose of conveying a message in as few words as possible.

we're all bad guys.. and I'm sure you'd think to yourself if you were to hear that from someone.. "No I'm not.."


Life as it is now is perfect as far as the necessities are concerned, I mean you can get a crappy house/apartment with AC and a fridge and be good to go with a minimum wage job here in Tx, and food is located within 25 feet of you, but the attitude makes me wish I'd never been born. I'm excited about what we can do with what we've got on this rock, and what we will be able to do with other rocks in our system, but to get back on track, and start working to better the human experience would require the average adult to not be a loathsome, apathetic soul who is as unconcerned as he is ignorant.


The government, society, and all of the things involved therein don't mean sh*t to me. It's what they were put in place for that means something. Government and society are tools. We built these tools so we could get away from the suck of the past.. life before electricity, doctors, the internet, fast cars and planes, det chord, and cranberry sauce. All of these things are very nice for what they do, and no one can deny that every one of em could be substantially improved. Our tools need to be maintained, they're corroded and nasty at the moment.


Life isn't going to stop, people aren't going to stop, and it seems to me that we should be concerned quite a bit about our children, and their children.. Are they going to learn more than we did, or less? Will they be learning the exact same lessons we've learned, and reaching the exact same conclusions we did/will have?

If I knew that my actions now could allow my child to fastforward to a point of knowledge on-level with my own, at half the age, then he could use the rest of that time to push further than I could. The same could be true for many others.

It doesn't work like that, though. Instead education is minimal, responsibility is the enemy, and trust isn't something you should bother yourself with.

I would like the opposite.

christcorp
July 5, 2009, 12:59 AM
Zinn; there is a big difference between compromising and being an extremist. In compromising, you aren't giving up your rights. You're simply "Taking Turns". In the right of "Free Speech", do you think you are giving up YOUR right because you allowed yourself to breath and let someone else speak? No, you haven't given up any rights. But you have cooperated. Your example of "This is my house" is silly and extremist. But if I say property is mine and you say no, it's yours; then obviously we go to an arbitration (The law) to determine who actually owns the property. That's not a compromise. Again, silly analogy.

However; because this is a gun site, we can use guns as an example of compromise. If the declaration says that we are BORN, and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Well, in this alone, it could be argued that ALL people from the time they are born have these rights. And yet, as a society, we AGREE that not all human are able or responsible enough to exercise these rights at birth. I.e. You don't allow your 7 year old child the RIGHT of "Free Speech". You don't Allow him/her to say: "F You Dad". You don't allow your 12 year old; in "THEIR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" rent a car and drive 100 miles an hour down the street. You also wouldn't allow your 8 year old to go to the Pawn Shop and buy the 9mm pistol with their Birthday Money. But the question you should be asking yourself is: "WHY NOT?" Obviously, these "Truths are self evident". They aren't mature or responsible enough. Not for themselves, or for society. Because such action do affect others and THEIR LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

So, if you are a Responsible and mature individual; and the government has no reason in the world to deny you purchasing a gun; and to ensure that society as a whole is allowed their Life, Liberty, and THEIR Pursuit of Happiness; please tell me how doing an INSTANT background check is infringing on your right to Keep and Bear arms??? Now I'm not talking about the "PROCESS ITSELF" that may have some flaws in it and need to be corrected. We can always make things better. But there are those here trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be ANY LAWS concerning our RIGHT to Keep and Bear arms. The problem with this way of thinking is that it would have to apply also to the first amendment. That means people would be ALLOWED to verbally abuse you with racial slurs and slander. They would be ALLOWED to walk into a theater and yell FIRE just to see people panic. They would be ALLOWED to say their religion allows them rape and beat their wives; sacrifice stray animals and hang them in the public square; and KILL any non-believer in their Religion.

The problem is that people insist on over looking this fact. You can't say that the "Society" can't have laws, rules, policies, etc... for the 2nd amendment; YET they CAN have laws, rules, policies, etc... for the 1st amendment. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. The moment the Declaration said: "ONE PEOPLE" and the constitution said: "We the People"; it is "Self Evident" that there would have to be Rules, Laws, Policies, etc.... to maintain order with all the numerous opinions and positions on life. This doesn't mean you are giving up any rights. You have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But you DON'T have the RIGHT to walk down the street and shoot every stray animal, every street sign, every person, etc.... that you see. When you do, you are depriving others of their RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And because people WILL have differing opinions on where the line is on "Other People's Rights"; rules, laws, policies, etc.... are required.

And sorry, but to believe otherwise than that a society MUST have laws, rules, and often times compromises in exercising Rights, can't be argued. Because there's not 1 person here on this forum or on the planet that has never come across a situation where someone did or said something that you didn't like; and it is society's laws/rules that deter and prevent you from kicking the crap out of or killing that individual. Without the laws/rules/etc... there would be complete anarchy. That is human nature and natural law. And the founding fathers probably didn't mention this because they too knew it to be self evident. If you notice, the declaration and constitution don't really speak of Citizens vs Citizens. That is self evident. They speak of Citizens vs Government. They didn't want a government making laws/rules/etc... that gave the government more power and took power AWAY from the citizens. Making laws/rules/policies such as an instant background check; being a certain age to own a gun; being mentally stable; not being a felon; etc... are NOT LAWS THAT GIVE THE GOVERNMENT POWER OR TAKE POWER AWAY FROM THE CITIZENS. These are societal laws. The fact that you CAN Keep and Bear arms means that you have RETAINED the power to resist the government if need be. The laws associated with the guns do not stop you from Keeping and Bearing arms. They simply ensure that the rest of society is allowed to their right of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Let me qualify however, as I've said numerous times, that this is NOT to say that some of these laws/rules/policies/etc... don't need to be changed/corrected. Many definitely do. And the reason for that is because we have 50 states that all interpret differently the state's role in preserving social peace. It is wrong for a state to take months and months to process permits and licenses for a person to LEGALLY exercise their right to Keep and Bear arms. It need to be INSTANT!!! Many states, it IS instant. Those states aren't infringing on the Rights. I believe that New Jersey for example IS INFRINGING on the rights of their citizens. The state has the power if they deem necessary to issue permits or licenses to it's citizens. There are arguments on both sides for that. I won't argue that. But if a citizen says: "Hmmmm, I would like to buy a gun". They should be able to get a gun THAT DAY, right then and there. They shouldn't have to wait months. If New Jersey can't do the background check and paperwork process that they WANT right then and there; then the benefit of the doubt MUST be given to the citizen. It is NOT the responsibility of the citizen to PROVE THEY ARE WORTHY. It's the responsibility of the STATE to PROVE the citizen is NOT WORTHY. And if they can't do it instantly, then they better work on an IMPROVED SYSTEM. But until then, the benefit of the doubt goes to the citizen.

This is what the supreme court needs to address and rule on. The state can decide all the procedures they want for legally disqualifying an individual from being allowed to exercising their right to keep and bear arms. This could be felony offenses where a GUN was used in the crime. It could be drug addiction. It could be mental instability. Whatever the disqualification is; assuming THE PEOPLE vote and agree to it; that would be legal. However; if the state can't do this process instantly, then the citizen should be able to walk out the door of the gun shop immediately after paying for the gun. And if they want some type of "License" so police, hospitals, dealers, private sellers, etc.... have some sort of proof that the person is qualified; then that's fine too as long as it's INSTANT. The citizen should NOT be denied even temporarily from being allowed to exercise their rights because the government/state is INEFFICIENT.

And personally; I have NEVER MINDED if the government knew that I had guns. Personally; I WANT the government to know EXACTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE OWN GUNS in our country. I don't want it to be some stupid pollster giving the government advice. I don't want some Washington D.C. flunky advisor trying to tell congress what they think. I want congress and the president to KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the PEOPLE of the United States are armed; and that they (The government) doesn't have enough people or resources to try and STEAL the country from the people. When it's pollings and advisors, the government can get a "False sense of Power". But when there's an actual stat that says: "Mr. President; there are exactly 85,564,786 citizens in this country that OWN guns. And there are approximately 250,000,000 adults in the United States our of 330,000,000 total citizens. So that means that approximately 33% of all adults in the United States has at least 1 gun. Then the government can say: "Crap; there's no way we can fight 85,564,786 people at the same time. I guess we'll have to find another way". Yes, I DEFINITELY want the government to know. Our country proudly displays our Nuclear Arsenal and military strength as a MEANS OF DETERRENCE to other countries. Well I want American Gun Owners to proudly display our numbers and strength as a MEANS OF DETERRENCE to OUR GOVERNMENT.

WinchesterAA
July 5, 2009, 01:54 AM
the benefit of the doubt goes to the citizen
The citizen should NOT be denied even temporarily from being allowed to exercise their rights because the government/state is INEFFICIENT.
I don't want it to be some stupid pollster giving the government advice.I don't want some Washington D.C. flunky advisor trying to tell congress what they think.

These quotes illustrate what I was getting at with the poor service we receive today.

However, this quote confuses me some..

Because there's not 1 person here on this forum or on the planet that has never come across a situation where someone did or said something that you didn't like; and it is society's laws/rules that deter and prevent you from kicking the crap out of or killing that individual.

I've been around people who said stupid things, terrible things even, and have performed some of the most heinous acts I can imagine by man. Violence was rarely even considered. 9 times out of 10, it's a miscommunication that started all the ruckus in the first place. OTOH, if violence was required, society and laws had nothing to do with it.

People are gunna do what they're gunna do, and short of murder, thievery, and treason I'd find it pretty hard to find a reason not to forgive that person for his/her asshattery. (Clarification on thievery - I don't mean by necessity. I would never take someone's hand for stealing bread because at that moment there was nothing else that seemed as likely to accomplish that very important goal of eating. OTOH, if your career interests are looting the resources of everyone else, you should be aware that there are counter-careers to yours, and you might want to reconsider.)

Everything else, if you make it illegal, you're only serving to alienate and criminalize a part of your countries population.

christcorp
July 5, 2009, 02:15 AM
You happen to be a more "Mature" individual. However; history has proven (Since the beginning of time); that without laws/rules agreed upon by consensus of the population; that anarchy does and will exist. Even in the simplest of times, communities have laws/rules. I've lived/worked in 15 countries. Some of these were 3rd world in nature. Some were even tribal (Natives in the Amazon). There has to be laws/rules. They don't have to be physically written on paper, but they have to be laws/rules that are understood and accepted by consensus. Sometimes not everyone agrees or likes the rules; but they all live by them.

You may not have been inclined to beat the crap out of someone or kill them; however there WOULD BE SOMEONE out there that would indeed do such a thing if there was no deterrence to such an action. And this keeps going back to where people argue certain laws/rules; especially concerning weapons; because they claim the "Criminals won't follow the laws anyway". That's true; but the majority of laws are not written with the criminal in mind. They are written as guidelines and limits to maintain social order. Some laws are written up for criminals as a means of being able to sentence. I.e. You can't charge someone with murder, and sentence them, if there is no law that says murder is wrong and the person committing murder will be punished. But most laws are not written for the criminal. They are written so that the average citizen has guidelines to live within so as to maintain social order and individuals don't infringe on other's rights while exercising their own rights. The fine line is when the laws written take power away from the citizen and give additional power to the government; or when the law is written in such a way that it prohibits unnecessarily a person's ability to exercise their rights. And that's what needs to be corrected. Not laws themselves; those are necessary. It's how they're written and the restraints they put on the citizens that need correcting.

WinchesterAA
July 5, 2009, 02:24 AM
Yes, sir, I agree with all of that.

Alternatively, what if people were educated to consider themselves as other people?

Example - What if society had a habit of imagining what it would be like to be the person they're talking to, and the person they're talking to is themselves.


If I were you, would I appreciate the way you're talking to me? In your case, christcorp, yes I would.

christcorp
July 5, 2009, 02:34 AM
That would be nice. However; reality says that there would still be those in society that are too self centered. In our society; how many drive the speed limit because it's safer for everyone else, and how many drive it because of the deterrence that they don't want to get a ticket? We can list hundreds of laws/rules/etc... that if they weren't in place, someone would abuse "Their Right" and either risk another individual or infringe on their rights. I wish that we didn't need laws/rules. But human nature dictates that there must be such things for a society to function somewhat civilized.

WinchesterAA
July 5, 2009, 03:02 AM
There's a lot I can say to the engineers responsible for my cities transportation infrastructure. A little more foresight would have been nice, however they did manage to accomplish an incredible goal.. Allowing 2 million people to all hit the streets at the same time, and get somewhere fairly quickly. The approach .gov takes on enforcing the speedlimit doesn't enforce the speedlimit.

Instead of a speedlimit that represents the maximum safe speed for travel, we're told of the horrors of babies dying, and drunk craziness, road rage, and what's the difference between a same-direction traffic collision at 65 and 75mph? 65 being the maximum speedlimit inside of Houston, and 75mph being the realistic speedlimit between the hours of 2PM and 4PM on interstate 45, <2PM is a mix between early morning rush, mid morning rush, or lunch break rush, so it's either packed or empty. Everyone's in the right lane because they're only moving a block away. 5PM to 6:30PM it's a parkinglot, and after that depends entirely on the day of the week.

