BoilerUP
Member
I did not know that...thank you for the correction.
The overriding point that RKBA was placed higher on the list by our Founding Fathers than other rights (search and seizure, cruel/unusual punishment, etc.) should mean something.
An Anti I Can Respect
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
- Status
I did not know that...thank you for the correction.
The overriding point that RKBA was placed higher on the list by our Founding Fathers than other rights (search and seizure, cruel/unusual punishment, etc.) should mean something.
Birch Knoll
Member
I'd like to think that, but it also implies that the Founders thought that the timing of raises for Senators and Representatives was more important than the right to keep and bear arms.
ttolhurst said:
Does the first "t" in your handle stand for "Tory"? It's a good thing the founding fathers didn't think as you do, or we would still be a British colony. Instead, they had the courage to fight, and die, for the rights that they knew existed, even though they had no legal protection under the British.
Birch Knoll
Member
316SS, you've clearly misunderstood me. I am saying that in the absence of a legal basis (like the 2A) for a right , there is nothing whatsoever to stop a government from suppressing or extinguishing that right. All the pronouncements and philosophizing in the world about the God-given rights of Man notwithstanding.
The founders understood this. As you said, they fought and died to secure the right . So they wrote it down, lest there ever be any misunderstanding. Surely you're not saying that they needn't have done so, and that our gun rights would have been secure without a written, legal declaration of that right?
The founders understood this. As you said, they fought and died to secure the right . So they wrote it down, lest there ever be any misunderstanding. Surely you're not saying that they needn't have done so, and that our gun rights would have been secure without a written, legal declaration of that right?
Horny Toad
Member
nneely said:
He's not altering history; he's recommending amending the Constitution by the process enshrined in the Constitution.
IOW, he's advocating, and wanting, to do it the right way, however wrong we think he is, instead of the "death from a thousand cuts" incrementalism and "by administrative procedure" bureaucratic obstructionalism favored by gun-grabbers.
So yes, he's at least deserving of some respect for that kind of up-front honesty in his position, and the admitted integrity of his advocated tactic.
ttolhurst said:
You are correct, I did misunderstand you and I thank you for clarifying. I don't agree, however, that the existence of a right in the absence of legal protection is merely academic, but rather was the justification upon which our war for independence was fought, and would be the moral basis for resisting our government in the event that it descends into tyranny. Voicing that opinion may place me on a government watch list, which helps prove my point.
It is my understanding that the right to arm one's self in defense of life, liberty, and property was so self-evident to the founders that they didn't initially see the need to codify it. And having written it down, I can't imagine many of them would consider that it has safeguarded our gun rights if they were alive to see the current state of affairs.
beatledog7
Member
If you haven't read the article linked by Horny Toad (post #30), I recommend that you do. I found it eye opening.
Thanks, Toad.
Thanks, Toad.
nyrifleman
Member
Do you know that the constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed the freedom of speech? See how far that got...
Whether a government "recognizes" or "doesn't recognize" a right doesn't mean that people under that government are free or not free to exercise that right.
As another example, I give you Yemen. Guns are illegal. Yet they have the second highest rate of gun ownership in the world. And incidentally, low murder rate, low rate of violent crime. And part of the reason that the government can't enforce gun laws is that the population is armed.
Or let me ask you differently: if the government repealed 2A and ordered a confiscation, would you get in line to hand your guns over?
JDBoardman
Member
In reply to rswartsell's comments about 'state's rights' :
First, understand that I recognize the current attitude that the term 'state's rights' is a code for racial discrimination courtesy of the anti-civil rights protestors of the 1950's and 1960's. That is most emphatically NOT what I am referring to when I use the terms 'state's rights' or 'supremecy of the state'.
In my opinion, one of the major casualties of the War Between the States and the ensuing period of Reconstruction was the Tenth Amendment. As I understand the Constitution, the Founder's intent was that the central, or Federal government would be relatively weak, and the local, or State governments would be the stronger. Thus, while such necessary functions as the enumerated powers specified in Article I, Section 8 would be surrendered to the Federal government, all other powers were to be reserved by the States, or the people, The theory was that if you, for example, disagree with Capital Punishment as practiced in Texas, you were free to move to Louisiana, where the practice is imposed in a different, and possibly more agreeable fashion. Only those powers necessary to regulate commerce between the several States, defending the shores, regulating immigration and citizenship, coining money and recognizing the legitimacy of laws passed in another state were granted to the Federal government. Even the Congress was initially established to recognize the States' power with the appointment of Senators designated as a power of the States Legislators.
