The "Permission" to Keep and Bear Arms

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just thought it was very interesting to learn that the church used this kind of disingenuous tactic.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is a myth. It comes from the days before printing presses, when a Bible was an extremely valuable item to have. It was desirable that each church have at least one, but few could afford to have two. You see they took years to make by hand. For this reason, the Bible was kept on a chain, but access was granted to scholars for study. You just couldn't take it home and read it. Additionally, the Bible was read each day in Church to the congregation. If you wanted to hear the entire Bible, you just had to attend Church every day. Failing that, you could attend Church every Sunday, and the Sunday readings were designed such that by the end of a year, you'd have heard most of the important Bible readings.
 
Thanks PeacefulJeffrey. I have added you to my ignore list. It is not because we disagree. I disagree with others but still find their views interesting. It is because I believe you are an anti-semite and I am content to let you grind your axe elsewhere.
 
rabbi, i'm sorry( no wait, i'm NOT sorry) but the constitution is written in simple language for the reasons i pointed out earlier. Yes, there is parts of the legal system that it helps to have a law degree to understand, but the constitution is not one of them. If for some reason, it needs clarification, one can always read the federalist papers.
I'm sorry that a little ole commoner like me dares to question an elite like yourself, i guess i should just shut up and accept whatever my masters choose to tell me. could you please remind me,sir, (spelled C-U-R) how many legs good, and how many legs bad? :neener: :rolleyes:
 
It is because I believe you are an anti-semite
Click to expand...
sorry, i didn't see anything he said anti-semetic. would you elaborate why you think so?




P.S. beat me to it hawkeye. oh, rabbi , you can add me to youre ignore list too if you want, but my girlfriend's jewish so don't play that anti-semite card on me.
 
The individual right interpretation is gaining ground in the last few years; even among liberal constitutional law scholars.

However, I'm not a constitutional law scholar. However, I have difficulty accepting that most gun laws of the states and federal government do not constitute infringement.

Apparently some people believe that if you can one day...maybe a few years from now...own a gun...that there is no infringement.

Tell me something, centac: If you believe that a few months delay does not constitute infringement then how about a few years delay? After all, you'll still get it one day. What difference does a longer time make? If a few years is still not an infringement according to you; then how about a few decades of paperwork delay? Infringement now or is everything still A-OK by your lights? If a few decades are still OK with you then how about if you start the paperwork when you turn 21 and maybe one of your children will take possession of the firearm...if not then surely one of your grandchildren. If I understand your logic behind believing that the current system does not constitute infringement then this system would not constitute infringement. After all, the government would let you take possession of a firearm if your grandfather had just filed the paperwork in a timely fashion.

In a nutshell, sir, when does delay, taxes, regulations, etc. and ad nauseum; mount to the point to constitute infringement? Never? If that is your position then you stand revealed. If that is not your position; then exactly what would constitute infringement in your worldview?

I'd like to comment about you harping on the felon bit, too. This is a great danger to us given the proliferation of felonies in this country in the past century. Acts that were not even criminal in 1905 are now felonies. How long before the Brady Bunch or others of their ilk have a eureka moment and say,"Hey, if we can make everyone felons on probation then no one can own guns? We'll have to do it gradually, though."

I've got a word of advice for the people who don't want felons to own firearms: anyone who cannot be trusted with firearms should not be allowed outside of a prison cell or a psychiatric facility.
 
The Federal Government only has that authority which the states (as representing the will of their citizens) have granted to it. That's the idea of a government of limited powers. Remember, it was the states that were supposed to deal with safety and police concerns, not the Fed. In order for the Federal Government to place any regulations at all on the kinds of firearms we may own and carry, that authority has to be granted to it. It is up to you to prove that the authority is granted by the Constitution, or one of its amendments. It is not up to us to prove that the Constitution authorizes us to own this or that firearm. - The Real Hawkeye
Click to expand...

Is that your reality or are you just talking ideals? Who would say you are wrong, but you seem to disallow discussion of the real world.
 
alot of this obsfucation about the 2nd reminds me of the time clinton said "it depends on what your definition of "is" is" :scrutiny: :rolleyes:
 
Hey, as long as there are individuals, there will be disagreement and differing opinions on subjects that are simple as well as complex. The constitution has had some of the best legal minds in our country at odds with each other, so I see no reason why THR should be expected to be any different. Don't crucify each other over this.