You know what I see in Pasadena, Tx? There's a sharp turn on Burke Road between Pasadena blvd, and cherrybrook lane. It's a narrow lane 4 lane road with a speedlimit of 35mph. I've taken the turn at 35mph and kept my vehicle within the lanes just fine, but it's not normal driving to do that, and a lot of people don't realize that...

I am TERRIFIED of that turn, because people go the speedlimit there, but they swerve all over the place. I almost had a headon collision yesterday at that very same spot. Someone narrowly avoids it every couple of minutes I would imagine. Everytime I go there I see some terrible terrible vehicle control, but not speeding..

Speedlimits don't promote safety anymore than a seatbelt does. It's a persons understanding of what he/she is actually doing. Do you realize what you're doing when you're driving? You, a mammal, hop into a device your species built from the dirt much the same way as you were built. This device weighs a lot more than you do, in most cases, and whether you know it or not, this device introduces many new ways for you to be seriously injured or killed. It's not something you should approach lazily, and without interest.

In contrast, imagine you're in a vehicle, and someone else is too. Do you hope that as you come around a sharp corner that the person in the oncoming lane right next to you is PLEASE.. GOD.. COMPETENT ENOUGH to keep his vehicle straight so I don't have to make the decision between smashing the vehicle on my right, or smashing the vehicle on my left.

On the interstate however, most people do behave very well. There are exceptions, and these people I've observed that are less common, but are portrayed as omnipotent are these 30 year old kids that never grew up.. I seriously don't get what happened to them. I know a lot of people who are just about the same age, and grew up in different areas around Houston, and they all do the same dumb stuff, like drunk driving at 4AM, racing in residential neighborhoods, and a whole host of other non transportation related monkey shines.

I've called em on it, too, and I get the same line each time.. "F**k the police".

Large wrap sheets for these folks. Degrees in philosophy, sociology, and human resources. Teachers, mechanics, heroin junkies, BBBS/tour guide workers.

I've seen younger and older people speed, and I break the limit when not doing so impedes the flow of traffic, don't get me wrong, but the largest group of people who do dangerous things in a vehicle that I know are right around 30 right now. Dunno if there's anything to that, but I think the speedlimits suck first and foremost, but the ones who express that by excessively speeding aren't that common.

Seriously. It's BS down here. The speedlimit on 45 is determined by time of day, not by any signs or police cars. It doesn't go past 75 though, unless it's a perfect day.


SMART traffic.. not REGULATED traffic.

Rockwell1
July 5, 2009, 03:13 AM
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

There, right there, is the logic behind the RKBA and the source of the government's power.

Read the words

Ruggles
July 5, 2009, 07:37 AM
If we are talking about injustice this is it! Well maybe a small one but......

I ordered a Rock River Arms BCG & charging handle from PK Firearms last week. These are the last 2 pieces I need to fully complete my AR15 build. The US Postal Service trys to deliver them on Friday but no one is at home. They leave a slip to come to the post office and pick up the package. I am working Saturday so I ask my wife to go pick it up as the local post office which is open until noon on Saturdays. She informs me "uhh it's the 4th of July they are closed today bonehead". Now I have to wait until Monday to finish putting the rifle together! Agghhh!

If we are going revolution 1776 style I am going to have to wait and join in on Monday now......

Mohawk
July 5, 2009, 12:31 PM
Constitutional Cowboy, I want you to know that I was sincere in my praise of your excellent piece on the relationship between our constitution and how it applies to gun laws. My post was to provide an extreme example of how one would react if living to the letter of your excellent post. It was meant as the entertainment you asked for and as an example of the “Theater of the Absurd”.

I and many others in my state are members of local and regional gun rights organizations who I consider to be “in the trenches” of the fight for preserving ours and all society’s rights. We educate our fellow citizens on a local level, we form plans of action concerning pending and current legislation and submit them to our state representatives in an effort to communicate to our government what the grass roots people want concerning gun rights. We have been careful to maintain a first name basis with our local and state representitives. We periodically go to all the local desert shooting ranges and remove all the old refrigerators, old stoves and computer monitors and haul them off to the various sites that will take them at our own expense. We provide classes at our local high school, educating young people into responsible gun ownership and the shooting skills. Many of the kids I taught in 10th grade are now adults and a large percentage have CCW cards and I see them at the local range on many occasions.

Periodically, we’ll have a new member come to our meetings and stand up and give a speech very similar in context to your excellent post. It’s always about "no laws or restrictions relating to the right of the people concerning gun ownership are acceptable" to them. We listen politely while they get their 15 minutes on the soap box because we have heard it all before. From there, we ask the prospective member how would they like to help. Join a committee we’ve formed? Pick up the garbage at the range? Act as a range officer while we take the kids shooting? Very few are interested in any of these activities and they generally disappear after the first meeting they attend. It appears that anything short of total rollback of all gun laws, immediately, does not fit their agenda. So we go on about the business of day to day defense of our citizen’s gun rights and the mundane work of redefining the current legislation to reflect more reasonable restrictions.

In all honestly there have been times when I and others have sat across the table of some smug, self righteous gun control advocates and would have loved to shove your excellent treatise in their face and say “Take IT Or Leave It” and walk out the door. But having been involved for 25 plus years I know this will provide our side with negative traction. As an example, this is the forth time we have redrafted the bill to allow CCW in restaurants and we’ve finally got the inside track to get it passed. It is a done deal. But to get there we had to remove bars from the mix and work on signage issues among other refinements.

From where I sit, I hope the anti-gun crowd never read your post, for if they ever get the idea that we as responsible gun owners as a group have no compromise but stand fast on the total repeal of all gun laws then they will paint us as such to society. An image we in the trenches do not want to be tagged with. By the same token if the anti gun crowd ever pick up on the theory that all gun laws are useless and don’t work then they’re only recourse is to agree with that premise and their only platform will be to ban all firearms, period. Meanwhile, us guys who man the gun rights trenches will go on fighting the good fight and continue to take the abuse from the various soap box patriots on this and various other gun boards.

You asked me what I really felt.
I hope I’ve made my position very clear.

Cohibra45
July 5, 2009, 03:33 PM
You happen to be a more "Mature" individual. However; history has proven (Since the beginning of time); that without laws/rules agreed upon by consensus of the population; that anarchy does and will exist. Even in the simplest of times, communities have laws/rules. I've lived/worked in 15 countries. Some of these were 3rd world in nature. Some were even tribal (Natives in the Amazon). There has to be laws/rules. They don't have to be physically written on paper, but they have to be laws/rules that are understood and accepted by consensus. Sometimes not everyone agrees or likes the rules; but they all live by them.

You may not have been inclined to beat the crap out of someone or kill them; however there WOULD BE SOMEONE out there that would indeed do such a thing if there was no deterrence to such an action. And this keeps going back to where people argue certain laws/rules; especially concerning weapons; because they claim the "Criminals won't follow the laws anyway". That's true; but the majority of laws are not written with the criminal in mind. They are written as guidelines and limits to maintain social order. Some laws are written up for criminals as a means of being able to sentence. I.e. You can't charge someone with murder, and sentence them, if there is no law that says murder is wrong and the person committing murder will be punished. But most laws are not written for the criminal. They are written so that the average citizen has guidelines to live within so as to maintain social order and individuals don't infringe on other's rights while exercising their own rights. The fine line is when the laws written take power away from the citizen and give additional power to the government; or when the law is written in such a way that it prohibits unnecessarily a person's ability to exercise their rights. And that's what needs to be corrected. Not laws themselves; those are necessary. It's how they're written and the restraints they put on the citizens that need correcting.

christcorp,

I happen to disagree with your analogy of laws and society and here is my main concern with how it pertains to arms:

When a person commits a murder with a gun, any gun, you seem to suggest that the law should be changed so that particular gun should be 'banned'. So the murderer says, I can't use that 'gun' so I will just grab the proverbial baseball bat. Now society makes another law saying that baseball bats should be 'banned'. Now that we have gotten rid of guns and baseball bats, the murderer says, I'll just grab a hammer, screw driver, wrench, etc. and society just makes another law to say what can or cannot be used by the murderer to kill.

Now those examples are 'silly' as you call us simple minded people, but, it seems to me that if and when the murderer gets put away for life or put to death gets rid of the main problem. That gets rid of the problem, at least it makes it difficult for that same person to commit another murder. Then we law abiding citizens aren't effected by the acts of criminals and are free to actually use said guns, ANY GUN, to protect us and our families. Just because you or someone else doesn't like how a particular tool (GUN) looks, works, or 'can/might be used' shouldn't enter into any debates. Laws are guidelines true, but they have consequences and that is how they are suppose to work. We (Americans) have many (and I do mean many) 'laws' already on the books concerning the use of said tools. We still allow the judges to let people out that commit crimes again and again. It's not right that We have to put up with that. Most new laws don't do anything but put handcuffs on the law abiding and don't do anything to the criminal.

I know it hasn't happened here in America, but suppose congress did write a law saying all guns were illegal. It has happened in the recent past so this really isn't that far fetched. Now would you turn in your guns or would you keep them??? Simple question, but a fair one. On the one hand, if you turn in your guns, you are complying with the law but leaving you and your family open to criminals that didn't turn in theirs. Remember, the police don't have an obligation to protect anyone. At least that is what the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago. On the other hand, if you don't turn them in, you are committing a crime and as such are outside the law.......a criminal and whatever you do from then on, are subject to punishment by said 'society'.

It's just that simple...................laws passed to prevent a law abiding citizen from attaining a tool (gun, weapon, etc.) for whatever lawful purpose they want to use it , don't do anything to prevent criminals from committing crimes.

Laws are just rules (set down by God in the first place, at least the first written ones) for people to live by. In biblical times of Moses, most of the time, people were punished by killing them. I'm not advocating killing everyone, but making sure that they don't commit the crime again is paramount. There are and should be consequences when breaking the laws. Laws don't prevent people from committing crimes, they just say that you will be punished if and when you are caught.

The bottom line is that there is evil and good in this world and you can't fight evil by trying to contain it or box it in. You have to kill it wherever raises it's ugly head.........period. Laws don't protect anyone, they set guidelines and consequences. Again, laws don't protect anyone, people do. At least laws concerning guns and the ability to own and use them.

rainbowbob
July 5, 2009, 03:53 PM
Meanwhile, us guys who man the gun rights trenches will go on fighting the good fight and continue to take the abuse from the various soap box patriots on this and various other gun boards.

You asked me what I really felt.
I hope I’ve made my position very clear.

Mohawk:

Thanks for doing the REAL work that most of us shun.

There is Idealism - which allows us to imagine what might be. That's important.

And there is Realism - which allows us to deal with what is. That's even more important.

Dealing with realty is more work.

Thanks again for your service.



...short of murder, thievery, and treason I'd find it pretty hard to find a reason not to forgive that person for his/her asshattery...

Winchester:

Did you just coin a new word? I hadn't heard that one before. I like it.


"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

There, right there, is the logic behind the RKBA and the source of the government's power.

Rockwell1:

You get the cigar for nailing the answer to the title of the OP.

christcorp
July 5, 2009, 03:57 PM
Cohibra; sorry; but I really didn't believe that my comments that you quoted could be twisted so erratically. Which only proves why laws are sometimes required. I can honestly say that based on your baseball bat analogy; that nothing I say is going to get you to think along the lines of an orderly society. But I will briefly try. (Normally I am never Brief, but something tells be this isn't going to be productive).

When the "PRIMARY USE" of an item directly impacts the lives of fellow citizens; then boundaries must be set. Automobile, Gun, etc.... When the "PRIMARY USE" of an item does not directly impact a fellow citizen; then boundaries don't have to be set for the item. However; additional boundaries can be set on the individual. The PRIMARY USE of a gun is to KILL LIVING CREATURES. That is a fact. If you can't agree to that, then don't waste your time discussing it with me because I won't discuss it. We have to agree on that first. If we can't, then lets not wast our time. The primary use of a hammer is to put to items together with the use of a nail. This is common sense.

And how in the world you could ever come up with the interpretation that I believe that "CERTAIN GUNS" should be banned is preposterous. I never said or implied any such thing. I think it would be better if you asked me specific questions, because obviously you do not understand what I wrote at all. And you don't understand normal societal functioning which has existed since the dawn of mankind.

yokel
July 5, 2009, 05:25 PM
One can typically peg this clique of Brady and VPC interlopers by their use of pejorative terms such as "extremist", "anarchist", and "insurrectionist".

