Glenn Beck Interviews Chris Cox of the NRA [TRANSCRIPT]

There are plenty of reasonable restrictions on that one, such as:
No yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater

Click to expand...

Restriction on a harmful act, not ownership of a NECESARY TOOL.

Issuance of permits to assemble for protests and such
No sacrificing virgins for religious purposes

Click to expand...

Don't need a permit if you have permission on private land. And both of these are for public safety without infringing on The Constitution.

I love the 2A, but rights are not absolute. The lunatic, bipolar, manic-depressive, twice-convicted, violent, pedophile wife-beater down the street should not own a gun.

Click to expand...

I disagree. God given rights ARE absolute, it just sometimes takes a Revolution to remind the sheep of that. All those psychotic people should not USE GUNS ILLEGALLY, I really don't see the harm in OWNING an inanimate object. I'd be far more concerned about their access to cars and other people.

There are plenty of reasonable restrictions on that one, such as:
No yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater
Issuance of permits to assemble for protests and such
No sacrificing virgins for religious purposes

Click to expand...

Those are local and state restrictions.

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.

Click to expand...

Restriction on a harmful act, not ownership of a NECESARY (sic) TOOL.

Click to expand...

By not restricting ownership, the government is being negligent/reckless. Should I give a three year old matches and tell them fires are bad, don't set them? When the child burns the house down, who is at fault?

And what do you mean by necessary tool?

All those psychotic people should not USE GUNS ILLEGALLY, I really don't see the harm in OWNING an inanimate object.

Click to expand...

Of course there is no harm in owning something. The harm can possibly come from using it. Ownership without use is pretty pointless. It's also difficult to regulate use once it is in someone's possession. Would you leave your eight year old daughter in the care of a child molester, telling them, "Don't molest her. I'll pick her up in a few hours."???


To be clear, I'm not saying people who see therapists should automatically be banned from owning guns. However, if you're threatening to kill people because the dog, the voices, or your dead mother told you to, then yeah, no more guns for you.

By not restricting ownership, the government is being negligent/reckless. Should I give a three year old matches and tell them fires are bad, don't set them? When the child burns the house down, who is at fault?

And what do you mean by necessary tool?

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? No one mentioned arming 3 year olds. This is a strawman argument and I'm not biting. Regardless, we have a pretty clearly worded Constitution that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Trying to regulate actions by regulating ownership is foolhardy at best, and shows a marked distrust of it's citizens and negligence by the government. For every person injured or killed by an assailant because said person did not have legal access to the NECESSARY TOOLS of self defense, the lawmakers who passed the laws should be charged and tried right along side the assailant. 1000 years ago the necessary tools were broadswords and bows. Firearms level the playing field, and their prevalence today makes them NECESARY for self defense (no one wants to use a kitchen knife to resist an assailant armed with a gun).

We are a society that, at least according to our Constitution, says we are all equal. Guns are what make us that way. Denying a gun to anyone who wants one is telling that person that they are not 'important', or 'good', or 'white' enough (pick any adjective you like there, I threw the white part in to point out how unfair regulation can be) to be allowed to defend themselves.

Quote:
All those psychotic people should not USE GUNS ILLEGALLY, I really don't see the harm in OWNING an inanimate object.

Of course there is no harm in owning something. The harm can possibly come from using it. Ownership without use is pretty pointless. It's also difficult to regulate use once it is in someone's possession. Would you leave your eight year old daughter in the care of a child molester, telling them, "Don't molest her. I'll pick her up in a few hours."???


To be clear, I'm not saying people who see therapists should automatically be banned from owning guns. However, if you're threatening to kill people because the dog, the voices, or your dead mother told you to, then yeah, no more guns for you.

Click to expand...

Another strawman argument with the child molester. We live in a society where people are not (supposed to be) oppressed for what they *MIGHT* do. I've seen complete plans online showing how to construct low yield nuclear devices...does that mean I should be locked up because I have an engineering degree and might just build one? No.

All of these nutjobs would be scary with guns, but we have a CONSTITUTION that pretty clearly states that they have a right to them. Given the fact that the government is not responsible for your personal safety, it should have no interest in limiting how you ensure it. If you are really that worried about these nuts with guns, do what I do, and carry a gun of your own all the time. Yeah, it's uncomfortable, but it puts my mind at ease WITHOUT INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS.

The regulations you want would most definately infinge on SOMEONE's rights, and what's worse, probably wouldn't prevent a single crazy person from doing whatever they're going to do. Knives and hammers are pretty good at harming people too, hell, you can't even run out of ammunition, yet no one wants to ban these...yet. A crazy person with a gallon of diesel and a match is more dangerous than one with a gun, but no one's gonna ban them from the pumps. All your bliss ninny regulations accomplish is giving you sheeple a false sense of security. ANY form of regulation is an infingment, and Constitutionaly invalid on its face.