On the Constitution, it's my belief that one of the reason we have such a problem today with it is because there is too much read into it.

If one of the Amendments were to read.........

"A well regulated population, being necessary to the future of our states, the right of the people to keep and bear clothing, shall not be infringed".

Couldn't we all reasonably agree on what that means? Does it take a Rhodes Scholar to understand this? Does it take 30 years of law school to understand this? No. In fact, I submit, the reason we are where we are today is because, for the gain of cause, the over analyzing of the amendments by the some of the brightest minds we have.

Like W.C. Fields answered when asked why he was reading the Bible on his deathbed, "just looking for loopholes".
 
Is that your reality or are you just talking ideals? Who would say you are wrong, but you seem to disallow discussion of the real world.
Click to expand...
RealGun, what part of what I said are you disputing and why? Am I mistaken in something that I said regarding the federal system established by the Founders? If so, please feel free to correct me.
 
Am I mistaken in something that I said regarding the federal system established by the Founders? - The Real Hawkeye
Click to expand...

I don't think so. When do we get to talk about what's real and what to do about it?
 
I don't think so. When do we get to talk about what's real and what to do about it?
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem talking about current political realities, but I like to first establish the ideal to which it needs to be compared.
 
Here, let Madison explain it:
The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
For the Independent Fournal.
MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States.

The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shapegthat the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us
Click to expand...

That's the baseline.

Make more sense now?
 
Let me try a different direction here. Centac, do you believe the 1934 NFA has had a positive impact, either on the individual, society as a whole, or the 2nd Amendment? In fewer words, is it a good thing, or a bad thing, and why? Much of this thread has revolved around perceived degrees of infringement, which is subjective to one's opinion of the legislation purportedly doing the infringing. A clearly defined answer to this specific slice of the overall question would provide a much better framework for understanding your opinion on 2nd Amendment infringements, or lack thereof.
 
PeacefulJeffrey, it is members like you that make me sorry this forum does not have an ignore feature.
Click to expand...

You mean people who very specifically frame their questions to you to get a complete and legitimate answer and avoid the song and dance you've been giving? :rolleyes:

You assume much in your dismissal of the people here, about their education, interests, skills and knowledge. I'd say it's a safe bet you yourself are no where near the top of the heap here regarding knowledge of law, or philosophy. You do, however, seem to have a corner on antagonism and pomposity. Also on trotting out handy ad-hom debate-slayers like "anti-semite".

But yeah, the ignore feature is nice, if I could just keep some of you...people...from popping off of it.
 
Excerpt from Federalist paper #46, Madison
(He's speaking of a standing army loyal to the fedgov alone)

That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of
time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray
both; that the traitors should, throughout this period,
uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the
extension of the military establishment; that the governments
and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold
the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until
it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to
every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious
jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal,
than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a
regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be
formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal
government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the
State governments, with the people on their side, would be able
to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to
the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any
country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number
of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear
arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an
army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these
would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of
citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from
among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united
and conducted by governments possessing their affections and
confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus
circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of
regular troops.
Click to expand...

My beef with Madisons argument is minor in comparison, but he felt we needed no direct provision against standing armies because "no one would ever dare stoop so low." - a concept which was thoroughly trounced, and often, by Pat Henry.

That being said...

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK
transitive senses
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
intransitive senses : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
synonym see TRESPASS
- in·fring·er noun
Click to expand...

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is in doubt here ?

It's absolute, it's unarguable, and there's not a blasted thing about 'convicted felon' in there, either.

SHALL.
NOT.
BE.
INFRINGED.

Period, and I am bowing out of this, cause it's boiling down to the ludicrousness of an agrument with the Flat-Earth society.

-K
 
how about

"Dude, I am still waiting for a legit, non-felon who cannot have a gun"

Bob Smith of Sacramento, wife just accused him of being a threat. The court had him surrender his guns until it's sorted out. Felon? Not even convicted of a misdemeanor...
CT
 
i'll answer your question

Dude, I am still waiting for a legit, non-felon who cannot have a gun - so far I have one guy whose bitchy cause he wants an Oerlikon and another whose hung up on paperwork - he'll get his guns, he just wants the RIGHT NOW, like a kid wants ice-cream.

So far we have at very most nad broadly interpreted, 2. Wow, the regime is making great oppresive inroads
Click to expand...