May their outsiders be speedily detected and effectually banished from our midst...

t165
July 5, 2009, 06:11 PM
I keep reading similar threads as this one. The threads are usually visited and argued by the same people. myself included lately. I have it pretty good here in Indiana and I cannot find much to gripe about. Other states impose more restrictions. I would hate to live in Illinois or California...ect. The "only' legal recourse for individuals to change gun laws is through politics. Certainly not through paragraph after paragraph on THR.

Some who visit these threads are buttonholed as "extremists"and "Loons". The ugly stepchildren of the 2A movement that keep popping out of the closet. They live and breath the 2nd Amendment and regardless what the vast majority of Americans think they keep preaching their 2nd Amendment religion. Since we also have a 1st Amendment they are allowed to voice their opinion without fear of arrest or beheading. Even if they are ignored.

If anyone here does not like the current gun laws and simply cannot live unless they are changed then become political. Run for political office. Become a player instead of a cheerleader! Become active in a gun-rights political movement which is consistent with your beliefs. The 2nd Amendment was born out of politics...the figment of the imagination of men who lived over 200 hundred ago.

Mental hospitals are full of the insane who actually believe they are sane. This forum has members who think they know the 2nd Amendment better than the majority of Americans. They "know" what the founding fathers really meant. And I always ask why, if the 2nd Amendment was meant to abolish all firearm restrictions, "shall not be infringed", has there always been gun control laws in america, both prior and after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment? Why did the founding fathers pass gun control laws "infringement" into effect which on their face seems to conflict with the 2nd Amendment? I have never received an intelligent answer even though many have tried.

Become political. Offer yourself up for examination! See if you can gain a following to place your gun-rights belief into law. That is unless you are a felon...then you cannot even do that! I wonder how many members of this forum/thread are felons ranting against America and her laws governing firearms? :rolleyes:

ArfinGreebly
July 5, 2009, 06:40 PM
However; [blah blah blah]. And yet, as a society, we AGREE that not all human are able or responsible enough to exercise these rights at birth. I.e. You don't allow your 7 year old child the RIGHT of "Free Speech". You don't Allow him/her to say: "F You Dad". You don't allow your 12 year old; in "THEIR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" rent a car and drive 100 miles an hour down the street. You also wouldn't allow your 8 year old to go to the Pawn Shop and buy the 9mm pistol with their Birthday Money. But [blah blah blah]

Red Herring

We're not talking about minors having unfettered access to anything. The matter of children having inappropriate access is not a 2A issue.

So, if you are a Responsible and mature individual; and the government has no reason in the world to deny you purchasing a gun; and to ensure that society as a whole is allowed their Life, Liberty, and THEIR Pursuit of Happiness; please tell me how doing an INSTANT background check is infringing on your right to Keep and Bear arms???
Prior Restraint and assumption of guilt.

You are making law-abiding people prove they're not criminals. That's unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of free society.

[snip]

But there are those here trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be ANY LAWS concerning our RIGHT to Keep and Bear arms. The problem with this way of thinking is that it would have to apply also to the first amendment. That means people would be ALLOWED to verbally abuse you with racial slurs and slander. They would be ALLOWED to walk into a theater and yell FIRE just to see people panic. They would be ALLOWED to say their religion allows them rape and beat their wives; sacrifice stray animals and hang them in the public square; and KILL any non-believer in their Religion.
Straw Man

We have laws against libel and slander. Those are harmful acts against a person or persons. We have laws against rape, battery, and murder. The instrument of assault or murder is not relevant. It's illegal to murder people. To specify special punishments for the use of one instrument over another or because of the excuse used by the murderer is absurd.

The problem is that people insist on over looking this fact. You can't say that the "Society" can't have laws, rules, policies, etc... for the 2nd amendment; YET they CAN have laws, rules, policies, etc... for the 1st amendment. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. The moment the Declaration said: "ONE PEOPLE" and the constitution said: "We the People"; it is "Self Evident" that there would have to be Rules, Laws, Policies, etc.... to maintain order with all the numerous opinions and positions on life.
Interesting, if flawed, reasoning.

I don't know what school of thought it is to which one must subscribe to conclude that if it involves people, it's got to have laws.

Sorry. I can't buy that reasoning at all.

This doesn't mean you are giving up any rights. You have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But you DON'T have the RIGHT to walk down the street and shoot every stray animal, every street sign, every person, etc.... that you see. When you do, you are depriving others of their RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And because people WILL have differing opinions on where the line is on "Other People's Rights"; rules, laws, policies, etc.... are required.
More Straw Man

Ownership of arms does not imply murdering pets and people. Neither does owning a chain saw.

And sorry, but to believe otherwise than that a society MUST have laws, rules, and often times compromises in exercising Rights, can't be argued.
I'll take that bet.

It isn't the exercise of a right being compromised when laws against murder are passed and enforced. You don't pass a law specifying that people can't be murdered with rakes, hoes, saws, axes, broom handles, electric cords, broken glass, drain cleaner, large rocks, and so on and so on ad nauseum. You just specify that murder is unlawful and leave it at that.

Six-year-old children are superb budding lawyers. You tell them "no rough-housing" and they want specifics. So you give them examples. Later, when you holler at them for jumping on the couch, they declare (correctly) that couch jumping wasn't one of your examples, and therefore not subject to the prohibition.

Don't fall into that trap. Any murder is wrong. Murder with a special object isn't more wrong. And murder is not the exercise of a right, so enjoining it isn't "compromising" anyone's rights.

Because there's not 1 person here on this forum or on the planet that has never come across a situation where someone did or said something that you didn't like; and it is society's laws/rules that deter and prevent you from kicking the crap out of or killing that individual. Without the laws/rules/etc... there would be complete anarchy. That is human nature and natural law.
"True because I said so."

I think I can make a case for "begging the question" there, but the circular logic is incomplete.

And the founding fathers probably didn't mention this because they too knew it to be self evident. If you notice, the declaration and constitution don't really speak of Citizens vs Citizens. That is self evident. They speak of Citizens vs Government. They didn't want a government making laws/rules/etc... that gave the government more power and took power AWAY from the citizens.
I don't think this leads anywhere.


Making laws/rules/policies such as an instant background check; being a certain age to own a gun; being mentally stable; not being a felon; etc... are NOT LAWS THAT GIVE THE GOVERNMENT POWER OR TAKE POWER AWAY FROM THE CITIZENS.
Ahh, the heart of the matter.

And here you are, in fact, simply wrong. Passing a law the creates your goons as the gatekeepers with the power to bar access to the exercise of a right does, in point of fact, "take power away" from the citizens: it denies them the right of commerce and of choice and of ownership. When you, as the government, get to decide what is a felony and what defines mental stability, you have the power to deny access arbitrarily.

These are societal laws. The fact that you CAN Keep and Bear arms means that you have RETAINED the power to resist the government if need be. The laws associated with the guns do not stop you from Keeping and Bearing arms. They simply ensure that the rest of society is allowed to their right of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Laws that exercise prior restraint and assume guilt establish barriers. Such laws impede ownership and do, in fact, deny citizens their right to self defense.



It is NOT the responsibility of the citizen to PROVE THEY ARE WORTHY. It's the responsibility of the STATE to PROVE the citizen is NOT WORTHY. And if they can't do it instantly, then they better work on an IMPROVED SYSTEM. But until then, the benefit of the doubt goes to the citizen.
[B]And the current system violates this.

This is what the supreme court needs to address and rule on. The state can decide all the procedures they want for legally disqualifying an individual from being allowed to exercising their right to keep and bear arms. This could be felony offenses where a GUN was used in the crime. It could be drug addiction. It could be mental instability. Whatever the disqualification is; assuming THE PEOPLE vote and agree to it; that would be legal. However; if the state can't do this process instantly, then the citizen should be able to walk out the door of the gun shop immediately after paying for the gun. And if they want some type of "License" so police, hospitals, dealers, private sellers, etc.... have some sort of proof that the person is qualified; then that's fine too as long as it's INSTANT. The citizen should NOT be denied even temporarily from being allowed to exercise their rights because the government/state is INEFFICIENT.
Only the "right" people should have access . . . the government should somehow magically manage this and get it right . . . but government is inefficient?

Once again we assume that ownership is crime for the "wrong" people. There is no tort in ownership, and criminalizing it is wrong.

And you seem to be obsessed with allowing felons to roam loose on the streets. How odd.

Please confine your lawmaking to actual tort.

Prior restraint always sounds so plausible, I mean after all, isn't it better to prevent a crime rather than solve one?

And the right answer is, in fact, no. You don't enact legislation to restrain people based on what you worry they might do.

Laws that propose to restrict the ownership of arms, regardless of how plausible the reason sounds, act to disarm a population.

Please don't try to extrapolate a bunch of silly sophistry from what I've said here.

Don't keep trying to make me prove I'm sane and prove I'm not a felon before I can make a simple purchase.

Simple rule: the ones that can't be trusted with tools and weapons don't get released.

To do otherwise is to encumber the rest of the population with the burden of proving they're not the bad guys.

It doesn't matter how frantically or fervently you believe that we have to have laws and processes to prevent bad behavior, or how much you believe that denying people access somehow doesn't infringe their rights.

Prior restraint is bad. It does deprive people of their rights.

And allowing government to define "crazy" as it applies to denying a right . . . that's a truly bad idea.

rainbowbob
July 5, 2009, 07:05 PM
I always ask why, if the 2nd Amendment was meant to abolish all firearm restrictions...has there always been gun control laws in america, both prior and after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment? Why did the founding fathers pass gun control laws...into effect which on their face seems to conflict with the 2nd Amendment? I have never received an intelligent answer even though many have tried.


t165:

I have never read this question asked or answered. In fact, I've never heard of gun control laws enacted by the founders.

I'm not suggesting it didn't happen - just that I am unaware of it.

I would be very interested in learning more about gun control laws in 18th century America. Can you please cite specific examples?

After researching the citations and examples you hopefully will provide, perhaps I - or someone smarter - can attempt to provide you with the intelligent answer you have found to be so elusive.

ArfinGreebly
July 5, 2009, 07:25 PM
Looks like we have a fan of "since we have always had laws about XX, it's obvious that such laws are needed and clearly a good idea."

That's called "appeal to tradition" and is a logical fallacy.


Some who visit these threads are buttonholed as "extremists"and "Loons". The ugly stepchildren of the 2A movement that keep popping out of the closet. They live and breath the 2nd Amendment and regardless what the vast majority of Americans think they keep preaching their 2nd Amendment religion. Since we also have a 1st Amendment they are allowed to voice their opinion without fear of arrest or beheading. Even if they are ignored.
I'm not sure who you're trying to slander here. Perhaps you could clarify?


Mental hospitals are full of the insane who actually believe they are sane. This forum has members who think they know the 2nd Amendment better than the majority of Americans. They "know" what the founding fathers really meant.
Yeah, it's a literacy thing. You know, like from reading extensively what the founders actually wrote. We have a few such scholars here. Using obtuse language to suggest that Second Amendment advocates are crazy isn't going to win you any points.


And I always ask why, if the 2nd Amendment was meant to abolish all firearm restrictions, "shall not be infringed", has there always been gun control laws in America, both prior and after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment?
Interesting assertion. Any "gun control" laws in force prior to the enactment of the Constitution would be clearly irrelevant.

Why did the founding fathers pass gun control laws "infringement" into effect which on their face seems to conflict with the 2nd Amendment? I have never received an intelligent answer even though many have tried.
You have some example of this, I trust? Which founding father, exactly, passed which infringing gun control laws, exactly?


I wonder how many members of this forum/thread are felons ranting against America and her laws governing firearms? :rolleyes:
Nice trolling. You might not want to pursue this line of argumentation.


You know, in my earlier post, where I mentioned that we strive for civility here, I don't believe I suggested that veiled insults constitute civility.

Consider your words.

Ruggles
July 5, 2009, 07:27 PM
It is very clear that a number of posters here believe that the US Govt took a misstep with background checks. I am not one of those. I am interested in what those who do believe that a misstep was taken think will happen regarding this. Please notice I said what will happen not what should happen in your view.


What will background checks (if there are any) look like 10 years from now? 20 years?

I would suggest they are here to stay, I see no realistic reason they would be removed. Believing this I choose to focus my efforts on preventing a new AWB from passing. Some would say this makes me weak in my 2nd A stance, I say it makes me realistic to base my efforts where they can do some good. I do not believe railing against restriction on full auto, having to have a state issued permit to conceal carry or on background checks makes and real sense.

I am really interested in how those who do not agree with me see their efforts bearing any worthwhile fruit. I mean that in a respectful way.

General Geoff
July 5, 2009, 07:30 PM
It is very clear that a number of posters here believe that the US Govt took a misstep with background checks.
Damn right it did.

I am interested in what those who do believe that a misstep was taken think will happen regarding this.

If we push enough, background checks CAN be abolished. It's not likely to happen though, without a radical shift in political ideology in Washington. It is our job to make that shift happen.

Ruggles
July 5, 2009, 07:39 PM
"I wonder how many members of this forum/thread are felons ranting against America and her laws governing firearms?
Nice trolling. You might not want to pursue this line of argumentation.