Unfortunately over the years we have, through increasing dependence on the Federal government, allowed the malignant growth of Federal powers over the States' powers to an extent that the majority of the Founders would not recognize the government as now functioning. And for those who would argue that the United States would be neither as powerful nor as prosperous as it is now without the increasingly strong central government, I would give them the example of Switzerland, which is a confederation of Cantons, with the central government being relatively weak and the majority of power concentrated in the States. To me, this is what is meant as States Rights. Oh, and for the record, Rick Perry is a buffoon and an embarassment to the State of Texas every time he opens his mouth. But after all, he is an Aggie, so what more could we expect?
First, understand that I recognize the current attitude that the term 'state's rights' is a code for racial discrimination courtesy of the anti-civil rights protestors of the 1950's and 1960's. That is most emphatically NOT what I am referring to when I use the terms 'state's rights' or 'supremecy of the state'.
In my opinion, one of the major casualties of the War Between the States and the ensuing period of Reconstruction was the Tenth Amendment. As I understand the Constitution, the Founder's intent was that the central, or Federal government would be relatively weak, and the local, or State governments would be the stronger. Thus, while such necessary functions as the enumerated powers specified in Article I, Section 8 would be surrendered to the Federal government, all other powers were to be reserved by the States, or the people, The theory was that if you, for example, disagree with Capital Punishment as practiced in Texas, you were free to move to Louisiana, where the practice is imposed in a different, and possibly more agreeable fashion. Only those powers necessary to regulate commerce between the several States, defending the shores, regulating immigration and citizenship, coining money and recognizing the legitimacy of laws passed in another state were granted to the Federal government. Even the Congress was initially established to recognize the States' power with the appointment of Senators designated as a power of the States Legislators.
Unfortunately over the years we have, through increasing dependence on the Federal government, allowed the malignant growth of Federal powers over the States' powers to an extent that the majority of the Founders would not recognize the government as now functioning. And for those who would argue that the United States would be neither as powerful nor as prosperous as it is now without the increasingly strong central government, I would give them the example of Switzerland, which is a confederation of Cantons, with the central government being relatively weak and the majority of power concentrated in the States. To me, this is what is meant as States Rights. Oh, and for the record, Rick Perry is a buffoon and an embarassment to the State of Texas every time he opens his mouth. But after all, he is an Aggie, so what more could we expect?
Wow, could you imagine if article one was passed? We'd have (at least) 6,000 people in the house of representatives. That's an awfully big congregation.
My take on things;
1. We have WAY too many laws.
2. We have WAY too big of a government.
3. Changing the 2nd amendment, repealing it or otherwise, will not have any measurable effect on crime for at LEAST two generations, and quite potentially much longer.
Guns won't magically vanish. Could we end up in a Japan-style government where there simply aren't any? Sure. But a LOT of freedoms also need to go with it to make it happen; protection from unreasonable search and seizure first and foremost. (They have to FIND those guns, after all.. all 300+ million of them..)
Our country is to big, there's too many holes that can be dug.
My take on things;
1. We have WAY too many laws.
2. We have WAY too big of a government.
3. Changing the 2nd amendment, repealing it or otherwise, will not have any measurable effect on crime for at LEAST two generations, and quite potentially much longer.
Guns won't magically vanish. Could we end up in a Japan-style government where there simply aren't any? Sure. But a LOT of freedoms also need to go with it to make it happen; protection from unreasonable search and seizure first and foremost. (They have to FIND those guns, after all.. all 300+ million of them..)
Our country is to big, there's too many holes that can be dug.
Birch Knoll
Member
nyrifleman said:
I didn't say that having the right legally enshrined guaranteed that the right would be protected; anybody who's been awake during the last century know's that's not the case. I said that not having it legally enshrined meant that the right has no protection.
If you mean that people can violate the law, well, of course.
I can't honestly say. What would be the penalty for noncompliance? What is the risk of being caught? What is the likelihood of reversing or rendering irrelevant the ban through noncompliance or resistance?
Anybody who can answer your question without first asking mine hasn't thought about this very deeply.
In your Yemen example, there is apparently little risk to people to violate the law, so of course people feel free to do so. If, on the other hand, illegal gun ownership was punishable by imprisonment in a work camp without trial and summary execution for your immediate family, I think you'd find fewer people contemplating civil disobedience.
Horny Toad
Member
beatledog7 said:
It's my pleasure. It's a bit wordy, but a great read. That's why it's in my signature.
Tollhurst said:
Actually that is part of why Yemen is feared and that it could become a 'terrorist state' as our media likes to call it.
The people are against what the government is doing, and harsher punishments just cause more to oppose the government, 'radicalizing' them. The majority of the population does not support nor want that government and the gun laws are a big part of it. Much of that government and its desires and policies they have implemented are shaped by what the western world wants, (which is why the west is trying to keep that government in power and not let it become a 'terrorist state', or more accurately one shaped by the desires of the people.)
