NineseveN
member
springmom said:
But most understand that, because we know that there is a difference between arms and ordnance.
CPL w/o training? i think its crazy
- Thread starter UWstudent
- Start date
- Status
But most understand that, because we know that there is a difference between arms and ordnance.
beaucoup ammo
Member
Hunting
IMO, the 2nd Ammendment deals with a Civilian Force..not a government controlled professional one. "Well regulated" doesn't mean government controlled.
"Well regulated" does mean being well trained in firearms. We train ourselves. Make ourselves "well regulated" by attending CCW classes (at a reasonable price!), by hunting, plinking at the ranch, etc. In the "well regulated" meaning well schooled in firearms context, hunting plays a big part.
Take Care
IMO, the 2nd Ammendment deals with a Civilian Force..not a government controlled professional one. "Well regulated" doesn't mean government controlled.
"Well regulated" does mean being well trained in firearms. We train ourselves. Make ourselves "well regulated" by attending CCW classes (at a reasonable price!), by hunting, plinking at the ranch, etc. In the "well regulated" meaning well schooled in firearms context, hunting plays a big part.
Take Care
USMCRotrHed
Member
reg·u·late
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
OK, I don't think the 2nd and 4th definitions fit here.
The 1st definition, in 2A context, means "a well principled militia"
The 3rd definition means a "properly functioning militia"
mi·li·tia
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Here I do believe the 1st definition is the one intended by the framers.
So, a real wordy 1st phrase could read: An army of ordinary citizens who are directed by priciple, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed.
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
OK, I don't think the 2nd and 4th definitions fit here.
The 1st definition, in 2A context, means "a well principled militia"
The 3rd definition means a "properly functioning militia"
mi·li·tia
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Here I do believe the 1st definition is the one intended by the framers.
So, a real wordy 1st phrase could read: An army of ordinary citizens who are directed by priciple, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed.
NineseveN
member
USMCRotrHed said:
There is some debate on this, but the take that I and others have is that "regulated" in that time period meant "equipped". So it would read today.
A well equipped body of free citizens, being necessary to the security of a free state against tyranny from the government, the right of the people to keep and bear military arms shall not be infringed.
USMCRotrHed
Member
Then at least the 2 of us agree (and I'm sure many more) that the amendment gives the PEOPLE the right we cherish. You say "equipped", I say "acting on principle". I will venture to guess that we can agree that you must be equipped to act on that principle. Both interpretations must work hand in hand. With principled but not equipped is powerless, and equipped without the principle of a govenment of the people, by the people , and for the people is a mob.
Double Maduro
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,125
jtward01,
All of the things you mention, fit under the category of arms. I would also add any and all munitions and equipment used by any military or government. (I personally want an A10 and a M1A2 Abrams.) After all, if an armed society is designed to protect itself against a tyranical government, shouldn't we have access to the same weapons. We did when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, why not now?
Do I want my neighbor to have claymores around his perimeter? Not especially, but it is his perimeter. It would also make it easier to protect my perimeter.
By the way, many of us actually trust our fellow citizens to do the right thing. I know my neighbors, I trust my neighbors, I expect my neighbors to look out for the neighborhood as much as I do. So far we have not let each other down.
Now on a different note.
Funny how the troll, acomplishing what he intended, has dissapeared, isn't it? He's probably sitting back and thinking.
"Got them 'gun nuts' fighting amongst themselves, and I got some good quotes to post on my anti site, good days work."
(Actually, I don't know if he dissapeared or just changed names.)
Now why don't we all try to get along and go about our lives in peace and harmony?
DM
All of the things you mention, fit under the category of arms. I would also add any and all munitions and equipment used by any military or government. (I personally want an A10 and a M1A2 Abrams.) After all, if an armed society is designed to protect itself against a tyranical government, shouldn't we have access to the same weapons. We did when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, why not now?
Do I want my neighbor to have claymores around his perimeter? Not especially, but it is his perimeter. It would also make it easier to protect my perimeter.
By the way, many of us actually trust our fellow citizens to do the right thing. I know my neighbors, I trust my neighbors, I expect my neighbors to look out for the neighborhood as much as I do. So far we have not let each other down.