You know, in my earlier post, where I mentioned that we strive for civility here, I don't believe I suggested that veiled insults constitute civility.

Consider your words."

I have to say I would agree that some folks who rail against that particular piece of law are indeed felons. I am sure there are many felons who feel they have "served their time" and therefore should not be restricted from anything. I have no ideal what the poster was implying in that particular post but I do think in general it's a valid point.

BTW I agree felons should not be able to own firearms. The jail time served is only part of their overall punishment to me. The stigma of being a convicted felons and all the negativity that carries is yet one more part of their sentence. Same thing as a dishonorable discharge from the armed services IMO, follows you wherever you go.

Ruggles
July 5, 2009, 07:42 PM
"If we push enough, background checks CAN be abolished. It's not likely to happen though, without a radical shift in political ideology in Washington. It is our job to make that shift happen."

As I said IMO it is never going to happen. I simply can not see the American people ever supporting that in any significant majority. If that is true there is never going to be enough political capital to get it removed.

ArfinGreebly
July 5, 2009, 08:06 PM
BTW I agree felons should not be able to own firearms. The jail time served is only part of their overall punishment to me.

You evidently do not subscribe to the idea the people can change or that actual redemption is possible.

Pray tell, then, why would you ever let someone who clearly can't be rehabilitated back out on the streets, only to dog them the rest of their lives with reminders of what they may not do -- while at the same time forcing every honest man who wants a gun to prove he's not one of the felons you've let loose in the streets.

You incarcerate someone in the "Department of Corrections" knowing they'll never be corrected, then you tease them by letting them out in society while denying their redemption and restoration of rights, and use that as an excuse to apply the "prove you're a good guy" filter to millions of folks who have committed no crime.

I thought "cruel and unusual" punishment was unconstitutional?

Wouldn't it be kinder to simply execute them, rather than making them spend the rest of their lives being told, "you can never be normal, you can never be whole again, you're a loser, you're a bad person, we can never ever trust you, and we want to make sure you suffer for eternity for what you did."

You give them nothing to lose.

How is that humane or just?

Mohawk
July 5, 2009, 08:21 PM
Concerning convicted/released violent felons and guns, here are some factual statistics to mull over.

In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)
* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)
* As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison. (62)
* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:
Murder
10.0 years
Rape
7.6 years
Aggravated Assault
3.4 years
* In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year. (3)
* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)
* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)
* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

All statistics are sourced through the link.
This site is the internet poster's secret weapon. You can get facts for any subject you need. www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Ruggles
July 5, 2009, 08:29 PM
"You evidently do not subscribe to the idea the people can change or that actual redemption is possible.

Pray tell, then, why would you ever let someone who clearly can't be rehabilitated back out on the streets, only to dog them the rest of their lives with reminders of what they may not do -- while at the same time forcing every honest man who wants a gun to prove he's not one of the felons you've let loose in the streets.

You incarcerate someone in the "Department of Corrections" knowing they'll never be corrected, then you tease them by letting them out in society while denying their redemption and restoration of rights, and use that as an excuse to apply the "prove you're a good guy" filter to millions of folks who have committed no crime.

I thought "cruel and unusual" punishment was unconstitutional?

Wouldn't it be kinder to simply execute them, rather than making them spend the rest of their lives being told, "you can never be normal, you can never be whole again, you're a loser, you're a bad person, we can never ever trust you, and we want to make sure you suffer for eternity for what you did."

You give them nothing to lose.

How is that humane or just?"


Sorry you must have not fully understood what I was trying to say.

I never said that they could not be rehabilitated, I certainly did not mean to imply it either. They can be released from prison fully rehabilitated but not be done with their payment to society IMO.

The prison sentence is only part of their payment to society for their crime. The many negatives coming from being a convicted felons is as much part of their payment for their crimes as was their prison sentence. I do not think those negatives have to end at the prison gate. Everyone knows that life as a convicted felon sucks even after prison, it is not as if i am suggesting some "secret" extra punishment for them. I would think someone considering armed robbery should know that even if they are caught and released after 5-6 years from prison their life would still suck. I would see that as a extra deterrent to committing the crime in the first place.

That is not "cruel and unusual punishment" IMO in anyway. I think society has the right to hold people accountable for their actions. I personally have little to no compassion for felons and I am sure that we disagree on that which would explain our vastly different views on this subject. No big deal really we just see things differently.

I am interested in knowing do you think some felons should be able to own firearms? All felons? I find it interesting to know where you would draw the line as I draw it at all felons.

Ruggles
July 5, 2009, 08:35 PM
" As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:
Murder
10.0 years
Rape
7.6 years
Aggravated Assault
3.4 years"

Yet more reasons I am for much longer terms (i.e. life) forms of punishment. None and I mean none of the folks convicted of the crimes above should ever be allowed to be treated as "full" citizens in society again IMO.

AKElroy
July 5, 2009, 08:39 PM
I did not read the entire thread, but the OP seems to be making a fundamental argument for who is the boss in this REPUBLIC of ours; to wit---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

They exist to serve OUR interest, using power WE gave them. They ARE us. We did not institute a governement to limit or protect us FROM these enumerated rights, rather we insured through our founding documents that these rights would be protected FROM the propencity of governments to feed on those that gave them power. Given the abuses of the crown, this was the PRIMARY worry of our founders. The only discussion here should be regarding what power we are willing to let the GOVERNMENT hold over us; with regard to RKBA, none is the right answer unless I have done something that warrants my rights being infringed; and even then, it is the perview of the states to determine to what extent a felon may have surrendered 2A protections as part of the disposition of his particular case.

rainbowbob
July 5, 2009, 08:42 PM
I am interested in knowing do you think some felons should be able to own firearms? All felons? I find it interesting to know where you would draw the line as I draw it at all felons.

Putting aside for a moment the issues of convicted violent felons being released on our streets - can you please explain the reasoning behind denying the right of self-defense to a felon who has NOT committed a violent crime?

Shame and stigma for having made a mistake is one thing. Being denied the basic human right to defend oneself is quite another.

If we believe a felon convicted of a violent crime is too dangerous to be on the streets, then our sentencing policies should reflect that.

Felons convicted of non-violent crimes may be no more likely to commit criminal violence than you or I. Stripping citizens of their rights - even convicted felons - should only be considered if it can clearly be demonstrated to increase public safety.

I challenge you to explain to us how this could be so.

t165
July 5, 2009, 08:49 PM
rainbowbob...I used to think gun control was new to America's history. Then I found out different. I have learned that a closed mind is an ignorant mind. I may not like history and facts but to be informed requires learning. A visit to local libraries should help you research the matter of early gun control if you wish to learn. A simple google search will also assist you but the internet is full of argument/viewpoints instead of fact so separating the wheat from the chaff may take so time.

American history is replete with gun control. Vast and repetitive, both before and after the adoption of the 2nd amendment. Some on this thread get so mad when they hear this they pee all over themselves. But it is simply the truth.

I'll list a few examples both before and after the 2nd Amendment was created.

Marylands first gun control law was established in 1715 (or about that time). Chapter XLIV, section XXXll of the acts of 1715 basically stated a negro or other slave (yes...not all slaves were black) could not own/posess a firearm unless his master allowed him to.

Maryland also passed laws on or about 1756 which forbid roman catholics from owning firearms or ammunition.

On or around 1806 Maryland included mulattos from owning not only firearms but dogs. Now a free negro could own (1) dog if he obtained permission from the authorities.

The New York Sullivan law of the early 1900's forbid classes of white immigrants from owning/possessing firearms. Other states in the same time frame had similar laws.

States and territories all throughout America's history have practiced gun control regardless of the many individual interperations of the 2nd Amendment. Native Americans were deprived of firearm ownership. Enslaved chinese shipped into America were not allowed to own/posess firearms. Numerous settlements/towns/cities have always had gun control. Even Wyatt Earp and other famous lawmen enforced gun control. I could go on and on.

And ArfinGreebly...your arguments are nothing but sour grapes. You have lost the political fight. Somebody give this man some smelling salts to wake him up. He's been knocked out and is still groggy from the punch.

The law of the land states felons cannot legally own firearms. Those adjudicated mentally ill cannot lawfully own firearms. And I am perfectly aware criminals and mentally ill individuals do own/posess firearms. But I'll be ****** if I'm going to say it is okay. I have arrested individuals who illegally posessed firearms...I took their firearms away from them. This is the way it is and the way it will always be. I do not feel bad about it. I believe responsible law abiding citizens should be allowed to own firearms. partly to protect themselves from the gun-toting criminal minded idiots out there. Years ago a local child molester picked-up a 14 year old retarted boy off the sidewalk in front of his house. Took him to a local rural park and put a gun to his head and make him perfrom oral sex. We put this sick piece of **** in prison. Anyone who wishes to place a firearm in his hand again after he has served his time is a truly pathetic individual to my way of thinking. Now if ArfinGreebly wants to arm child molesters to rape children then he and I will have to agree to disagree on this point. I guess he can just sue me!

I have stated before I find comfort knowing the law is on my side. I and those who agree with me have won the fight. Those who have lost are mad but it is only talk...no muscle to back anything up. There has always been gun control laws. It is not that firearms are inherently evil, but many individuals are, thus the restrictions.

Ruggles
July 5, 2009, 08:55 PM
I think we are on a different page on this matter.

1. I could care less if the felon if violent or not, it simply makes no difference to me.
2. I could care less if they were released after doing their full sentence in prison, or if they were released early.
3. I could care less if they were deemed fully rehabilitated or 1/2 or not at all. Not everyone who gets out of prison is considered by anyone to be rehabilitated in anyway.
4. I could care less if they can defend themselves or not.
5. I think that everything that a felony conviction carries with it after the prison time is in fact part of their sentence from society. I support that 100%.
6. I have made it 40+ years, raising 3 kids and married for 17 years never having been accused or convicted of a felony. I have no compassion for those convicted of felonies. The age old "can't do the time don't due the crime" is an old and well known saying for a reason. Truth is eternal is someways.
7. My views on this have absolutely nothing to do with rather I would consider them dangerous or not.
8. Accuse me of being to too hard on felons, we could debate that. We do not need to debate rather my position is thought out on not IMO.

Ruggles
July 5, 2009, 08:59 PM
"There has always been gun control laws. It is not that firearms are inherently evil, but many individuals are, thus the restrictions."

Pretty much sums it up IMO.

daorhgih
July 5, 2009, 09:10 PM
We tell the released felon, "....you're a loser, you're a bad person, we can never ever trust you, and we want to make sure you suffer for eternity for what you did. You give them nothing to lose. How is that humane or just?" Then how do we keep convicted, released rapists from looking at women?? How do we ensure ourselves that "he has really changed."?

Ruggles
July 5, 2009, 09:22 PM
"We tell the released felon, "....you're a loser, you're a bad person, we can never ever trust you, and we want to make sure you suffer for eternity for what you did. You give them nothing to lose. How is that humane or just?" Then how do we keep convicted, released rapists from looking at women?? How do we ensure ourselves that "he has really changed."?"

No offense meant but what does a rapist looking at a women have to do with rather they can legally buy firearms or not? I am not talking in anyway about someone's conversion or lack of conversion in prison.

As for humane or just I lost the desire to show them those traits when they were convicted. Again I state I am not interested in if they have changed or not when we are talking about their rights or lack of rights after prison.

I am pretty hardline about convicted felons so my views may not be shared by all. I do seem to agree with the majority of the American people as these have been and remain the laws of the land.

AKElroy
July 5, 2009, 09:27 PM
It is very clear that a number of posters here believe that the US Govt took a misstep with background checks. I am not one of those. I am interested in what those who do believe that a misstep was taken think will happen regarding this. Please notice I said what will happen not what should happen in your view.

I am one of these. This is one area that most agree is a common sense measure, and why I believe we are blessed to not live in a democracy. However, at some point, we must acknowledge that at the very least NICS consitutes a governmental permission slip to exercise a right. I reject that notion. Arms ar not cars; they are SPECIFICALLY protected FROM governmental infringement. That said---

We tell the released felon, "....you're a loser, you're a bad person, we can never ever trust you, and we want to make sure you suffer for eternity for what you did. You give them nothing to lose. How is that humane or just?" Then how do we keep convicted, released rapists from looking at women?? How do we ensure ourselves that "he has really changed."?

Unlike the above post, I believe violent felons have already surrenderd any notion that thier future will not be subject to infringements by the state. I absolutely agree that fellons convicted of a violent act should be not be allowed to posses a firearm for whatever timeframe the state deems appropriate to their crime. HOW and BY WHOM these restrictions are enforced is critically important. First, such restrictions should clearly be state restrictions, (NOT Federal law). Second, only the offenders themselves should be effected. Let ROPE officers scrutinize the released all they want to see if they have acquired a gun, again, subject to the terms of their parole. It is NOT proper governnance to assume my potential guilt by requiring me to seek permission via NICS.

rainbowbob
July 5, 2009, 10:00 PM
t165:

You wrote the following:

Why did the founding fathers pass gun control laws...into effect which on their face seems to conflict with the 2nd Amendment?