Prior restraints and the Constitution

In general prior restraints such as poll taxes, voting tests, etc. are regarded as an unConstitutional restriction on a civil right that is not unAlienable (legal aliens can't vote, but they can have firearms). The second amendment applies to a pre-existing natural law right that is derived from the natural right to self-defense. The NRA and civilian disarmament camel's nose is that freed felons and crazy people don't have a right to defend themselves. That would be a moral position if the government who removes their rights takes responsability for their protection as in prison (the very model of the security state- How safe would you feel in prison?) If someone can't be trusted with this most basic right they should either be under the care of a legal guardian, or in prison. This pecludes silly straw man arguments about giving dangerous implements to children.

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn't a crime IF there is in fact a fire. So that strawman argument is an invalid analogy with the peaceful ownership and carrying of arms. It's pretty obvious the feds don't honor the first amendment anyway. Churches and their political speech are regulated through the IRS tax codes in direct violation of the 1st Amd. Peacable assembly is regulated in many jurisdictions by permits. When you have to ask permission, your right has been turned into a privilege.

As far as 'ownership without use being pointless', that is very close to the concept of thought crime, attempting to divine the future use or misuse of an inanimate object based on predicting the intent or actions of a person with free will and changing circumstances. This is the same central planning mentality that knows better how people should be spending their money or using their property because they might not be doing the 'best' use with it according to the central planner's values of what constitutes 'best'. But by and large economic/value information is local and not predictable or knowable quickly enough for policy to substitute for individual initiative and action. Someone who is threatening to kill people is best dealt with by an armed defender, not by a prior restraint policy that catches more dolphins than sharks in its net.

ANY form of regulation is an infingment, and Constitutionaly invalid on its face.

Click to expand...

Yes, regulation is so clearly invalid. That's why have thousands of gun laws. I don't see many being declared unconstitutional by state supreme courts or the U.S. Supreme Court.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

All your bliss ninny regulations accomplish is giving you sheeple a false sense of security.

Click to expand...

Way to take the highroad with name calling.

The truth hurts.

...There are a 'ton' of unconstitutional laws out there now. Perhaps more unconstitutional law than law concurring with our bill of rights. UNFORTUNATELY it is left to "we the people" usually as individuals , to make a federal case of it, and then to have that case judged by men being paid by the gov't we are seeking to divest of another measure of authority and control. Remember, the 'supreme court' at the end of an incredibly costly and difficult trail through the courts, has a right other courts are deigned, they may simply choose to not hear the case! THIS is exactly what they have done since the 1930's with cases which challenge gun controls violation of our second amendment inalienable right! One recent exception to that was thier hearing of the Emerson case which was brought by an otherwise law abiding citizen who'd been arrested and convicted of possessing a firearm within one thousand feet of a gov't school. The supreme court did find that the state law under which he'd been prosecuted was unconstitutional. The ruling applied to that particular case alone it seems, since other such similar laws are still in place in other venues. Only VERMONT has truly con-cording gun laws with our second amendment. There NO LICENSE is required to keep or Bear a firearm there in thier state. By the way VERMONT has the lowest incidence of crimes of violence with firearms per capita of any state in our union. The states with the greatest restrictive gun control are UNIFORMLY the states which display the high incidence of firearms crimes. It's tough to rape a 38 I guess. Perhaps the 5 times greater incidence of crimes thwarted by citizens using thier firearms, than crimes committed by criminals (from FBI crime incidence report data) with firearms, is the strongest statement for TRUSTING citizens with firearms rather than compounding law based on the fear of criminals.Often really the fear of what an otherwise law abiding citizen "MIGHT do" if they owned a gun.These are folks who have a deep seated mistrust of people altogether, it seems.

....THINK about the Luby Cafeteria shootings, Virginia Tech, Columbine school, ect. ect..UNTIL the GOOD guy, the good and decent fellow "with the firearm" gets there, the criminal uses "his gun" (FBI stats indicate 70% of the firearms used in crime are illegally owned) to kill & mame those who had no defense.........

....... So the folks who buys into gun control based on fearfulness ,in the MASS of cases, disarm only the law abiding folk who are no threat to suddenly turn into a monster just because they own a gun . Such distorted thinking aids the criminal, AND THE TYRANT TOO!

