The "Permission" to Keep and Bear Arms

Please, please - if folks are going to debate the 2A, it would really, really, REALLY be a good idea to read The Federalist Papers, the working notes, in a way, of the US Constitution.

I will even be nice enough to send them to you, if you PM me with a file-capable email addy, be advised tho, it's 1.4 MEGS of text, and heavy reading besides.

The concept was in fact specifically meant to INCLUDE military weapons, and I think I recall one of the founders mentioning that the civvies should outgun any military force by "four to one" as a check against tyranny.

That does NOT mean hunting rifles, that means military-grade hardware, 20mm auto cannon, TOW Missles, M2HB's, everything and anything the military has, the citizenry should not only have, but have more of.

The words "Shall not be infringed" doesn't just mean not-forbidden, it flat out means no fees, permits, red-tape or legalese BS to stymie the efforts of the citizenry, and I see no mention of previous felony conviction or any other mediating circumstance in there.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that, period.

-K

Click to expand...

Centac...........are you there Centac?

At the prison of Bastille, the French soldiers refused the order to cut down their fellow Frenchmen and joined the revolution.

Click to expand...

This is very true. Only the Swiss Guard, the King's own sworn elite defenders (like the modern day secret service) stood by him, and had their heads on the soldier's pikes by the end of the day. These guys were the real deal, though. Had they had more than one bullet each, they'd probably have defeated the army. That's right, the King ordered them to possess only one round each. You see, the revolutionaries asked him to do this as a token of good will in their negotiations, so the king gave the order, and the Swiss Guard obeyed. When the revolutionaries knew for sure that they had obeyed the order, the mob charged the gates, and the rest is history. The mob marched around the city all day and night with the heads of those Swiss Guardsmen on the points of their pikes, held up high as a symbol of victory. Got to feel bad for those poor Swiss Guardsmen. What a stupid order they were forced to obey. I bet they wished they'd stayed in Switzerland.

P.S. Kind of reminds me of when certain U.S. soldiers stationed in the Middle East were ordered to guard their base camp with unloaded M16s as a sign of respect for the locals. Was that under Jimmy Carter?

So you disagree with the "shall not be infringed" portion then?

Or do you think that they meant to say "shall not be infringed unless something we didn't think of comes up"?

Or "shall not be infringed - except in little itty-bitty ways"?

Or maybe "shall not be infringed*" (*not applicable in Washington D.C., Massachusetts, Illinois and the future state California. Some restrictions apply. Must be 21 years old to enter. Void where prohibited. Does not constitute or imply any legal rights. Contestants subject to prequalification. Odds of actual non-infringement 1:43,783,343,231)?

And the drug argument is a red herring. As we all know, there is no constitutional protection for just like there's no constitutional protection for buying or using alchohol. This, of course, does not mean that the Fed govt. has the constitutional authority to criminalize it. But that's a whole other debate.

I fully support prohibiting the private ownership of weaponized anthrax or smallpox, along with antipersonnel explosive devices.

Click to expand...

You have instantly destroyed your own argument.

"arms" doesn't just mean guns, it means rockets, bombs, bayonets, cannon and the like.

The Bill of Rights was NOT intended as a set of guidelines, it was utterly, completely and without one ounce of doubt intended to BE absolute and literal in it's application and interpretation.

And everyone here raise your glass to Patrick Henry, because without his efforts, we would be at the same point we are with standing armies.. the reason for which we have no exact provision against them is that the other spokesmen of the time felt that "no one would ever dare stoop so low".

Yeah, "they wouldn't dare" is an awful lot of protection, innit ?

That document was meant to be as absolute as it is, not subject to any downgraded re-interpretation of it, EVER.

And I raise my glass to ole Pat Henry for bringing it's necessity to the attention of the rest of our founding fathers.

-K

*PS - Pat Henry was against the constitution, fyi - he felt it would give the fedgov too much power, wasn't protective enough of our peoples rights, and would lead to... well, the exact situation it has.
Read up on his speeches, you will find them fascinating, I am sure.

Poll Tax

"Those are conveniences, not denial of a right. If you cannot afford the 200 tax stamp I would contend that you couldnt afford any decent gun to begin with." ~ So says centac

So...by that logic, a poll tax would be just fine and dandy with you and not a violation of the 15th Amendment at all?

Where is the 'so long as the people have the ability to pay for decent arms and an arbitrary tax to the federal government' clause in the 2nd Amendment?

Centac...........are you there Centac?

Click to expand...

He's not; "ZZZzzz"

I still want a M72 LAW. Nothing will scare bad guys more than aiming one at their feet. As you already know, since many people at the time the Second Amendment was written had military hardware such as warships and cannons, it would be erroneous to not include modern-day military weapons of war, as saying "No." would be the equivalent of saying that the First Amendment only applies to quill pens and ink, and not computers, word processing software, printers, and even the internet. If such modern items are covered by the First Amendment, then modern day weaponry is covered by the Second.

"And no, I dont think it is an absolute right, nor are any others. I cannot yell fire in the theater."