Now on a different note.
Funny how the troll, acomplishing what he intended, has dissapeared, isn't it? He's probably sitting back and thinking.
"Got them 'gun nuts' fighting amongst themselves, and I got some good quotes to post on my anti site, good days work."
(Actually, I don't know if he dissapeared or just changed names.)
Now why don't we all try to get along and go about our lives in peace and harmony?
DM
NineseveN
member
USMCRotrHed said:
Oh definitely, I wasn't knocking your reading of it, just offering a consensus from a previous discussion. One minor qualm though, it doesn't give us anything, it records rights we have at birth and restricts the power of the government over infringing on them. But yes, I think we agree overall, the principle is liberty, the equippment is firepower.
NineseveN
member
Double Maduro said:
RANGE TRIP!!!
Double Maduro said:
Troll? What troll?
At least I have the courage to post using my real name, not some silly alter ego screen name.
I'm surprised no one answered my question. Perhaps my earlier wording was too difficult to understand. I'll make it easier.
Do you believe that people convicted of violent felonies and the mentally unstable should be allowed to purchase firearms?
NineseveN said:
It is well established that there are limits on free speech. The most commonly mentioned example is the prohibition against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but there are many others. A US soldier cannot publicly endorse any political candidate. A lawyer, doctor or priest cannot repeat what they are told in confidence without being subject to legal penalties. If a newspaper publishes something they know to be false they can be held liable for damages. The FCC prohibits certain words from being broadcast over the airwaves (just ask Howard Stern). Internet forum owners can set rules, lock threads and eject members whose posts violate those rules. Free speech is not absolute, regardless of the wording in the Bill of Rights.
smince
Member.
How about requiring this to vote also
Like this ever really happens
I thought your question had to do with whether the untrained girl with the pink cell-phone should be allowed to have a CCW permit
Twist, twist -- your earlier concern was that untrained gun-owners would not handle firearms safely; and then it was that they would not shoot straight. Now you're down to being alarmed at the prospect of violent felons and the "mentally unstable" bearing arms.jtward01 said:
Which is it? Pick one. Do some grunt work to support it, or admit you're a self-panicker.
You have made assertions without supporting evidence, then demanded others allay your fears. Why are you so suspicious of your fellow man?
...As for "felons and the insane," when they're locked up, they lose a lot more rights tan merely keeping and bearing; and if they're out, they've already been deemed fit to mingle with the general population by the sort of Authorities in whom you have such faith -- they are even allowed to operate power destructive devices, the use of which is not a Constitutionally protected right: automobiles!
If you don't like the Bill of Rights, either emigrate someplace where you won't have to worry about it, or agitate forthrightly for change. Trying to weasel-word it out of existance is no fit way for an honest man to proceed.
I also have to wonder at the mindset of a fellow who owns an expensive gun he has never fired and apparently keeps as an art piece. Oh, it is yours to do with as you wish, but that appears to me to be the behavior of someone with a lot of money to spend and no firm grasp of the functional utility of small arms. This is refelected in your attitude towards other gun-owners and would be gun-owners. "I've got mine," you seem to be saying, "so the the dickens with everyone else; if they can't make me unafraid of them, they should not have guns."
Sorry; life is not like that. It's a great big scary world and the only person responsible for your safety is you. Other people have all manner of frightening abilities and devices; their motivations are unclear and many of them are quite careless. You're not home, safe, with Dad and Mom handling the Big World for you anymore. Deal with it. Crooks and crazies will have guns, no matter how many rules, restrictions and regulations you try to erect. They're scornful and/or heedless of such niceities; if they were not, they wouldn't be loonies or bad guys. The only persons your rules will disarm are the law-abiding.
--Herself
NineseveN
member
jtward01 said:
Ideally, yes. Once a felon is released from prison, they are no longer under incarceration and therefor free citizens to be attributed the same rights as any free person under the Bill of Rights . You lose your right to unreasonable search and seizure while in prison, but it is regained when you are released from prison. So are all of your other rights for the most part. There is a disparity that I don't really care for in there.
Last edited:
beaucoup ammo
Member
No CHL In Texas
for anyone ever convicted of a felony... or if you're judged mentally unstable. You can't vote if you've ever been convicted of a felony..ever.