....By the way Many of the so called restrictions on our first and second ammendments previously cited above in several posts , are not restrictions on the right itself at all, but laws compounded against the criminal misuse of the sacred right ,the infamous "FIRE' in a crowded theater for example. It is a waste of time to respond to such poorly thought out examples, beyond advising more reflective thinking.....Clear eyed Reflective thinking, which cherishes GOD given freedom is near immpossible when the foundation stone of a particular line of thought is fear of our fellow men.

well...

...with a lil' luck, we may just see that change with the DC case...
If it is ruled unconstitutional, we will be one step closer to the light...
I would think that even stating that there are thousands of gun laws would've choked even the mildest of our countrys' founders...

Glenn Beck is the man, he speaks his mind, he's not afraid too, he tells the stories that the PC, liberal, wet diaper media will never touch, because they don't want you to hear what Glenn Beck is reporting. I agree with Glenn 95% of the time, we're on the same page.

I read the line from the NRA rep that was a hair's breadth away from "common sense legislation" that the anti-gun people like to use, and that bothered me.

If a person is unfit to own a firearm then they are also unfit to own a knife, matches, batteries, baseball bats, hot water, or many of a number of things that the person could use to harm others. A person's right to protect themselves is (or at least is supposed to be) inalienable. The Constitution was written to allow the people life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The right to defend ourselves is not given to use by the Constitution but protected by the Constitution. Without the ability to defend ourselves then the rest of our rights are quite meaningless.

I know the NRA is fighting a very difficult fight and has to do what it can to get the money and votes to stay in business. I just dislike the fact that to stay in the fight it has to water down what it is supposed to defend.

In my mind anyone denied the right to defend themselves by the state becomes a ward of the state. As a ward of the state a person is to be granted the protection of that state. A person denied rights because of criminal behavior is to be in prison. A person denied rights because of mental deficiency is to be in a hospital. A person denied rights because of age (a legal minor) is a ward of their parent/guardian and they are to be responsible for their well being.

I'm preaching to the choir here but I had to rant on that point. The NRA is talking too much like the gun control advocates and I don't like that. I'm new to all of this so I don't know if this is a change in the NRA position or not.

I'd like to see them talk about abolishing the NICS based on the premise that it is "prior restraint". I'd like to see them talk about allowing felons to arm themselves so that they do not become victims of crimes. I'd like to see them... well, do and say a lot more in the defense of our rights and do so without compromise and "common sense legislation".

There's nothing in the letter of the law of 1986 FOPA that would prevent BATFE from lawfully registering post-86 machine guns, but they infer from the bill's wording that Congress had the intent to restrict enlarging the registry.

Click to expand...

Completely, totally, 100% wrong. In 1986, all civilian possession of machine guns was banned, with the exception of SOTs and weapons lawfully possessed before the ban date. I don't know where this completely false yet peristent myth about the '86 ban originated, but it has no foundation in reality. The ATF didn't ban MGs in 1986, Congress did.

Why is this thread reminding me of what L&P was dropped for....

I am a NRA-life member; I am surprised at what they do support. I heard the interview and I guess I would be that radical fringe person that believes we have one law regarding firearms and all others are unconstitutional. Remember or if you don't know, go back and read the testimony given by then NRA President Karl Frederick during the hearings for the 1934 NFA (from the TFL Library).

Click to expand...

Would you have preferred the NFA passed in its original form, mandating registration and $200 tax stamps on all handguns, as well? Without the NRA, that is where we'd be today.

I like Glenn Beck.

1986 FOPA MG ban interpretations

>"I don't know where this completely false yet peristent myth about the '86 ban originated, but it has no foundation in reality. The ATF didn't ban MGs in 1986, Congress did."

Noted second amendment scholar and legal historian David Hardy can shed some light on this:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html

I would direct you to section D, 1. National Firearms Act for an explanation of the deficiencies in the current regulatory interpretation and the deficiency in establishing Congress' legislative intent.

Many here seem to be confusing compromise with concessions. When we compromise with the civilian disarmament fanatics what do we gain (a true compromise implies give and take, what have we been given for our losses as compensation or fair exchange)?

Perhaps if we gained national reciprocity or civil rights enforcement of a most basic right at the federal level then our tactics could be called compromise. But as it is, our concessions are death by a thousand cuts.

As a strategy for defending the natural right to self defense against criminals and tyrannical government, we have already conceded defeat, content with a slow bloodletting over the risk of decisive loss or victory. Somehow in the age of triangulation and group think this is seen as pragmatic and reasonable. Notice how the wimps and parasites always makes pleas for us to be reasonable within their warped framework of reason.

Given this strategy and the anti's strategy of incremental engagement it's easy to see why their every 'loss' only encourages the uncivilized to use our honor against us. The process is corrupt, but by failing to attack the problem at its root (compromising on the uncompromisable) we give authority and a beachhead to sappers and the misguided do-gooders.