I know what he's referring to here. All rights are absolute that only stop when your exercising of rights violates another's or another's property. He simply mentioned an example of that (causing physical harm).

I want a Wharthog...just think who in their right mind would screw around with that kind of firepower? Now to make a holster for that thing...

Some infringement is TOO MUCH. I am an absolutist about everything, and I am absolutely certain that your small concessions will lead to outright denial of rights in the near future, UNLESS we fight like heck to keep THEM (and the Vichhy French who lick their bottheels thankful to have just A gun) from continuing to erode our ABSOLUTE rights.

:banghead:

What's the Frequency Centac?

"What's the frequency, centac?" is your Benzedrine, uh-huh
Butterfly decal, rear-view mirror, dogging the scene
You smile like the cartoon, tooth for a tooth
You said that irony was the shackles of youth
You wore a shirt of violent green, uh-huh
I never understood the frequency, uh-huh
You wore our expectations like an armored suit, uh-huh
I couldn't understand ...

I cannot get you a A-10 but F86s and P80s show up pretty regularly. As I have already mentioned it is perfectly legal to own and where allowed operate a tank. Heck, go to Knob Creek or a mil vehicle rally sometime, you guys are thinking small. I've seen gunboats for sale, start your own navy.

Just cause you cannot afford the toys you want doesnt mean you are oppressed. Grow up.

vin suprynowicz

wrote a bit several years ago about private ownership of nukes etc. I think he pointed out joe blow can'rt afford them but during the Civil War several private citizens bought warships etc. Anyone have the article archived?
CT

"Some infringement is TOO MUCH. I am an absolutist about everything, and I am absolutely certain that your small concessions will lead to outright denial of rights in the near future, UNLESS we fight like heck to keep THEM (and the Vichhy French who lick their bottheels thankful to have just A gun) from continuing to erode our ABSOLUTE rights."

So you dont pay taxes? Do you make your own license plates?

Who are "Them" and how do you explain the awb sunset and the rise of shall issue CCW regulations? How do you explain rights-affirming court cases like Gideon, Mapp, Escobedo, Miranda and the like? If "they" are trying to stomp you down "they" are sure going about it in a strange way.

the rise of shall issue CCW regulations?

Click to expand...

Funny, the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment says not one thing about SHALL ISSUE. If you have to get a permit, it is not a right. If it is supposed to be a right, a right that the government can not deny you, yet you have to jump through government loops to exercise the right, it it not a right any longer. It is a right that is being denied, infringed.

Centac,
You cannot argue with people who think that rights are absolute and god-given. Despite there being no evidence for either claim they will insist that they have an absolute right to [fill in the blank] totally unrestricted from any interference by anyone. It is nonsense. It is obvious nonsense. But it doesnt stop people from believing it.

Ya cannot even discuss it with them, apparently

I thought we were discussing the issue. You don't seem to have responded directly to any of mine.

Ya cannot even discuss it with them, apparently

Click to expand...

You can if you want to be labeled a sheeple, agent of big evil government, and fascist.

Alright a challenge!

I propose I have the right to say anything I want. That right existed before the First Amendment was written to remind the government I had that right before they existed.
Now, here is where you say- "What about yelling fire in a movie", or bring up libel & slander.
Those would be violations of statutes that impose penalties for exercising my free speech rights. That is the known result but I still have my right to free speech. Unless the state "disables" or kills me. Doesn't mean the right isn't absolute it just means for some uses of that right I can be penalized.
Like misuse of my legally owned gun would.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

With absolute rights come responsibility.
CT

Oh, yeah, the 2nd Amendment is different in the aspect it says-
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
It doesn't go on to say unless so and so happens or we become like the French or Canadians etc.

The problem is with prior restraint laws. My rights, theoretically, have one limit, and that is where your rights begin. If I use my right to carry a handgun is such a way as to deprive you of your watch and wallet, then I have overstepped my right. Laws consistent with this principle do not bother libertarians. What you statists (The Rabbi, Centac and others) would like, however, it to make laws which anticipate criminality before hand, and attempt to deny the criminal, along with everyone else, the means with which to commit crimes. This is where the problem lies, because this treats honest folks the same way as the crooks, and presumes that government agents are somehow superior or more to be trusted with those objects than the rest of us, when the history of the 20th Century, if it teaches us anything, teaches us that government is not to be trusted with our lives and our liberties.

The problem is with prior restraint laws.

Click to expand...

This is particularly caricatured in Feinstein's .50 cal ban proposal. Even before someone has pushed the envelope to the point of creating a demonstrable concern for society, the hysterical anti-gunners are in there proposing controls, actual infringements in the absence of real justification. It's really just Feinstein's petty power base. Someone that intelligent is either insincere or insane.

I don't think the US military would ever obey orders to attack American civilians. Hawkeye pointed out that the Swiss Guard was the only force that protected the king. They were willing to kill French civilians because the Swiss Guards, who still guard the Pope to this day, are mercenaries from Switzerland. It is much easier to kill civilians from another country than from your own.