The anti gun laws for example were primarily as a result of pressure from the UN and Europe. They funded it, they funded programs of save the children and poor victims of gun violence campaigns. The population still didn't support it, but with enough funding and pressure they got the legislative goals they wanted passed. The population largely ignores it, but they do get raided by government sometimes and punished.
There is however predominantly tribal areas in some parts of the country that form militias and resist such tyranny, so implementation of even harsh brutal repression is difficult. As a result the US government and other big hitters have started helping, now with drone strikes in the country.
In the USA we are relatively wealthy, and have big well funded organizations like the NRA. Foreign countries also are not going to invade us or impose sanctions if we don't bow to foreign pressure. So foreign pressure to ban or restrict arms against the will of the people are less effective. They rely on convincing the population to agree to the restrictions. That is very different from much of the world however, where international pressure and blame would rapidly lead to legislation to restrict or ban guns.
Just do some research on the well educated and funded people in Europe behind the many Small Arms and Light Weapons reduction campaigns.
The UN is hard at work to disarm regular civilians, would like most outlawed and 'illicit' outside of police and military force, and here is what they think of guns:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/
If you read that properly you see their primary dislike of small arms is that it allows regular people to resist government. Law enforcers, no matter what law is being enforced, 'peacekeepers' (foreign soldiers deployed), 'rebels' etc
They don't like items that give people power. They want to consolidate power and have arms only in the hands of those such as police and military enforcing their policies.
And most leaders of the world support that, they want absolute unopposed power, no matter what policies they wish to implement.
They just put it in the termonology that says it from the perspective that best supports their goal.
Actually that is part of why Yemen is feared and that it could become a 'terrorist state' as our media likes to call it.
The people are against what the government is doing, and harsher punishments just cause more to oppose the government, 'radicalizing' them. The majority of the population does not support nor want that government and the gun laws are a big part of it. Much of that government and its desires and policies they have implemented are shaped by what the western world wants, (which is why the west is trying to keep that government in power and not let it become a 'terrorist state', or more accurately one shaped by the desires of the people.)
The anti gun laws for example were primarily as a result of pressure from the UN and Europe. They funded it, they funded programs of save the children and poor victims of gun violence campaigns. The population still didn't support it, but with enough funding and pressure they got the legislative goals they wanted passed. The population largely ignores it, but they do get raided by government sometimes and punished.
There is however predominantly tribal areas in some parts of the country that form militias and resist such tyranny, so implementation of even harsh brutal repression is difficult. As a result the US government and other big hitters have started helping, now with drone strikes in the country.
In the USA we are relatively wealthy, and have big well funded organizations like the NRA. Foreign countries also are not going to invade us or impose sanctions if we don't bow to foreign pressure. So foreign pressure to ban or restrict arms against the will of the people are less effective. They rely on convincing the population to agree to the restrictions. That is very different from much of the world however, where international pressure and blame would rapidly lead to legislation to restrict or ban guns.
Just do some research on the well educated and funded people in Europe behind the many Small Arms and Light Weapons reduction campaigns.
The UN is hard at work to disarm regular civilians, would like most outlawed and 'illicit' outside of police and military force, and here is what they think of guns:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/
If you read that properly you see their primary dislike of small arms is that it allows regular people to resist government. Law enforcers, no matter what law is being enforced, 'peacekeepers' (foreign soldiers deployed), 'rebels' etc
They don't like items that give people power. They want to consolidate power and have arms only in the hands of those such as police and military enforcing their policies.
And most leaders of the world support that, they want absolute unopposed power, no matter what policies they wish to implement.
They just put it in the termonology that says it from the perspective that best supports their goal.
Last edited:
rswartsell
Member
JDBoardman,
I appreciate the clarification. Regarding reconstruction, the death of Lincoln at that time did no favors for the south or the nation as a whole. With him died "hard war, easy peace" rather than a sidetrack to the conversation, this and the fate of the 10th are germaine as things build one upon the other.
The debate really goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers and Hamilton. Regardless of philosophical take or wistful "what if" postulating, the Genie is out of the bottle and I can envision no pragmatic turning back of the clock. We ARE a Federal Republic with a strong central government and the information age coupled with a global economy has sealed that deal until the apocolypse. IMHO Switzerland in it's unique place in the world can be a collection of cantons, the United States cannot at this point even contemplate such a thing.
Other than that you make a great point, and by the way Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?
P.S. No animosity intended here, you are a clear thinker and that is a rare thing. I just have a "style", some people find it objectionable but it is not intended to be so.
I appreciate the clarification. Regarding reconstruction, the death of Lincoln at that time did no favors for the south or the nation as a whole. With him died "hard war, easy peace" rather than a sidetrack to the conversation, this and the fate of the 10th are germaine as things build one upon the other.