None of the specific examples you provided in your subsequent post include any instance in which the "founding fathers" passed gun control laws in conflict with the 2A.

Perhaps we need to stipulate to the definition of "founding fathers"? Can we agree that term refers to those men who debated, wrote, and signed The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights?

As pointed out by Arfin, gun control laws enacted prior to the the 2A are irrelevant to your question, as are gun control laws enacted by states, cities, or communities after the 2A.

Perhaps you've never received an intelligent answer to your question because the basic premise of your question is so flawed.

If you have any examples of the framers responsible for enacting the 2A having also subsequently enacted gun control laws in conflict with the 2A - please provide them.

I won't suspend my respiratory functions while waiting.

Ruggles
July 5, 2009, 10:08 PM
Rainbowbob I think you are missing his point. The fact that gun laws have been around since the inception of this country clearly shows that the debate on gun control and the limits or non limits of the 2nd A are nothing new. The very fact that this debate is still ongoing into it's 4th century (1700s, 1800s, 1900s and 2000s) clearly shows me that their is no simple answer as some would suggest. It may be a very clear and simple answer to you and other on this forum but I think 200+ plus years of debate would have to show that indeed it is not.

ArfinGreebly
July 5, 2009, 10:28 PM
Rainbowbob I think you are missing his point.
No. The man cited founding fathers to make his point. You keep moving the target to keep from getting pinned down on the principle.

The fact that gun laws have been around since the inception of this country clearly shows that the debate on gun control and the limits or non limits of the 2nd A are nothing new.
Signifying exactly what? Slavery is nothing new, either.

The very fact that this debate is still ongoing into it's 4th century (1700s, 1800s, 1900s and 2000s) clearly shows me that their is no simple answer as some would suggest.
But, simple or not, it turns out there IS an answer. It's the Second Amendment.

It may be a very clear and simple answer to you and other on this forum but I think 200+ plus years of debate would have to show that indeed it is not.
Behold, Democracy! "I've got more guys on my side, so we're right and you're wrong."


It really is simple.

It only becomes complicated when you need to abridge a simple declaration of an inviolate right in order to secure your position in control of the populace.

If you imagine for an instant that controlling honest people's access to weapons will somehow solve, or even reduce, crime, you are solving the wrong problem.

Murder can be effected with pretty much anything. Centuries of history show this clearly.

Guns, however, are the only tool that makes resistance to tyranny practical.

Pretending that gun control does anything other than impair honest men from their own defense is either willful ignorance or open dishonesty.

AKElroy
July 5, 2009, 10:37 PM
From where I sit, I hope the anti-gun crowd never read your post, for if they ever get the idea that we as responsible gun owners as a group have no compromise but stand fast on the total repeal of all gun laws then they will paint us as such to society. An image we in the trenches do not want to be tagged with. By the same token if the anti gun crowd ever pick up on the theory that all gun laws are useless and don’t work then they’re only recourse is to agree with that premise and their only platform will be to ban all firearms, period. Meanwhile, us guys who man the gun rights trenches will go on fighting the good fight and continue to take the abuse from the various soap box patriots on this and various other gun boards.

Judging from the Huffington Post, I find it a little insulting to suggest we need be concerned about being viewed as extremist. Those concerns never cross the minds of our opposition. You are fighting the fight as it comes, as I hope we all are. One bad bill at a time, one anti politician at a time. I commend that. These efforts are doing a fine job of slowing our defeat; they can never bring about victory. Ultimately, the ONLY way to prevail is to educate the fundamentals of our founding, and the sanctity of our basic rights. You suggest we must appear mainstream to prevail, I argue that these efforts simply conceed to the opposition that RKBA is the governments' to dispense; giving up precious ground that forfeights the entire base of our collective opposition. This is at its core an argument of principle. Should we stop quoting our founders intentions? Our very founding documents are viewed as extremist propaganda by the left in this country. At some point we need to understand that the left are offended by our existance and our politics, and they want us defeated. Conceeding sacred ground simply hands them victory without an argument based in principle ever being employed.

I hope the anti-gun crowd never read your post, for if they ever get the idea that we as responsible gun owners as a group have no compromise but stand fast on the total repeal of all gun laws then they will paint us as such to society.

They already do. Joining them in more restrictions is simply joining them in opposition to RKBA; Exactly how "They" became "them" to begin with.

christcorp
July 5, 2009, 10:38 PM
Arfin; Obviously we will never agree. Personally, I believe you have twisted quite a bit of what I and others have posted. But let's put that aside, and let me ask you a very simple question.

Are there ANY CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY that you believe SHOULD NOT own a gun? Minors? Convicted Rapists? Convicted Murderers? Child Molesters? Mentally Ill? Elderly with Alzheimer's? Psychopaths with multiple split personalities? I'll let you come up with some other possibilities. But it's a SIMPLE QUESTION. Should ANY of the people I listed, or any other category that I may not have thought to mention, fall into a category in which you would AGREE that they shouldn't be allowed to "Exercise their Right to the 2nd amendment"?

Now, if you say NO; that there shouldn't be ANY PEOPLE EVER in the country that shouldn't be allowed to Keep and Bear Arms; then don't even read the rest of the thread, because it will make no difference to you, me, or anyone else. Just leave it at you don't believe in ANY RESTRICTIONS on citizens of the United States being allowed to Keep and Bear Arms.

Now; assuming you said YES; which I would have to guess that PROBABLY 99.99999998374% of all Americans would say YES to; the 2nd part of the question is:

HOW do you determine IF a person falls under any category that you would agree shouldn't be allowed to Keep and Bear Arms???? Isn't that what a Background Check is???

And if you read my posts as I wrote them, and not what you THINK I said; you would see that I made it quite clear that it is NOT UP TO THE CITIZEN TO PROVE THEY SHOULD be allowed to Keep and Bear arms. I specifically said that it's the government's RESPONSIBILITY to prove that the individual shouldn't be allowed. And they would have to do that INSTANTLY or the citizen is given the Benefit of the Doubt and should be allowed to buy the gun then and there. I DON'T believe in waiting periods of any kind. If the state wants to enact permits, licenses, background checks, etc.... Fine. BUT IT MUST BE DONE INSTANTLY!!!! The citizen should NOT be required to have to prove their innocence and they shouldn't have to WAIT to exercise their right.

But there ARE some people that should not be allowed to Keep and Bear arms. And no matter how you want to play the word game; if you believe that there is even 1 person out there that SHOULDN'T be allowed to keep and bear arms; (Just like there are some people that shouldn't have a driver's license; even though denying it could be considered an infringement on the person's right "LIBERTY" and also their "Pursuit of Happiness". Yet we realize that there are some people because of medical issues; numerous alcohol related incidents; old age; etc... shouldn't be allowed a drivers license. Well, for these same examples; maybe some people shouldn't be allowed to Keep and Bear Arms. And if we agree that even 1 "TYPE" of person shouldn't be allowed to keep and bear arms, then we have to agree that there has to be some method in place to determine if a person falls into that category.

Don't get me wrong. I think we have WAY TOO MANY GUN LAWS. I think many of them are redundant and useless. I think many (At the state level) do in fact INFRINGE on a citizen's right to Keep and Bear arms. My who argument is against those who believe that ALL LAWS should be abolished. And yes, when PEOPLE are involved and interacting with each other, there must be rules/laws/policies established for social order. Some are culturally developed. (You don't stand in front of a group giving a speech, and pick your nose and eat it. It's not a law, but it's a social norm). Some are legally developed. (You don't stand in front of a group giving a speech and begin to masturbate).

But again, to stay specific; I believe that we only need 4 laws concerning guns.
1. WHO can have them. (No, I don't believe that ALL should. Including minors, mental patients, drug/alcohol abusers, etc...)
2. WHERE you can shoot it. (There are idiots who would sit on their front porch in a populated area shoot it just because "They Can"). Or they are shooting on/across someone else's private property.
3. WHEN you can shoot it. There are the obvious times such as in self defense, hunting, sport shooting, plinking, etc.... (Again, there are idiots who would try to do that old western style bullying where they are picking on someone and shoot the ground at their feet and yell "DANCE")
4. WHAT happens if you break one of the first 3 laws. Basically the punishment for someone who ABUSES their right. Someone who abuses someone else's rights.

I personally think these are the ONLY 4 laws that need to exist. And I believe that they should/could be NATIONAL. This way a person can buy a gun legally in ANY state. We also wouldn't require a permit to carry concealed. But to say that NO GUN LAWS ARE NECESSARY is ridiculous. There's a lot of people our there that really don't have any business Keeping and Bearing Arms. And none of this argument is cliche Straw Men crap. There ARE people in society that require laws. And no, you can't just have laws against the crime and NOT for the tool used. Not when the tool used has ONLY 1 PRIMARY PURPOSE. To Kill people. That's what we are discussing. Defending ourselves. Just like a car has 1 MAIN PURPOSE. Yet there are now offenses CALLED "VEHICULAR HOMICIDE". Specifically because even though the main purpose of a car is to transport; more people die in automobiles than from guns. And ALCOHOL and DRUGS are tools; and they have laws attached to them.

Sorry; but I firmly believe that if the government wants to set standards; then as long as those standards can be met INSTANTLY and does not delay or stop the citizen from having a gun and exercising their right to Keep and Bear arms; and ANY denial of a citizen based on accepted reasons, MUST be proven by the state; It is not up to the citizen to prove innocence; then I don't see any infringement on rights. Now, if the citizen even has to wait 1 day; that's unacceptable.

Seminole
July 5, 2009, 10:39 PM
The reality of the matter is that individual rights should not and do not have the ability to superseded the rights of society (and thus other individuals) as a whole. There are and should be limits to all rights, you can not have a society functions without those limits.

Once again, please define what you mean by "rights." It doesn't seem to mean what is meant by that word in the Constitution.

Natural rights--the Framers of the Constitution referred to these as "unalienable" rights--as understood by Locke, Hutcheson, and other philosophers who influenced the Framers, pertain only to individual human beings and are an inherent part of what it means to be human. While all individuals have the same rights, "society" is simply a collection of individuals and does not and has no rights at all.

The rights enshrined in the Constitution (as well as those not mentioned specifically, but referred to in the 9th Ammendment as retained by the people) all derive from the basic and natural condition of being human--self ownership (I'm specifically following Locke's argument here, though you can find the same reasoning in other 17th and early 18th-century philosophers). Because I own myself and others own themselves, we can agree to gather together: this is the origin of the right to free assembly. Because I own myself, I own what I work for: this is the origin of the right to property.

One of the characteristics of these natural rights is that they are, in philosophical terms, "negative rights." That is, they impose no obligation on anyone else other than to permit me to exercise them freely. Because this is so, true rights cannot conflict or "supercede" or be superceded by those of others as you assume. Let's use free speech as an illustration: while because I own myself, including my mouth, I have the right to free speech. My right to free speech, however, does not impose an obligation on anyone else to listen to me. Because like me others have the property of self-ownership, they have the right to not listen to me. My right to free speech does not conflict with their right to not listen to me. The right to a free press also illustrates the nature of true rights. While I have the right to property because I own myself and thus my labor, and I can thus purchase a printing press from a willing seller in order to publish my opinions, I do not have the "right" to force someone to sell me the press (much less to provide me with a press for free) nor to force someone to purchase the pamphlets I may print, because they have the same rights that I have.

The same principles apply to the right to keep and bear arms. This right derives from one's right to one's own life (this is essentially the principle of self-ownership). Because I am a living human being, I have the right to preserve my own life by any means necessary, including weapons. Because I own my self, I have the right to property and thus have the right to purchase, keep, and carry weapons suitable for the defense of my life. This right to keep and bear arms does not conflict with any right of any other person. My keeping and bearing a sword, pistol. or fully automatic AK-47 (for example) does not deprive anyone of his own life or property. It is important to note that the use of my weapon to threaten the life of someone who was doing me no harm or to rob her of her property is not the exercise of my right to keep and bearing of arms, but is instead a violation of the rights of another. Once again, there is no conflict between the rights of individuals. It is impossible for the rights of one individual to "supercede" the rights of another. And since "society" is not a human being, but simply a collection of such individuals, it has no rights that can be thought of as separate from those who comprise it.

Lou McGopher
July 5, 2009, 10:39 PM
This talk of governments deriving their power from consent of the governed sounds nice and all, but it's not true.

The truth is that governments derive their power through coercion of the governed.

Be wary of when the government strips one segment of society of its rights, no matter what the excuse. Eventually, it will dispossess you of those same rights.

Ruggles
July 5, 2009, 10:57 PM
"Be wary of when the government strips one segment of society of its rights, no matter what the excuse. Eventually, it will dispossess you of those same rights."