Take Care
for anyone ever convicted of a felony... or if you're judged mentally unstable. You can't vote if you've ever been convicted of a felony..ever.
Take Care
chopinbloc
Member
in short, yes. if someone has not paid their debt to society, they should not be free (or alive) to walk into a gun store. have not sufficiently repaid their debt to society or recovered from their mental illness why have we let them out? this is not a gun issue, this is a crime and punishment issue.
your statements about speech are extremely muddled. in your first example, the act of shouting "fire!" is likely to cause real and actual harm to other people. the mere posession of a firearm or carrying of said weapon is not analagous (sp?). it is, however illegal to fire your weapon in a crowded theater and this is a better analogy. you see, government - i.e. the people - has every right to determine that certain ACTIONS are dangerous and therefore can not be tolerated. your second example has nothing to do with constitutional law, but the uniform code of military justice and you still are not entirely correct. an OFFICER or senior nco is not to promote his political beliefs to junior soldiers. we have every right to discuss among our peers and civilians which candidate we prefer. as far as i know, lawyers and priests are not prohibited by law from revealing what they have been told in confidence, but PROTECTED by law from being subpoenaed for that information. they legally COULD tell but it would be unethical and they cannot be required to. the fcc technically doesn't levy fines but "asks" for a voluntary fee for violations of "voluntary" rules, as i understand it, though it amounts to defacto regulations and fines. private rules about speech have nothing to do about constitutional law, either.
NineseveN
member
jtward01 said:
You are mistaking the differences between public and private forums and civil liberties with free speech issues. You clearly have no grasp of the law or the BoR. If you have the time, read the following article that I wrote and published electronically back in September. It's long, and I don't doubt the size of this post will annoy some people, but if you read it and still don't get the point, I go back to maintaining that you have a fundamental misunderstanding, the very same one that has allowed the wool to be pulled over the eyes of firearms owners and given free passage to the erosion of our rights.
--------------------------------------------
I have often been asked why I take such a hard line in respect to the right to keep and bear arms.
Some would say it's because I am an extremist or a fanatic, and on the surface, I guess you could argue that. However, if am to be painted with such a broad stroke, let us then paint anyone that believes in any right with all the passion they can muster the same.
The real answer to the initial question reduces down to the simple reality that I feel as though I am forced to. No right recorded in the U.S. Constitution or in the Amendments is under attack, or has been under attack such as the right to keep and bear arms has been. In the name of “reasonable restrictions”, public safety or the common good of society, the rights of firearms owners have been faced with an accelerating cycle of erosion since 1934 (see the National Firearms Act of 1934). And the harsh reality is that some of these restrictions have come from the very advocacy groups and politicians that wear a veneer of support for the Second Amendment and ask us to donate our time and money to the cause.
These days, we don’t see much infringement on the freedom of speech, or the freedom against unreasonable search and seizure, or due process; all amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The government or some special interest groups may try to slink their way past the line on those issues, but they’re usually caught pretty quickly and taken to task on it. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between. The right to keep and bear arms, as it is documented in the Constitution, has had its teeth extracted by self-serving politicians and interest groups to the point to where the right is treated more like a privilege.
You generally have to have a permit to own or carry a gun. If you do not follow specific guidelines, that permit can be revoked. If you commit certain crimes, you will no longer be able to obtain said permit and if you already have one, it will be taken from you. There are laws on the books restricting what types of arms you can own and in every state in the United States of America, you have to pass a federal background check to purchase a firearm, so that the government can ensure that you have not violated any those provisions.
There is no other right that can be revoked permanently from a free man or woman living in the United States without challenge, not one. There is no mechanism to permanently revoke your right to free speech or the freedom from government enacting laws to establish certain religions and inhibit your right to free worship. There is no provision for an American citizen to eternally forfeit their rights against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause or a warrant (though the Patriot Act is getting dangerously close to that). Due process cannot be forever moved to the side by the government for any reason (though, again, the Patriot Act is coming dangerously close to that end as well). No matter what crime one commits, what acts they engage in, if they are jailed for their actions, once they are a free person living in The United States of America, every right is immediately restored to them, except of course the right to keep and bear arms in most cases. And even if one does not commit a crime, there are restrictions on how one may pursue the freedom in the first place. Failure to act in the manner prescribed in these restrictions, no mater how superficial, baseless or arbitrary, will result in the permanent revocation of your right to keep and bear arms.