It was the same situation in China in the Tianenmen Square massacre. The Chinese army refused to attack the protesters, and the government was powerless to stop it until someone got the bright idea to bring in ethnically turkic army units from far western China. Problem solved.

For all the talk of cultural divide, culture war, red and blue states, and so forth I don't think we're anywhere near a point where grunts from one part of the country would see people from another part as not American.

P.S. Kind of reminds me of when certain U.S. soldiers stationed in the Middle East were ordered to guard their base camp with unloaded M16s as a sign of respect for the locals. Was that under Jimmy Carter?

Click to expand...

I think you're referring to the Marine barracks in Lebanon that got hit with a truck bomb. The Marines guarding the gates had their M16s loaded with empty magazines to prevent accidental shootings, and they couldn't fire at the truck as it smashed through the gate and blew up. It was in 1983, under Reagan.

There have been plenty of restrictions listed thus far, but I'll name a few I deal with.

I can't own any NFA devices, be they FA's, Supressors, DD's, ect, ect...

When I drive to the range to shoot with my rifles, I should always be aware that I am not within 5 miles of a school, AT ANY TIME. Here in Illinois there is a "safe zone" around schools.

When I drive to the hospital in Chicago (which is alot for me) I have to make sure that I didn't leave one of my rifles in trunk from when I last went to the range lest I face the wrath of G_d and Mayor Daley.

Do you make your own license plates?

Click to expand...

Now that's a funny one. Actually I formed a corporation that owns the corporation that owns the dealership that owns the plates that I drive on. Takes care of the insurance, too. Unfortunately I knuckled under and renewed my DL a while back. When this one expires I'll return to to going without and relying on the dealer tags to cover my ass. Worked for almost eight years...

Just gotta think outside the box, centac.

So you dont pay taxes? Do you make your own license plates?

Who are "Them" and how do you explain the awb sunset and the rise of shall issue CCW regulations? How do you explain rights-affirming court cases like Gideon, Mapp, Escobedo, Miranda and the like? If "they" are trying to stomp you down "they" are sure going about it in a strange way.

Click to expand...

First, the AWB sunset was a result of the method in which the anti's got it passed the Senate in the first place. The end result was the perception that the election cycles following the AWB gave power to the Republicrats. The truth is I have more fear of G.W. Bush and my gun rights than I would have of Kerry, at least I knew where he stood, so that argument doesn't hold water for me. Something EXPIRING is not a gain, it is merely a return to status quo.

Second, who said I can't afford the toys I want? Since you know absolutely nothing about me you should not preseume what I can and cannot afford. That aside, if I did want a full-auto firearm, I should be able to purchase such WITHOUT filing any forms or paying any taxes, as that is an infringement of my absolute right to private property. Full-autos don't do it for me, but a 20mm anti-tank rifle would be awesome, but alas, I can't own one, as best I can tell.

Centac,
You cannot argue with people who think that rights are absolute and god-given. Despite there being no evidence for either claim they will insist that they have an absolute right to [fill in the blank] totally unrestricted from any interference by anyone. It is nonsense. It is obvious nonsense. But it doesnt stop people from believing it.

Click to expand...

Finally, some of y'alls comments suggest that you can not have a reasonable conversation with anyone who believes their rights are unalienable or God given, I hope I am proving that is not the case. And when I refer to "them" I am referring to anyone, be they LEO, legislator, judge jury exicutioner, whatever.

My question would be this, if rights are not unalienable or God-given as you put it, where do our rights come from? Do you believe they originate with the Federal Government or some other august body? If so then they are not rights but priviledges, and then you would be correct, because those can be revoked by authorities for transgresions or ay other reason.

However, the Decleration of Independence says

...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, --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.
This may not constitute "evidence" in your opinion, but since it is "in there", I'll go by that.

Just so I can understand, why is the belief in unalienable rights non-sense?

As for paying taxes and license plates, etc. -I am forced-at gunpoint- to pay taxes, or risk confiscation of my private property, upon which I have already payed taxes, ironically. I avoid taxes at every level by buying used goods or through loopholes in the tax code offered to those of us smart enough to understand it and use it to our advantage.

You cannot argue with people who think that rights are absolute and god-given.

Click to expand...

So your stance is that Rights are given by government and can be restricted by government? Don't claim they are restricted by the will of the people. Politicians regularly restrict things against the will of the people and when we vote in new politicos to fix it they fail to do so. So it IS indeed "government", the functionaries thereof, that make the arbitrary restrictions.

This is what you are claiming "rights" are, correct?

You apparently have no understanding of the difference between a Right and a privilege and I'm not going to waste time trying to educate you since it's been done before. I simply have to wonder why such people drag such arcane and unsupportable ideas as yours into places where such thought has long since been analyzed and found of no value. That such people then whine that others are the ones lacking in knowledge is doubly amazing, or depressing.

centac: "DC is funny, while they may have a law prohibiting firearms ownership there seems to be no lack of firearms as we well know."

Nice dodge of the issue.