1. I live in nyc.
Lets talk just trying to get a run of the mill handgun legally.

our federal constitution on "paper" allows us to own whatever weapons (as in anything and everything) that would be required to overthrow a tyranny.
new york state constitution requires that we participate in the protection of the state and the USA but has no provisions for the right to bear arms.
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?co=14
In nyc you can own a rifle or shotgun with a permit of some sort. Getting a handgun and depending on what you want to do with it also requires a permit. For a carry permit, either you are a celebrity, are in bed with someone or a diamond dealer?

So yes legally a gun can be had.....
but why should regular joe have to go down to one police plaza and submit fingerprints, a picture id, two character references and then assuming they have no criminal history wait 9 months to forever for a decision? let alone pay for the privelege to even ask permission from the local govt?

And then if you're one of the few blessed to get a go ahead, there are maybe 3 public ranges in all of nyc proper? And the govt has the right to tell you how to store your own property in your own residence.

Moving is not a feasible option for most. Me, cause all my family and friends are located here. nowhere else... the only situation I would leave is if there were signs of nazi germany coming along and my family refuses to come along. Then so be it. I'll go.

So due to all the govt regulations the average joe cant practcally get a firearm legally or have anywhere to go to train with it.
Voting is well .... when the election IS the democratic primary not much choices available to you. ;)
 
I don't have any problem talking about current political realities, but I like to first establish the ideal to which it needs to be compared. - The Real Hawkeye
Click to expand...

Will you limit it to politics or will you acknowledge the actual force of law and the real scope of our freedom, often very much in contrast to your historical ideal...not that it's really outdated and certainly not to be discredited.

Note that if your statement of ideal and what the Founders meant is in contrast to actual court decisions and legislation, it becomes mere opinion or debatably evidence that the Courts were in error. Either way, the law limits what we can sensibly do, not free to just pick what view of the law we like. Until there is an organized rebellion, we get along the best we can. If I am pragmatic, it doesn't mean I am not aware of the ideals or am not aware of the offenses to those ideals. I don't need a sermon every time I try to deal with the current reality, but the material does make for interesting background. I would rather identify offenses and how to undo them, hopefully in a peaceful manner.

In my opinion, Congress and the White House have failed to challenge the Supreme Court, and too few citizens know any better, content to have a custodian.
 
Will you limit it to politics or will you acknowledge the actual force of law and the real scope of our freedom, often very much in contrast to your historical ideal...not that it's really outdated and certainly not to be discredited.

Note that if your statement of ideal and what the Founders meant is in contrast to actual court decisions and legislation, it becomes mere opinion or debatably evidence that the Courts were in error. Either way, the law limits what we can sensibly do, not free to just pick what view of the law we like. Until there is an organized rebellion, we get along the best we can. If I am pragmatic, it doesn't mean I am not aware of the ideals or am not aware of the offenses to those ideals. I don't need a sermon every time I try to deal with the current reality, but the material does make for interesting background. I would rather identify offenses and how to undo them, hopefully in a peaceful manner.

In my opinion, Congress and the White House have failed to challenge the Supreme Court, and too few citizens know any better, content to have a custodian.
Click to expand...
One way to tackle the problem is by being much more active in selecting our Representatives in Congress. This is the body within the Federal Government most amenable to our influence. If we 1) pick real constitutionalists for Congress, and 2) they actually insist on exercising the powers granted to them by the Constitution, we could actually turn much of this around and get back to a strictly limited constitutional federal government. If most of our Congressmen were like, for example, Ron Paul of Texas, we'd be well on our way. This requires, however, that we get very active in the earliest phases of selecting candidates for that office in our districts. There, that's my practical contribution for the day.
 
WARNING TO POSTERS:

Remember: attacking the idea/position/argument is fine. Attacking the person presenting that idea is not, and may result in getting your posting privs revoked.

It's called "the high road" for a reason. Remember it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
The Second Amendment Is Already Dead
Replies
1
Views
386
Derek Zeanah
Derek Zeanah
R
  • Locked
Should Guns Even Be A political Issue?
Replies
16
Views
732
Art Eatman
A
B
  • Locked
Collective right to keep and bear arms?
Replies
18
Views
790
HunterGatherer
H
C
  • Locked
Need some help on 2nd Amendment debate
Replies
14
Views
911
bfieldburt
B
O
  • Locked
2A Caucus created in US House
Replies
21
Views
855
emc
E
Back
Top