Now, some will say, that there is no absolute freedom of speech because you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, so the whole firearms rights issue is moot. They’ll say that you may have firearms, but there are restrictions, just like there are restrictions on the speech you are allowed to engage in. But the example of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is a flawed argument. That is not control. Misuse of freedoms is not exercising them. The freedom is for one to be able to engage in free speech, but misusing that for unlawful purposes is not protected under the First Amendment. The same parallels can be drawn with firearms. According to the Second Amendment, we have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean that we can use them for unlawful purposes such as robbing a bank (against the law with or without a firearm), firing into a public crowd for no reason or shooting others without sufficient grounds for self-defense. This “fire in a crowded theater” example simply does not work because apples are being compared to oranges. You are free to say ‘fire’ all you like. You can even exclaim it in a crowded theater, so long as there truly is a fire and your intent is to inform the moviegoers for their own safety, not to cause a riot or a panic when no such condition exists, thus breaking the law. You are not free to use that word, or any other to commit a crime or endanger others. You may not use provocative speech to incite a riot. You may not use the freedom of speech as tool for treason against the government.
Now allow me to move back to the relationship between the Patriot Act and infringements on our rights, because there is an important distinction to be made here. Even though the Patriot Act does contain some questionable loopholes, the American Civil Liberties Union is all over that monstrosity like bees on honey. Just check their website and you’ll see that the Patriot Act is daily front page material there. When it comes to the Second Amendment, all we get are “reasonable controls” geared towards preserving or protecting the common good coming from, or being supported by, our would-be champions, the NRA. If you look at their actions or even their marketing, you’ll see where even they come up short on the Second Amendment. There is no such thing as “reasonable control” over a right, none, and all those that advocate it are not friends to that particular right. If only the ACLU supported all of our rights equally and with the same energy and resources, imagine what mountains they could move for firearms owners. Unfortunately, the ACLU conveniently forgets the Second Amendment when they begin making their war cries against infringement. Perhaps if gun control included provisions against talking about guns in public, or homosexuals, Muslims or African Americans owning or carrying firearms, we’d see some heat coming from their cannons on the issue.
So what if the ACLU and the government supported our religious rights like the NRA and the government supports the rights of firearms owners?
“Any person is free to practice the religion of their choosing, so long as it meets the following criteria:
1. It is on the list of approved religions to be practiced. This list will vary from state to state.
2. One must obtain a permit to practice any religion except in those states that have a policy in place for a non-permit system for practicing religion. Most states will have a “shall issue” permit system wherein they may not deny one the right to practice a religion, so long as they are not a felon, habitual drunkard, fugitive from justice, or have some other undesirable trait or history in their past.
3. All religion must remain concealed from public view if one resides in a state that does not allow “open practice” of religion. If one’s religion becomes public knowledge or if they are caught openly displaying their religion, their right to practice will be revoked and they may face applicable charges according to state laws.
4. One wishing to practice a religion that the government deems as being out of the mainstream of what would encompass one’s normal religious needs must pay a fee and register their religion with the Bureau of Religion, Agriculture and Transportation, hereby known as The BRAT. This fee, which we will call a “tax stamp”, will cost $200.00 and only apply to one specific religion, not all religions. For each new non-mainstream religion one wishes to practice, another $200.00 tax must be paid. Religions that fall under this category are those that have any of the following features:
a. Any religion which is not as loud as a mainstream religion
b. Any religion which is capable of influencing mass numbers of people at once, with a single speech from the pulpit or a single piece of literature. Such religions will be referred to as “Religions of Mass Conversion”.
c. Any non-mainstream religion which was created after the date that the National Religion Act (NRA) was enacted; November 13th, 1934.
d. Any religion that has been altered to circumvent any of these stipulations or accomplish an otherwise prohibited religious feature without prior approval from the BRAT and a local law enforcement officer, in writing, with a $200.00 Tax Stamp being paid prior to the commencement of said alteration.
e. Any religion which does not have any of the above named features, but includes features that are otherwise not fitting to the definition of a religion that provides for one’s normal, mainstream religious needs. Such religions will be referred to as “Any Other Religions” and also require registration and a $200.00 Tax Stamp.