I could not disagree more, the government is nothing more than society disposing rights from themselves. I think that is is perfectly acceptable as it has been for hundreds of years. I do not buy into the view that because we as a society remove or restrict the rights of some that we will eventually do so to all. To say that is to say we have no control on the very government that wields that power, and that is not true at all. Debating this point would be beyond useless as we would never reach common ground on this.

Seminole my friend I think we are so far apart in the ways we see things to do much good debating it. You consider your rights as such that they can not and should not be subject to the rules that society. I think that society has the right to set rules and standards that do have the ability to impose control on what some might consider their rights. The issue between us is not the definition of rights, it's the view on the rights of society vs the rights of the individual. I think debate is pointless in our cases as well.

tasco 74
July 5, 2009, 11:18 PM
yep i'm a simple man too........... but don't let YOUR confusion of simple and stupid be your last mistake........................................... the founders of this nation meant the 2nd amendment to be just as a lot of us interpret it.... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed".........

Seminole
July 5, 2009, 11:33 PM
Seminole my friend I think we are so far apart in the ways we see things to do much good debating it.

If so, your view is not just far from mine, it is far from the Constitution. Another way of saying that is that it is unconstitutional. You are not bound to agree with the Constitution, of course, but in all honesty you should at least admit that you don't agree with it

The issue between us is not the definition of rights

Really? I've set out fairly clearly what "rights" meant to the philosophers who influenced the Framers, to the Framers themselves, and thus in the Constitution. It is the only way in which the concept of rights seems useful to me. But you still have not said what you mean by the term. Can you? If so, please do so.

it's the view on the rights of society vs the rights of the individual.

See, once again, the difference in views hinges on the definition of "rights." The Bill of Rights of the Constitution is replete with references to the rights of "the people," who are clearly understood as individuals, as the Supreme Court articulated even in regard to the Second Amendment in Heller. The framers understood clearly however, that neither the government nor any nebulous entity such as "society" apart from the individuals which comprise it can have any such "rights."

I think debate is pointless in our cases as well.

This seems to have become a recurring refrain whenever you can't support your position from a logical or historical point of view. If you can't do so, why should it be taken seriously?

Ruggles
July 6, 2009, 12:15 AM
As far as supporting my views logically I have done so many times, just because you do not agree with my logic does not mean it is not indeed logical.

As for historically I will stand on how we as a country and a people have governed ourself since the inception of this country. Not how you or I want to try and interpret what the founders meant, and make no mistake that is all you are doing, giving your interpretation. We have always governed by compromising with each other over our differences, just as the founders did when they created the very documents you are speaking of. Worked then, works now and will work in the future.

IMO you are dwelling too much on what you believe should be rather than what actually is regarding how laws and regulations are created in this country. As I have said before my efforts are being directed at how to "win" within the system that exist as opposed to trying to argue that system in incorrect. As much as your efforts are given in good faith (and I think they are indeed created out of a desire for the same ends as I seek) IMO they are for naught in the debate for real world 2nd A rights.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

ArfinGreebly
July 6, 2009, 12:48 AM
Arfin; Obviously we will never agree. Personally, I believe you have twisted quite a bit of what I and others have posted. But let's put that aside, and let me ask you a very simple question.

No need to twist. I see gun control as dishonest and unnecessary. You see it as the valid expression of "social authority" as personified by the government.


Are there ANY CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY that you believe SHOULD NOT own a gun? Minors? Convicted Rapists? Convicted Murderers? Child Molesters? Mentally Ill? Elderly with Alzheimer's? Psychopaths with multiple split personalities? I'll let you come up with some other possibilities. But it's a SIMPLE QUESTION. Should ANY of the people I listed, or any other category that I may not have thought to mention, fall into a category in which you would AGREE that they shouldn't be allowed to "Exercise their Right to the 2nd amendment"?

Sure. Anyone who's in prison. Anyone who's actually hospitalized for a mental disorder. Anyone who has been forbidden to own an axe, a chainsaw, rat poison, a kitchen knife, a claw hammer, a large screwdriver, a bow and arrow, and a car.

Where we differ is that you would release people deemed "unworthy" into society and make the rest of us prove we aren't those guys.

If you honestly believe a man should walk the streets, buy a car, own a kitchen knife and a box of tools, buy a bow and arrow, then for the love of Mike, let him alone. Let him defend himself.

Sure, there are plausible reasons he shouldn't own a gun, but they are either dishonest or an admission that the social system has failed.

(Children don't count in this discussion, so quit trying to make them a valid class of "prohibited persons." A ten-year-old doesn't own or drive a car, either. We're discussing adults.)


HOW do you determine IF a person falls under any category that you would agree shouldn't be allowed to Keep and Bear Arms???? Isn't that what a Background Check is???

No. The man I don't trust with a gun is locked up. I know where he is, and I don't have to keep checking everyone else to make sure you're not him. The ones I let out to walk the streets and mingle with society, I also trust with guns.

A background check assumes guilt as the default. I have to give you my ID so you can make sure I'm not in a bad guy database. So why do you think I'm a criminal until you have "checked me out" with the FBI?


And if you read my posts as I wrote them, and not what you THINK I said; you would see that I made it quite clear that it is NOT UP TO THE CITIZEN TO PROVE THEY SHOULD be allowed to Keep and Bear arms. I specifically said that it's the government's RESPONSIBILITY to prove that the individual shouldn't be allowed.

You keep saying that. And yet you support a system that does exactly this.


And they would have to do that INSTANTLY or the citizen is given the Benefit of the Doubt and should be allowed to buy the gun then and there. I DON'T believe in waiting periods of any kind. If the state wants to enact permits, licenses, background checks, etc.... Fine. BUT IT MUST BE DONE INSTANTLY!!!!

Why is that fine? Why is whatever the state wants to do fine? How is it possible that you believe this?


The citizen should NOT be required to have to prove their innocence and they shouldn't have to WAIT to exercise their right.

And yet the background check is exactly the citizen proving he's not on some prohibited list.


But there ARE some people that should not be allowed to Keep and Bear arms. And no matter how you want to play the word game; if you believe that there is even 1 person out there that SHOULDN'T be allowed to keep and bear arms; (Just like there are some people that shouldn't have a driver's license; even though denying it could be considered an infringement on the person's right "LIBERTY" and also their "Pursuit of Happiness". Yet we realize that there are some people because of medical issues; numerous alcohol related incidents; old age; etc... shouldn't be allowed a drivers license. Well, for these same examples; maybe some people shouldn't be allowed to Keep and Bear Arms. And if we agree that even 1 "TYPE" of person shouldn't be allowed to keep and bear arms, then we have to agree that there has to be some method in place to determine if a person falls into that category.

And you want the government to decide who those people should be. And you want government to "administer" this system.

Because, after hundreds of years of screwing up pretty much everything they touch, at least government gets it right with gun control.

The other thing you consistently miss is why "prohibited persons" aren't prohibited from owing or obtaining any of several dozen other deadly implements.


But again, to stay specific; I believe that we only need 4 laws concerning guns.
1. WHO can have them. (No, I don't believe that ALL should. Including minors, mental patients, drug/alcohol abusers, etc...)
2. WHERE you can shoot it. (There are idiots who would sit on their front porch in a populated area shoot it just because "They Can"). Or they are shooting on/across someone else's private property.
3. WHEN you can shoot it. There are the obvious times such as in self defense, hunting, sport shooting, plinking, etc.... (Again, there are idiots who would try to do that old western style bullying where they are picking on someone and shoot the ground at their feet and yell "DANCE")
4. WHAT happens if you break one of the first 3 laws. Basically the punishment for someone who ABUSES their right. Someone who abuses someone else's rights.

Your #1 involves prior restraint. Can't agree.
Your #2 is the subject of local ordinances, and I generally have no beef there.
Your #3 is, likewise, a matter of state and local law. Some are okay, some are egregiously stupid.
Your #4 is mostly going to be covered by other laws. Murder, reckless endangerment, assault, battery, intimidation, and so on are pretty much already covered. I've already explained why "special case" legislation is a bad idea.


I personally think these are the ONLY 4 laws that need to exist. And I believe that they should/could be NATIONAL.

No. Expecting the federal government to adequately fashion ordinances of localities is foolish.


This way a person can buy a gun legally in ANY state. We also wouldn't require a permit to carry concealed.

Rock on.


But to say that NO GUN LAWS ARE NECESSARY is ridiculous.

And no one has proposed this.


There's a lot of people our there that really don't have any business Keeping and Bearing Arms.

Yes, but they're all locked up.


And none of this argument is cliche Straw Men crap.

Cliche? How quaint. You're probably not going to get your wish.


There ARE people in society that require laws.

Ironically, the ones who need them the most are the ones least likely to obey them.


And no, you can't just have laws against the crime and NOT for the tool used.

And this is where you go off into the weeds. A just and fair law addresses behavior and conduct, not possessions or property. If there isn't a victim, there isn't a crime.


Not when the tool used has ONLY 1 PRIMARY PURPOSE. To Kill people.

Painting with a rather broad brush. Why aren't 80 million gun owners out there killing people then? Is it that they don't grasp the purpose of this tool they've bought? How dare they hunt quail and deer and wild hogs! And all those holes in paper targets -- gads, what a waste. Clearly, these people are too stupid to own guns, as they have completely failed to grasp their purpose.

And, no, it isn't that they refrain from killing people because of the law. It's something they wouldn't do anyway.

Oddly, your "primary purpose" clause is closer to the mark than it might at first seem. Those who mean to rule us worry about exactly that, because that makes firearms an effective tool of resistance to tyranny.


That's what we are discussing. Defending ourselves.

Defending ourselves =/= killing people.


Just like a car has 1 MAIN PURPOSE. Yet there are now offenses CALLED "VEHICULAR HOMICIDE". Specifically because even though the main purpose of a car is to transport; more people die in automobiles than from guns. And ALCOHOL and DRUGS are tools; and they have laws attached to them.

I might note that if you murder someone with a car, the judge is probably not going to worry much about the car's "main purpose." He's interested in the crime -- the act -- more than the tool. Unless, of course, he's working with legislated "sentencing guidelines" that apply to assault cars.


Sorry; but I firmly believe that if the government wants to set standards; then as long as those standards can be met INSTANTLY and does not delay or stop the citizen from having a gun and exercising their right to Keep and Bear arms; and ANY denial of a citizen based on accepted reasons, MUST be proven by the state; It is not up to the citizen to prove innocence; then I don't see any infringement on rights. Now, if the citizen even has to wait 1 day; that's unacceptable.

I find your faith in government quite breathtaking.


I am prepared to stipulate that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

You're prepared to violate constitutional principles in order to feel safer, and you're willing to entrust that to a government.

I find that deeply troubling.

I hope that, in time, with experience, and with more study, you will find it troubling, too.

For now, however, I can only reflect that I once thought along the lines you do.

I had to live through some stuff before I began to question what "everybody knows" as true.

You're not going to learn this from me.

I guess I'll have to live with that.

christcorp
July 6, 2009, 02:39 AM
I believe that everything I've said, and the manner, is totally constitutional. I am living in the real world, and you're living in a "I wish it was" world. You think that a mass murderer, child molester, rapist, etc.... should be locked up for eternity. That's fine. That would be nice. The problem is, they WON'T be locked up for eternity. They will be back out among society. You also believe that these felons who have paid their debt to society are therefor rehabilitated and worthy of having ALL of their rights reinstated. Again, a dream world. They shouldn't have ALL their rights reinstated. How many states have a "3 Strikes" law? That's because those being released from prison are committing more crimes and going back in.

Now; fix the judicial system; make it where criminals of physical crimes against others are never released; and we can talk about having NO GUN LAWS. Work out where we never have to have laws concerning the 1st amendment right to free speech, expression and religion; and we can talk about no gun laws at all. You say that in theory You say that no one has proposed have NO GUN LAWS. Wrong. MANY on this forum have proposed EXACTLY THAT. And even you have not been able to get yourself to admit that some gun laws are required.

But the bottom line is that until there is a judicial system that keeps felons in prison forever, there WILL be people on the streets that shouldn't have guns. And they AREN'T all in prison or a mental hospital. (And kids DO count; because no where in the constitution have I read where the magical age of 18 or 21 years old is the age of adulthood. That is a modern law, and APPARENTLY one that you are willing to agree with because it fits your argument. So yes, we can mention 10 year olds walking into a pawn shop and buying a gun. So you must then be saying that it's OK to have a law that says you MUST be 21 to purchase a handgun???? Why not 18???? Why not 16????? And IF it is 21 years old, and you agree with this law, then how can you agree to the individual who is buying a gun HAVING TO SHOW THEIR DRIVERS LICENSE. Aren't they having to PROVE that they are "Eligible" to purchase a gun. See, you want some rules/laws to apply, but you don't want others. I can agree with this. Some laws suck. But if you AGREE that a person has to be a certain age to purchase a gun, then there has to be some way of verifying that they are that age. That's a background check. Maybe it's as simple as a drivers license. But because our failed legal system allows murderers and mental patients to leave their facilities and come back into society, then we have to determine if they are one of the folks walking into the pawn shop trying to buy the gun.