The debate really goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers and Hamilton. Regardless of philosophical take or wistful "what if" postulating, the Genie is out of the bottle and I can envision no pragmatic turning back of the clock. We ARE a Federal Republic with a strong central government and the information age coupled with a global economy has sealed that deal until the apocolypse. IMHO Switzerland in it's unique place in the world can be a collection of cantons, the United States cannot at this point even contemplate such a thing.
Other than that you make a great point, and by the way Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?
P.S. No animosity intended here, you are a clear thinker and that is a rare thing. I just have a "style", some people find it objectionable but it is not intended to be so.
Last edited:
Romeo 33 Delta
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 402
The title: An anti I can respect.
I have no respect for any anti period!
I have no respect for any anti period!
PoserHoser
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 207
What don't people understand about "this right shall not be infringed" ???
Texan Scott
Member
^this. I wholeheartedly disagree with the man, of course... but he's honest about his intent, and he advocates rule of law. Better than the sneaky, backdoor, little-bit-at-a-time "we don't really want to take away your guns" stuff.
Lost Sheep
Member
Conceptually, you have a point (crossing the Rubicon and all that), and I tend to agree with the sentiment, but factually incorrect. The altering of the Constitution would not enable it to be "remolded each time Congress thinks". And certainly untrue is the the hyperbolic, "Once you remove or adjust the Bill of Rights it loses that sacred quality. From then on it becomes just another 10 pieces of legislation that can be adjusted and altered at will."
I can respect Dershowitz's honesty even as I recognize his error.
Lost Sheep
Last edited:
bushmaster1313
Member
Even more than honesty.
Took on his own Party.
He called the Liberal Justices who voted to get rid of the RTKBA by Judicial fiat: "Foolish".
Took on his own Party.
He called the Liberal Justices who voted to get rid of the RTKBA by Judicial fiat: "Foolish".
henschman
Member
I am a proponent of the other view -- I believe in promoting liberty in the most effective way possible under the circumstances. When the law is on the side of liberty, I advocate it. When it is not, I advocate ignoring it, resisting it, changing it, or whatever the most convenient means of obviating it is. The way I see it, any law which is a violation of the rights of man is an illegitimate one, whether it is part of the Constitution or some city ordinance. Fortunately most of the Constitution is designed to protect liberty than it is a violation of it, so the Constitutional argument is frequently a convenient one to make. Still, it is not an end unto itself or anything of the sort.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Regardless of Second Amendment considerations, gun control fails on the cost/benefit analysis. I don't agree with Dershowitz that the benefits of a gun ban outweigh the costs. From the 1950s I have seen unorganized black marketering in guns from existing regulations; the hoods in my 'hood got guns illegally. I anticipate organized black marketering in guns in response to a prohibition, a black market like the prohibitions on alcohol and marijuana that will be supported by millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens. (And in a debate (Piers Morgan and Dershowitz shouting down John Lott) Dershowitz blurted out he would ban all guns 100%. "Reasonable regulation" to a prohibitionist is always prohibition.)
Through out the commentary on Carl Bakal's "No Right to Bear Arms" and Michael Bellesiles' "Arming America" the litany was the 2A protected a militia right only, therefore private arms had to be banned. There are millions of things that do not have a BoR article stating "the right of the people to keep and bear ... shall not be infringed", yet no one rational argues prohibition is mandatory for everything not specifically protected by the Constitution. Quite frankly, things get outlawed based on cost/benefit considerations.
The reason gun prohibitionists (besides Dershowitz and a very few other honest gun prohibitionists) pretend that the 2A doesn't say what it does say? They honestly believe the costs of gun rights exceeds the benefits of gun control and the benefits of gun rights are less than the costs of gun control. They may privately acknowledge the 2A protects "the right of the people" but publicly pretend that it does not producing things like the aptly named Bogus Symposium (sponsored by Carl Bogus), because they see benefit from prohibition and no benefit from gun rights.
Through out the commentary on Carl Bakal's "No Right to Bear Arms" and Michael Bellesiles' "Arming America" the litany was the 2A protected a militia right only, therefore private arms had to be banned. There are millions of things that do not have a BoR article stating "the right of the people to keep and bear ... shall not be infringed", yet no one rational argues prohibition is mandatory for everything not specifically protected by the Constitution. Quite frankly, things get outlawed based on cost/benefit considerations.
The reason gun prohibitionists (besides Dershowitz and a very few other honest gun prohibitionists) pretend that the 2A doesn't say what it does say? They honestly believe the costs of gun rights exceeds the benefits of gun control and the benefits of gun rights are less than the costs of gun control. They may privately acknowledge the 2A protects "the right of the people" but publicly pretend that it does not producing things like the aptly named Bogus Symposium (sponsored by Carl Bogus), because they see benefit from prohibition and no benefit from gun rights.
wally
Member
That Elvis has already left the building, the 4th has largely already been "read out", and what has been "read in" has greatly damaged society.
- Status