The governments, both federal and state, reserve the right to revise these laws as they see fit, with little to no notice at any time. Anyone caught practicing religion without following all of the guidelines noted above may have the right to practice any religion permanently revoked and may be further punishable by law.”
For another funny parody of how ridiculous and out of touch the firearms laws are in comparison to those surrounding the First Amendment, read this previous paragraph I posted back in August.
Now, I understand that those examples were extreme, and in some cases, humorous, but make no mistake about the true parallels that can be drawn out in fantasy, but do not yet exist because no other right has been circumcised and neutered such as the right to keep and bear arms has. It is important both to note the hypocrisy and how easily a few pieces of legislation, a high profile self interest group and a couple of eager politicians can distort and molest our fundamental rights. Every inch that we give up or allow to be taken from us in regards to our right to keep and bear arms is an inch that empowers a tyrant, an aggressor or a radical interest group to take away a yard from our other rights. There are no lesser rights, unfortunately, there are rights that are lesser protected these days. That may be the doom of us all.
jtward01 said:
Let me ask you first: do you believe the Bill of Rights to be a granting of rights?
It is not; it is a list of restrictions on the government. It recognizes preexisting rights of the People, both a specified few and a general statement that those few are not the only rights held by the People or delegated by them to the States.
"Free speech" is indeed absolute -- in venues you yourself own or control.
Let's take your list.
- You can indeed yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre; if there is no fire, you may face consequences, both civil and criminal.
- U. S. soldiers (officers only?) may not endorse candidates because they are in the employ of the government (and under arms); this is a hedge against the military junta so often found among our Southern neighbors.
- The privacy of the confessional is not a matter of temporal law but of Church doctrine; medical privacy no longer exists, due to HPPA; both may still be used to excuse oneself from testifying in court, but can be gotten round.
- Attorney-client privilege is still protected...but what did most of our polticians do before running for office? They will protect their own, count on it. There is no legal bar to an attorney ratting out a client, though. He's simply protected if he chooses not to -- and not in all instances.
- Slander and libel require proof, and usually proof of actual harm. This is more than mere speech.
- The FCC is indeed under the delusion that it can regulate over-the-air speech. Courts have corrected them on this matter in the past and may again in the future. Just because the FCC has been able to do so does not mean it is Constitutional.
- Internet forum owners -- and access providers! -- may indeed set rules and enforce them: they own the hardware! This is precisely the same as you setting rules for speech within your own home, or Wal-Mart setting rules for speech inside their stores.
They used to teach these things in Civics class. I'm starting to wonder if schools are now having Bund meetings instead.
--Herself
Mannlicher
Member
jtward01 said:
boy jt, you are one bright fellow. You zeroed right in on that. Mo power to ya. Yes, I carried an illegal concealed gun daily for about 30 years. I have no problem with that.
Herself said:
My concern still centers around people with little or no firearms experience and expertise being allowed to have a concealed weapons permit. My comments regarding felons et al were simply in response to the comments of others.
The Colt remains unfired as an investment. The Springer 1911A1 is my "shooter." As for having a lot of money to spend, my wife and I are currently living on $984.00 per month from Social Security and $151.00 per month in food stamps. My wife has Parkinson's, I'm in a wheelchair after ruining my back working as a paramedic. Yeah, we have a lot of money to spend. If our wonderful government ever gets off its ass and sends me the money it owes me, that a federal judge ordered it to pay me, then I've made arrangements to add an M1 carbine to my meager collection.
Folks, I really want to wrap this up. First, I want to apologize for my "don't give me any of the constitutional crap" comment. That was out of line.
Many of you have made well reasoned arguments and we don't have any disagreements as to how the Second Amendment reads and what the founding fathers meant when they drafted it.
We do disagree though on their intentions when they established the three branches of government and gave the courts the ability to interpret the Constitution, and the people a way to amend it to suit the times. They could not have envisioned the society we have today where in most homes the safe and efficient use of firearms is no longer taught by one generation to the next.