Now, I've heard these arguments way too many times over the years. I am a staunch believe and supporter of the constitution. I have studied it for many years. I spent 21 years swearing an oath to protect and defend it. And I will do whatever it takes to ensure that it does survive. But I can't just sit by and listen to people believe that we live in some sort of Rodney King dream world "Where we All get along". That isn't the real world. And because WE THE PEOPLE is made up of more than just you and your rights; and because not everyone is willing to respect each other's rights; some laws are required. And because our judicial system has flaws, we sometimes have to restrict certain individuals in society from having guns, cars, and other freedoms. At least legally. And sometimes, the only way to determine if an individual is eligible to retain their rights and certain freedoms, is to check into that person.

rainbowbob
July 6, 2009, 03:33 AM
This some pretty good debate goin' on in this here thread.

t165
July 6, 2009, 04:11 AM
rainbowbob...I posted answers to some of the questions you asked me. Apparently my answers upset someone...they have disappeared! :rolleyes: It appears the 1st Amendment is not sacred here. There appears to be redacting afoot! Restricting one Constitutional Admendment in an attempt to preserve another. The irony of it all.

There is no standard I am aware of in defining the phrase "founding fathers". Most seem to agree the definition includes both the "signers" of the Declaration of Independence and the "framers", the delegates who attended the Federal Convention which drafted the Constitution. Some include different individuals like prominent military personel and others.

I feel the gun control laws practiced before the adoption of the United States Constitution and passage of the original Bill of Rights is historically and legally important. Most were simply absorbed by the subsequent state constitutions during ratification. If you really wish to learn America's history and the involvement of our founding fathers concerning gun control then research the various state constitutions and laws in that time period. I have offered example after example to support my arguments and why go throught he trouble of listing references when I have just had whole posts removed from this thread because someone did not like what I had to say or support my position.

Abraham Lincoln said..."let the people know the truth and the country is safe". I'm a bit disappointed some powers-that-be here at The High Road do not believe in that!

waterhouse
July 6, 2009, 10:30 AM
rainbowbob...I posted answers to some of the questions you asked me. Apparently my answers upset someone...they have disappeared! It appears the 1st Amendment is not sacred here. There appears to be redacting afoot! Restricting one Constitutional Admendment in an attempt to preserve another. The irony of it all.

Here we go again:

http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html

A note on FREE SPEECH:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is greatly respected here on The High Road, as are all other Amendments that the Second Amendment defends. However, The High Road is private property and requests that members adhere to all forum policies. It is a contract agreed to by all who become members of The High Road. Those who break forum rules cannot invoke censorship or freedom of speech - a contract broken is a contract broken. If you do not like the rules of conduct or the acceptable topics, seek out a new venue to frequent or start your own board.


I feel the gun control laws practiced before the adoption of the United States Constitution and passage of the original Bill of Rights is historically and legally important.

I feel the same. However, the fact that there have always been gun control laws, though legally and historically important, does not answer your claim that:

Why did the founding fathers pass gun control laws "infringement" into effect which on their face seems to conflict with the 2nd Amendment?

rainbowbob (I am also curious. I don't doubt that it is possible, I just want to see real, actual proof) simply asked you to show which of the Founding Fathers proposed gun control laws.


I have offered example after example to support my arguments and why go throught he trouble of listing references when I have just had whole posts removed from this thread because someone did not like what I had to say or support my position.

You have offered several examples, but none that seem to have been proposed by the men who founded the country. Also, I read your last post (the deleted one), and it was mostly a response to a picture of a Troll doll. In fact, in that post you asked that the moderator do his job and do what he said he would do in post number 21, in which Arfin stated:

We try to encourage civil discussions here at THR.

Baiting and sniping and ridicule are not civil.

Discuss the topic, argue the merits, propose a thesis, or whatever.

Leave the personal jabs out of it.

I won't offer this advice a second time.

Then the moderator did his job, and erased the picture of the Troll doll and your response to it. I read the post and again saw no Founding Father's names mentioned, nor the gun control laws that they enacted.

One other thing:

Many of the gun control laws you point to in our history were based on the belief that some people (mainly anyone who was not a property owning white male) were not equal in rights to, well, property owning white males.

The slaves you refer to weren't allowed to vote either. They were seen as property. There were laws throughout out short history that tried to keep non white males from having the same rights as white males. These laws, although they are in our history and are of historical and legal importance, and although they were practiced by our founding fathers, were still terrible laws.

We have (hopefully) evolved as a nation to think beyond this concept.

So I will take your question one step further. I challenge you to prove that our founding fathers ever enacted legislation that imposed gun control on "the people," keeping in mind that their version of "people" was more racist and elitist than ours is.

In another thread you said that your college professor proved you wrong and changed your mind on this issue. That happened to me several times in college as well, and they are the lessons I remember most clearly. There are ~39 signers to the Constitution, and I believe ~56 to the Declaration of Independence (although many of these names overlap). If your professor made you aware of any of these men actually enacting gun control laws please share the name of the Founding Father in question.

ArfinGreebly
July 6, 2009, 10:32 AM
I believe that everything I've said, and the manner, is totally constitutional.

We will disagree here.


I am living in the real world, and you're living in a "I wish it was" world.

I argue for the principle. You argue that we have to accept what has become.


You think that a mass murderer, child molester, rapist, etc.... should be locked up for eternity.

Or terminated. Or fully rehabilitated. That's the principle. You don't let heinous felons wander the streets.


That's fine. That would be nice. The problem is, they WON'T be locked up for eternity. They will be back out among society.

Accepting what has become.



You also believe that these felons who have paid their debt to society are therefor rehabilitated and worthy of having ALL of their rights reinstated. Again, a dream world.

Not quite what I've said. Rehabilitation is possible. Real redemption. Those folks get returned to society. Sitting in a box for 10 years isn't either one, and isn't the same as "paying one's debt to society." This isn't "what is" but it's "what can be." It's the principle.


They shouldn't have ALL their rights reinstated. How many states have a "3 Strikes" law? That's because those being released from prison are committing more crimes and going back in.

Citing the failure of society and social programs in support of gun control. And we already know gun control doesn't affect crime.


Now; fix the judicial system; make it where criminals of physical crimes against others are never released;

. . . or are fully rehabilitated . . .


and we can talk about having NO GUN LAWS.

I already do. Oh, and it's not "gun laws," it's "gun control" laws. I don't have a beef with usage ordinances. Proscribing tool ownership fixes the wrong problem.


Work out where we never have to have laws concerning the 1st amendment right to free speech, expression and religion; and we can talk about no gun laws at all.

Irrelevant. Using one body of laws to justify another is absurd.


You say that in theory You say that no one has proposed have NO GUN LAWS. Wrong. MANY on this forum have proposed EXACTLY THAT. And even you have not been able to get yourself to admit that some gun laws are required.

See above, and my earlier writings. "Gun laws" is too imprecise a term.

But the bottom line is that until there is a judicial system that keeps felons in prison forever, there WILL be people on the streets that shouldn't have guns. And they AREN'T all in prison or a mental hospital.

They shouldn't have knives or chain saws, either. And a long list of other deadly implements. And you still want me to jump through hoops to prove I'm not him.


(And kids DO count; because no where in the constitution have I read where the magical age of 18 or 21 years old is the age of adulthood. That is a modern law, and APPARENTLY one that you are willing to agree with because it fits your argument. So yes, we can mention 10 year olds walking into a pawn shop and buying a gun. So you must then be saying that it's OK to have a law that says you MUST be 21 to purchase a handgun???? Why not 18???? Why not 16????? And IF it is 21 years old, and you agree with this law, then how can you agree to the individual who is buying a gun HAVING TO SHOW THEIR DRIVERS LICENSE. Aren't they having to PROVE that they are "Eligible" to purchase a gun. See, you want some rules/laws to apply, but you don't want others. I can agree with this. Some laws suck. But if you AGREE that a person has to be a certain age to purchase a gun, then there has to be some way of verifying that they are that age.

Fine, check the guy's ID. If he's over 18, sell him a gun. If he's younger, he has to have it given to him by a parent. This is not "gun control" per se.


That's a background check.

I wouldn't call it that. You, of course, are free to do so.


Maybe it's as simple as a drivers license. But because our failed legal system allows murderers and mental patients to leave their facilities and come back into society, then we have to determine if they are one of the folks walking into the pawn shop trying to buy the gun.

You still -- by default -- assume I'm a criminal or mental patient. I can't accept that.



Now, I really do have to get to work.

You may continue to assert that the principle doesn't matter and that we have to live with the problems we have and whatever the legislators throw at us.

I believe you place far too much faith in government.

You are free to disagree.

It is my opinion that we've exhausted the useful portion of this thread, and I'm pretty sure neither of us will be swayed by further argument.

Enjoy.

General Geoff
July 6, 2009, 10:40 AM
I hear a lot of talk about "living in the real world," in reference to arguing for gun control. That is an argument for the status quo only; gun control is not gravity, the world will not end without it. A total lack of gun control would not result in total anarchy.

Ruggles
July 6, 2009, 10:55 AM
"I hear a lot of talk about "living in the real world," in reference to arguing for gun control. That is an argument for the status quo only; gun control is not gravity, the world will not end without it. A total lack of gun control would not result in total anarchy."

Nobody said it would, point is that when we are referring to the "real world" we are simply referring to what is and what is not possible regarding firearm legislation. The ideals that many on here are promoting are not possible in the real world, thus they are wasting effort promoting ideals that are not possible. That effort would be better spent on issues we can effect like preventing a new AWB.

You know as well as I do that the NICs, full auto restrictions, SBR restrictions are not going away. You may feel they are unjust and unconstitutional but a majority of the American people, the courts and politicians disagree with you.

TexasRifleman
July 6, 2009, 10:59 AM
You know as well as I do that the NICs, full auto restrictions, SBR restrictions are not going away. You may feel they are unjust and unconstitutional but a majority of the American people, the courts and politicians disagree with you.

The Supreme Court, however, does not disagree entirely.

You keep wanting to pretend that Heller is irrelevant. It is not.

Heller opened the door to several possibilities, among them the reversal of Hughes.

runrabbitrun
July 6, 2009, 11:01 AM
Well I've learned a few things from this thread.

1) There are those among us who follow blindly the government's wishes to infringe on free people's rights.

2) When these topic come up from time to time,
it's usually the same people defending the government's
infringements of free people's rights and interestingly,
MOST of these same posters openly admit they work for said government in one form or the other.
(Corrections officers, some LEO and I dare say, some gun grabbing activists as well are included)...

3) There are those when asked specific questions, dodge, bob and weave.
They obfuscate, pull out straw men arguments and attempt to convolute
or otherwise derail the debate.

In short, you guys have lost the debate.
Your words (for the most part) are meaningless and you are indeed
NOT upholding your oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States.
(If such an oath is administered when you were sworn in to do what ever 'government job'
you have been employed to do)...

You guys have had over four pages to make sound arguments, but have failed miserably.

I hate to break it to you few who can not, or will not comprehend the words
as written in the Constitution, (particularly the 2nd A)...
But in the 233 years the words as written have NOT
changed in meaning. They have in fact, been bastardized by those who's end goal
seem hell bent on ruling over us in a manner that is in direct conflict with what
this countries OFFICIAL documents states will be the law of the land.

In this and similar threads the solutions to the governments failed policies,
concerning violent offenders have been address articulately by many.
Yet the same people won't acknowledge
the fact that it's NOT the 'tools' that are the problem,
it's the failed corrections/sentencing guidelines and social policies that are the problem.

To this end I must also conclude that those
pretending that gun control does anything other than impair honest
men from their own defense is either willful ignorance or open dishonesty.

I'm more inclined to believe the latter is the case. :rolleyes:

ConstitutionCowboy
July 6, 2009, 11:16 AM
It's time to ask a simple question:

"How does the keeping and bearing of an arm or arms infringe upon the rights of anyone else, or cause harm of any sort?"

Even the act of arms being kept and borne by the most violent, conscienceless, abhorrent sociopath is benign, innocuous, and does no harm. Improper use of arms is what needs to be legislated. Prevention can only be accomplished by keeping offenders locked up under complete control of the state until such persons are adjudicated safe to reenter society or die. Assigning a sentence for such violations - other than death - with a specific term of years is folly.

Woody

Cohibra45
July 6, 2009, 11:33 AM
christcorp,

I wanted to apologize for my earlier comments. I was extremely tired and couldn't express my thoughts properly. Just suffice to say that the moderator (ArfinGreebly) and I see most everything discussed here with completely the same viewpoint. His posts and answers to your thesis about how things are (and in your mind should be accepted) are where you and I disagree.