Someone made the point that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, that it was written to insure that the people have the ability to stand up to a tyranical government. I agree.
But under the same logic I submit that it has nothing to do with personal protection, either, and therefore requiring training and licensing of individuals who wish to carry a firearm for personal defense does not violate the intent of the Second Amendment.
We all support the private ownership of firearms, we just differ in our opinions of how easy it should be for someone to be licensed to carry one in public. I hope we can agree to disagree and move on to other subjects where we have more in common.
Many of you have made well reasoned arguments and we don't have any disagreements as to how the Second Amendment reads and what the founding fathers meant when they drafted it.
We do disagree though on their intentions when they established the three branches of government and gave the courts the ability to interpret the Constitution, and the people a way to amend it to suit the times. They could not have envisioned the society we have today where in most homes the safe and efficient use of firearms is no longer taught by one generation to the next.
Someone made the point that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, that it was written to insure that the people have the ability to stand up to a tyranical government. I agree.
But under the same logic I submit that it has nothing to do with personal protection, either, and therefore requiring training and licensing of individuals who wish to carry a firearm for personal defense does not violate the intent of the Second Amendment.
We all support the private ownership of firearms, we just differ in our opinions of how easy it should be for someone to be licensed to carry one in public. I hope we can agree to disagree and move on to other subjects where we have more in common.
Old Dog
Member
Wow, am I ever jumping in late to this one ...
I'd just like to say to UWStudent that I'll agree with his statement that all prospective WA CPL holders should get training prior to being issued their CPLs ... IF UWStudent will agree with my premise that people should be allowed to post on internet forums ONLY after they learn to correctly spell all the words they're using ... 'Course, we might not see him around here for a while, then.
To the topic at hand ... I'd submit that most folks in this state (and probably the other states with no mandated training, as well), or at least a comfortably high percentage, who obtain CPLs and actually carry on a regular basis do avail themselves of some sort of formal training, and that further, probably are more familiar with their chosen carry piece and have learned more about the legal issues of CCW, than many in states that require training. At least that's been my experience when I talk to my fellow Evergreen Staters at the gun shops, gun shows, ranges and elsewhere ...
This statement is a little over the top:
I'd just like to say to UWStudent that I'll agree with his statement that all prospective WA CPL holders should get training prior to being issued their CPLs ... IF UWStudent will agree with my premise that people should be allowed to post on internet forums ONLY after they learn to correctly spell all the words they're using ... 'Course, we might not see him around here for a while, then.
To the topic at hand ... I'd submit that most folks in this state (and probably the other states with no mandated training, as well), or at least a comfortably high percentage, who obtain CPLs and actually carry on a regular basis do avail themselves of some sort of formal training, and that further, probably are more familiar with their chosen carry piece and have learned more about the legal issues of CCW, than many in states that require training. At least that's been my experience when I talk to my fellow Evergreen Staters at the gun shops, gun shows, ranges and elsewhere ...
This statement is a little over the top:
Shucks, why stop there? I say that all potential firearm purchasers must have completed at least one enlistment as a SEAL, Special Forces or Force Recon on top of that ....
YES! Yes it does. Implicit in the background of the Founding Fathers was the understanding that all citizens were responsible for their own self-defense and the self defense of their families and villages.
Fret and fuss all you like; it's still going to happen. There's no amount of training and testing that will produce for-sure, 100% safe gun-handlers -- look at how driver's licensing has worked! Note, too, that anyone with the money or credit can buy a car, even if they can't legally drive it. There's no background check and I have never been asked to show my license. Driving's not even Constitutionally protected; why should it be so much harder to exercise my right to keep and bear arms than to buy a car? Just to make you happy? Don't think so!jtward01 said:
'Scuse me? You have a fancy Colt stowed away as an "investment" and you are receiving food stamps? Living on Social Security? How's that work, and why aren't you ashamed?jtward01 said:
Great. With my tax money.
I'm real sorry your wife has Parkinsons and you blew out your back. Me, I have intractable trigeminal neuralgia and a crummy spine up at the neck -- stuff displaced along with cervical ridiculopathy trying to pinch the nerves. That means I kinda hurt a whole lot all the time and enjoy migraines and delightful tinnitis most of the time and my hands and feet will go numb and/or fine motor control gets snarled* if I'm not careful and don't exercise: we all got troubles. I'm workin' 40+ hour weeks at a skilled trade, paying your shiny-nice Social Security several times over in addition to my own bills; I never bought a new gun in my life. I've never bought much at all new, in fact.
You're -- words fail me. It would be non-High Road to utter them if they did not. There's plenty a person with a ruined back can do other than wait for Uncle Sugar to pass out the Social Welfare checks. ...Like maybe sell off a fancy gun or two to pay for some schooling at a sit-down trade. But that's just what I'd do; you'll have to chart your own course.
I'm done listening to you.
--Herself
_________________________
* Oh, boo hoo hoo. Woe is me. However, that is why I'm such an A-1 ace typist, darn fingers get persnickitty. Pretty snazzy, hey?
Last edited:
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
I stand with Ted Nugent on this issue-I have a permit to carry. It's called the Constitution. I have carried with permission and without permission. I've spent about 4K after being caught carrying without permission.
We don't have too good a track record of legislating societal change. If you want to live in a society that produces responsible and competent citizens then do your duty. Teach responsibility and competency by example. Reward it. Hold the irresponsibile and incompetent up as examples to be avoided by all self respecting people.
Where are the courts granted the ability to interpret the Constitution?
The violent felon argument is a common fallacious argument. One, we should endeavour for a society where violent felons are killed by the victims on the first felonious offense. Two, the surviving felons should never, ever be released from prison. My prisons wouldn't be what we have today. The barracks used during WWII for our servicemen were constitutional. The same lodgings and amenities should be constitutional today for violent criminals. Put a wire strand at knee level and a thick mine field beyond it. Invite them to feel free to walk out at any time.
In our country today, the bar to felons possessing firearms is a danger to all gun owners. Check the numbers of felonies today that were once perfectly legal activities. How long before the Brady Bunch gets the idea of not banning guns but banning gun owners by turning damn near everyone into a felon? Another form of incrementalism.
We don't have too good a track record of legislating societal change. If you want to live in a society that produces responsible and competent citizens then do your duty. Teach responsibility and competency by example. Reward it. Hold the irresponsibile and incompetent up as examples to be avoided by all self respecting people.
Where are the courts granted the ability to interpret the Constitution?
The violent felon argument is a common fallacious argument. One, we should endeavour for a society where violent felons are killed by the victims on the first felonious offense. Two, the surviving felons should never, ever be released from prison. My prisons wouldn't be what we have today. The barracks used during WWII for our servicemen were constitutional. The same lodgings and amenities should be constitutional today for violent criminals. Put a wire strand at knee level and a thick mine field beyond it. Invite them to feel free to walk out at any time.
In our country today, the bar to felons possessing firearms is a danger to all gun owners. Check the numbers of felonies today that were once perfectly legal activities. How long before the Brady Bunch gets the idea of not banning guns but banning gun owners by turning damn near everyone into a felon? Another form of incrementalism.
Herself said:
Never expected it to be 100%, just better.
That "fancy Colt is worth maybe $1,500 'cause it's a .22. If it were a .45 then it would be worth considerably more. I bought it when I was still able to work.
My wife and I each worked more than 30 years paying into the Social Security system. We earned every penny we get.
As soon as Medicare kicks in I'll be going for the physical therapy I need to get back on my feet again. Until then I can't sit in the wheelchair for more than about 20 minutes without a heavy dose of Methadone or Morphine Sulphate to control the pain. Both meds make me drowsy, unable to concentrate and unsafe to operate any kind of machinery. That's why I haven't been able to do any shooting for more than a year.
As for Social Security being welfare, I assume if that's your attitude you will refuse to accept your Social Security benefits when you reach retirement age?
Enough with the personal stuff. It does nothing to advance the discussion of training, or at least a mandatory demonstration of proficiency for CWP holders.
Byron Quick said:
And you would pay for all these prisons how? Oh, you don't mind your taxes going up to build and staff them, and pay for the lifetime of food, clothing and medical care for each of these inmates? What a generous fellow you are.
- Status