I would suggest that because most everyone (mod, you, myself, and others here) agrees violent, unrepentant, and not fully rehabilitated felons be kept locked up and or put down, the laws and penalties that judges work from need to change. That is something that the government can and should do.

I don't accept things just because that is the way they are........if they need changing, they need changing. I will continue to write, call, and vote for representatives that share like values. That is the only 'change' that I can agree with from our current President. Only by actively working to make these changes will any action happen.



Ruggles,

I hope and pray that you or anyone in your family never make a mistake by breaking a non violent felonious law. If your attitude of no forgiveness is that set in stone, then I really feel sorry and will keep you in my prayers even if you don't want me to.

Nobody said it would, point is that when we are referring to the "real world" we are simply referring to what is and what is not possible regarding firearm legislation. The ideals that many on here are promoting are not possible in the real world, thus they are wasting effort promoting ideals that are not possible.

I guess that everyone should just give up and accept whatever the politicians and courts shove down our throats??? I thought this was "a government by the people and for the people". Did I miss anything??? When did the Constitution get thrown out? Man, with attitudes like that around, no wonder the RKBA along with the other items in our Constitution and morals are eroding.

We as Americans don't have to take it. Just look at the 'Tea Party' that just took place. It's by working and speaking out that people and ideas get noticed. Look at the civil disobedience in Iran over the last election and the unrest in Honduras. People all over the world are getting tired of being pushed around. I believe it is due to being better informed, educated, and then acting on it!!! Like I said earlier, I for one will continue to work at changing the laws and attitudes. I like the old movie line: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!!!!!!"

Ruggles
July 6, 2009, 11:52 AM
"To this end I must also conclude that those
pretending that gun control does anything other than impair honest
men from their own defense is either willful ignorance or open dishonesty."

I would tend to think that is because your are too stubborn or closed minded to consider anything but your own view on the matter. Your approval is not something I need or desire, nor does it impact my views in the least. My views are as valid as yours, you might not like that but it remains true non the less.

You attempts to name call and segregate people into neat little groups in your mind based on the fact they do not share your views is silly and incorrect. I neither work for any type of government entity (I work in retail management) nor am I gun grabbing activist.

http://fnforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=11580&highlight=

Notice the picture, name and the posting date, hardly the firearms of a gun grabbing activist. There are many more not in 5.7x28mm thus not pictured.

You have proven nothing at all, gloat as much as you want to it changes nothing about the truth. I wish you could conduct yourself more like a reasonable adult in your post but you continue to lash out like a angry child name calling and implying others are not being honest in their posts.

We are not going to have any positive outcome on this or any other thread with behavior like that. We should be working together not against each other.



"The Supreme Court, however, does not disagree entirely.

You keep wanting to pretend that Heller is irrelevant. It is not.

Heller opened the door to several possibilities, among them the reversal of Hughes."

I never mentioned Heller in anyway much less to say it was irrelevant. Heller was a much less divisive issue than any I mentioned above and Heller was as close a vote as you can get. I think that does not bare well for the removal or reversal of the noted regulations and laws, nor does Obama appointing future justices. I would rather focus efforts on working within that dynamic to obtain my desire goals rather than railing against it.

runrabbitrun
July 6, 2009, 12:01 PM
I've observed over the years the incremental infringements on many/all of our rights
by States as well as the Federal tyrants.

One that sticks out like a sore thumb is the fact
that the government keeps raising the bar on what is considered a felony.

Some of you assert that all people convicted of ANY felony
no longer has a right to own a firearm for their protection.

It's the government continuing to raise the bar
of 'what constitutes a felony' that is the problem here.
They've conveniently lumped all into one convenient group so as to deny ALL
these people their Constitutional rights.

Perhaps we need to have different classifications of felonies?
i.e. violent offenders, those who would do others physical harm...
Should indeed be treated differently than those who are classified as 'felons' who simply
broke some law that did NOT physically harm anyone.

In short, if you're a convicted rapist, murder, or one who has assaulted others with what EVER tool...
Be it fists, guns, kitchen knives or base ball bats et el.
THOSE felons should serve mandatory LONG sentences, and/or be put to death
in the case of murder.

Let me ask the three or four of you who support and 'trust' that the Fed has it's citizens concerns at heart.

Let's pretend YOU got in a car after a few beers and had an accident.
In that accident, you killed someone.
You are charged with involuntary manslaughter, because even though you only had a few beers,
the breathalyzer says your legally drunk.
(That's a felony right?)
Remember now this is YOU this happened to. OK?
(any of the three or four of you)...

Are you telling me that after your time in jail, the restitution that you pay to the
victims family, (for accidentally killing someone), the rehab programs you must complete
and the fines you pay...
That you would agree that YOU now can no longer own a gun for personal defense for the rest of your life?

And before you say (any of you)...
'Ah ha, here's one of those felons I'm talking about that want no gun control laws.'
I will tell you, I have never been convicted of a crime, nor spent any time in any penitentiary.
Of course the way things are going, soon a law will be passed that if I break wind outside my home
I will be classified as a felon (if convicted) and therefore denied my RKBA.

Ruggles, since you're here at the moment.
How about you take a stab at answering that question please.

The question is in bold above.

TIA

Ruggles
July 6, 2009, 12:02 PM
"I guess that everyone should just give up and accept whatever the politicians and courts shove down our throats??? I thought this was "a government by the people and for the people"."

We are a government by the people are for the people, they are the ones who put the officials in office who enacted the legislation you are unhappy with. If the "people" were unhappy with said legislation they would put folks in office to remove it.

"I for one will continue to work at changing the laws and attitudes."

I have absolutely no problem with that, in fact that is how the system is suppose to reflect the will of the people. This we seem to agree on 100%!

"I hope and pray that you or anyone in your family never make a mistake by breaking a non violent felonious law. If your attitude of no forgiveness is that set in stone, then I really feel sorry and will keep you in my prayers even if you don't want me to."

None so far but thanks for the thoughts. I also hope this never occurs but if it does then they will have to pay the price for their actions. I really in my heart have no issue with holding people accountable for their actions, if that accountability follows them forever then so be it.

Mohawk
July 6, 2009, 12:11 PM
This thread seems to have been co-opted by the Department of Redundancy Department. :D

Besides the excellent original post by Constitutional cowboy the best post was the use of the word "asshattery" actually used in a sentence. :D

Ruggles
July 6, 2009, 12:11 PM
Rabbit in the scenario your listed above I would tell you that without a doubt that if I choose to drink and drive (truly drunk or not) and if that choice resulted in the death of an innocent I should indeed pay a lifelong price for that crime. I have no problem with that in least. I have absolutely no business on the roads with your family if I am drinking, none at all.

I think we need to point out that felonies are not common, I know exactly 1 felon within my family, friends and co workers. One out of hundreds of people, maybe I am the exception to the rule.

If we are talking about trying to change the laws to allow select felons the ability to own firearms then count me out. That to me is a colossal waste of time and effort in both it's intent and in it's ability to be successful.

To answer your question, yes I should lose my rights to own firearms for the remainder of my life. I guess I would have to break out the bow.

Ruggles
July 6, 2009, 12:12 PM
"This thread seems to have been co-opted by the Department of Redundancy Department."

Truest thing posted here yet!

runrabbitrun
July 6, 2009, 12:33 PM
Ruggles, thank you for your answer sir.

I must add, I came to know a career felon who killed his wife.
It was not my choice to come to know him.
It was a female who rented a place on MY property who became his friend briefly.
This guy apparently was let out of jail after five years, only to stab a 16 year old boy
(on MY property at the tenant's home)
who was defending the virtue of yet another woman.

Tell me how a NICS check would of stopped this guy (a career felon) from using another tool
(the knife or any tool) to do his deeds?

The point most of us are trying to articulate is that these unconstitutional
laws a few of you seem to support have been ineffective in preventing or even curbing
violent crimes and are nothing more than infringements on all FREE people's 2A rights.

Some of you say. 'Change the laws'.
I can say I'm sure most would agree that
we need to change those laws, but adding more laws that do infringe
on everyone's rights is NOT the answer.
Never has been and never will be.

I'd submit that LE, judiciary personnel and corrections officials with the backing of the people,
should indeed hold our politicians to the fire and MAKE them reform laws that ensure
these violent people will not be out on the streets.
If we let them out we have failed. NO... The government has failed to uphold it's charter to defend,
uphold and protect the Constitution of The United States.

I guess that begs to ask.
Why are we letting violent people out of jail in the first place?

christcorp
July 6, 2009, 12:38 PM
Rabbit; I can't say exactly what I think of your last two posts, because it would be deleted anyway. But I can say that it is extremist. YES. And that is part of the problem. There are some people here, yourself included, that believes if "Society" wants certain rules/laws/boundaries/etc... that it's an infringement on our rights. Sorry dude, but there's a LOT OF SPACE between no laws at all and the government infringing on out right. You just happen to refuse to recognize that. (There's a difference between society and government - Society is "WE THE PEOPLE" agreeing or wanting certain rules/laws/etc... and petitioning our representative government that we democratically elected to put such rules/laws/etc... into place. As compared to a dictatorship government that is making such decisions that are AGAINST the will of the people).

In your example of the drunk driving. While I don't agree that because it's a felony that he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun later in life when he's released from prison; I DO BELIEVE that he should NEVER be allowed to have a drivers license again. EVER!!!! And if the felony was a crime where a weapon (Weapon is defined as a tool used with the primary purpose of which to inflict harm or cause death) was used; then the felon upon release, should NOT EVER be allowed a gun again in their lifetime.

But we are speaking of hypotheticals and the "What if World". And when people respond that we are just "Accepting what has become" or "I guess that everyone should just give up and accept whatever the politicians and courts shove down our throats???" That is extremist. And the reason it is extremist is because those saying these statements ADMIT that the current laws, policies, etc... need work and aren't addressing the real problems. But their ONLY ARGUMENT is to abolish the gun (Control) laws. You can see this as a chicken or the egg first scenario if you want; but you can't take away ALL GUN CONTROL if you leave the current social problems in place. If you truly want to FIX the problem; then stop bitching about your 2nd amendment rights (Which have NOT BEEN INFRINGED ON); and fight your representatives, or better yet; RUN FOR OFFICE; and implement MANDATORY SENTENCING; Life/Death sentence for personal violent crimes to other citizens; and fix the judicial system. If you fix that, then there would be NO NEED for many of the gun laws. But stop whining about we're ACCEPTING the "Status Quo" or "Accepting what had become". You have accepted the EXACT SAME THING. The only difference is that some of us want to fix the PROBLEM first, then the laws/rules/etc... become unnecessary. While others want to abolish the rules/laws/etc... which does absolutely NOTHING for fixing the problem.

And I really have to reiterate that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between SOCIETY wanting laws, rules, policies, etc... put into place and the GOVERNMENT forcing laws, rules, policies, etc... on the people. You just don't like that the PEOPLE have agreed on certain rules, laws, policies, etc... and that you are in the minority. This isn't the government doing it. It's society doing it. That's the difference between our form of government and that of those in many other countries. Now it's definitely possible that many people in SOCIETY have been B.S'd, lied to, conned, or mislead into believing false information in making their decision and providing their support. That's where you need to get involved in the political process. Sorry, but writing your opinions in a forum or blog doesn't count as doing anything. And that is exactly what MOST people are doing. I am very active with my representative and senators; as well as local government. As long as the problem is in the judicial system, and criminals are released into society, and as long as there are differences of opinion on WHERE one person's rights stop and another person's rights start; there will ALWAYS be a need for certain socially accepted norms, rules, laws, etc... And this "Can" include the subject of guns/firearms. As you fix society's issues, many of these laws/rules/etc... can be eliminated.

ArfinGreebly
July 6, 2009, 01:00 PM
Gentlemen, I move to close the thread.

Unless there is something new and fresh that can provide some as-yet untapped insight?

Yes, I could close it without asking, but I figured I'd give those who wish an opportunity for closing remarks.

Anyone?

Do I hear a second?

SuperNaut
July 6, 2009, 01:02 PM
This became part two of the other closed thread, so seconded.

Mohawk
July 6, 2009, 01:04 PM
second the motion. :)

runrabbitrun
July 6, 2009, 01:09 PM
Sounds like a plan to me. :banghead:

edited to add:
I should of stayed out of this after my post #25.

My suspicions have been pretty much confirmed.

Peace all you extremists. :D

waterhouse
July 6, 2009, 01:23 PM
Gentlemen, I move to close the thread.

I think we're going in circles, but I would still love to hear the name of a Founding Father who made gun control laws.

Ruggles
July 6, 2009, 01:25 PM
I'm OK with a closing!

ArfinGreebly
July 6, 2009, 01:28 PM
Thank you all.

Waterhouse, . . . I would still love to hear the name of a Founding Father who made gun control laws.

That will have to be a separate thread.

This one's all done.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Logic Behind The RKBA And Government Power" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!