Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix

[Smokin Joe]

I'll just point out that under the original understanding of the Second Amendment, it applied only to the actions of the federal government.  That was true of the entire Bill of Rights.  It wasn't until the 14th Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine" that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were held to apply to the states as well.  In fact, a lot of towns in the old West limited open carry more than 100 years ago.

That's one argument I always through back in the face of leftists who argue that states should be able to do what they want.  It was the 14th Amendment, which they pretty much use to run roughshod over states-rights in general, that is the basis for limiting the right of states to restrict guns.  If they want to get rid of those gun rights, they're going to have to get rid of everything else based on "incorporation" as well.

Correct. Individual States had their own Constitutions and Bills of Rights (or not).

Constitution of North Dakota

ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 1.
 All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain
inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring,
possessing   and   protecting   property   and   reputation;   pursuing   and   obtaining   safety   and
happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the
state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be
infringed.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/constit/a01.pdf for another example...

[bigheadfred]

@Jazzhead

How do you successfully get through each day being so consistently wrong on everything?  It truly boggles the mind. And what you're doing on a conservative forum, other than rabble rousing and pretending is also a question for the ages...SMH

No no no,  I love him. I need him.  Any time I think I may have done some backsliding I can read a couple of his posts for a reality check. And so far, I am still in this reality and not his.  ^-^

[Jazzhead]

The right to defend yourself with arms is a natural law right.  It does not require the incorporation doctrine of the 14th to be applied to the states.   It is a human right,  not a state given right.

I agree,  but I also don't view open carry as a natural right.  How does open carry in a public space equate to "self-defense"?   Why can't that be subject to the rules of the city or town you're in?   

[INVAR]

I also don't view open carry as a natural right.

Obviously, because you do not comprehend the what the words KEEP and BEAR mean.

[Jazzhead]

No no no,  I love him. I need him.  Any time I think I may have done some backsliding I can read a couple of his posts for a reality check. And so far, I am still in this reality and not his.  ^-^

I love you guys, too.   I like to write,  and you guys challenge my thinking,  and it hones my arguments.   And it IS fun getting at least one member all riled up and silly.   I understand why some folks disagree with how I label myself,  but my perspectives are eclectic,  and my history is conservative.  (I've modded conservative discussion boards in the past.)

You can best understand me as an old school guy who's not TEA party.   Conservatism back in my day was progressive in the small "p" sense.    Jack Kemp really did want to help the poor, and wanted to use free market ideas to do it.  The TEA party is all about Leave Me Alone,  and withdrawal from the larger community. TEA party types recoil from the notion of It Takes a Village, but I see no reason why conservative respect for free markets and individual liberty can't be reconciled with it.

Thanks for the opportunity to be a part of the community on this board.  You may now resume the leg-peeing.     

 

 

[bigheadfred]

FYI:

If you don't have a suture kit in your first aid supplies you can heat and curve a sewing needle with the butane mini torch you use to light your crack pipe.

[Jazzhead]

FYI:

If you don't have a suture kit in your first aid supplies you can heat and curve a sewing needle with the butane mini torch you use to light your crack pipe.

No, it's bourbon for me. 

[bigheadfred]

No, it's bourbon for me.

I've stitched myself up before. I burned a mole off my dad's back with a soldering gun once. It was his idea. Bout the first touch of that hot iron on him and he kinda changed his mind. But I planned ahead, figuring bailing is what I would do, and got him in a calf tie and finished the job.

The point is there are plenty of home fixes for things people go running to the doctor for.

I asked about municipal single payer insurance, but everyone was yelling, trying to get their word in, I got ignored. Since you have community things in mind maybe you know something about it.

My doctor charges by the minute. By appointment. Tell him in advance what you need to see him for, specifically, and that is what you see him for. It is how he does his scheduling. Most visits are in the $50 range. And he has a limited supply of some basic drugs. So I can get a script of my blood pressure meds while I am there. He is trying to get a surgical center in Idaho modeled after the one in Oklahoma. He has written a book about the health care crisis in America. He practices out of his house.

[DiogenesLamp]

I agree,  but I also don't view open carry as a natural right.  How does open carry in a public space equate to "self-defense"?   Why can't that be subject to the rules of the city or town you're in?

To answer this question with the degree of seriousness it requires would take me some time to think on it. 

You may have a point.   In 1776,  it was more difficult to conceal a pistol with any degree of success,  so as a necessity to have it,  open carry would have been a prerequisite to exercising the right. 


Today it is now not only possible,  it is quite common.   


So does a municipality have a right to regulate the display of arms?   Maybe,  but I would have to ask what public interest is at stake necessitating this?  What is the justification for requiring this? 


If it is the sensibilities of others,  than it becomes a free speech/free expression issue. 


Like I said,  I will have to think on this.

[DiogenesLamp]

Obviously, because you do not comprehend the what the words KEEP and BEAR mean.

I think he has clarified his position to be that he agrees people have a right to carry arms,  he just disagrees that they have a right to display them if a municipality passes an ordinance prohibiting it. 


I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this point as of yet, but I lean towards it being inherent in the right to carry it. 

[DiogenesLamp]

You can best understand me as an old school guy who's not TEA party.   Conservatism back in my day was progressive in the small "p" sense.    Jack Kemp really did want to help the poor, and wanted to use free market ideas to do it.  The TEA party is all about Leave Me Alone,  and withdrawal from the larger community. TEA party types recoil from the notion of It Takes a Village, but I see no reason why conservative respect for free markets and individual liberty can't be reconciled with it.

This part resonates with me.   A society is a social contract,  and I think it is the duty of a nation to do something for it's citizens that cannot help themselves. 


Not give them the right to vote, of course,  but also not leave them to die for lack of modern survival skills.   


I've always thought there should be a base level of assistance that those in want or who have had a set back in life could get from the larger community of people of the state or nation for which they are a citizen. 


It should not consist of checks which they get to spend at their discretion.   The current methods of helping the poor are not helping them.   They are enabling them to be foolish,  and nothing more.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The right to defend yourself with arms is a natural law right.  It does not require the incorporation doctrine of the 14th to be applied to the states.   It is a human right,  not a state given right.

That's probably not much consolation if you're sitting in jail for carrying illegally.  If you want to avoid that, you need incorporation or a state law to recognize the legal status of that natural right.

[bigheadfred]

We live in a culture of fear. I hate that. Around here there isn't so much of a "need' for open carry. But crime is on the rise. There used to be a lot of people who had gun racks in their back windows of their pickups. Don't see that much anymore. I don't care if people open carry. I don't care if they don't have any other kind of health insurance, either.

[bigheadfred]

That's probably not much consolation if you're sitting in jail for carrying illegally.  If you want to avoid that, you need incorporation or a state law to recognize the legal status of that natural right.

Have you seen any statistics on whether barring felons from having guns prevents crime? If you've done the time and paid for your crime why can't you have all your rights back? I don't see how marginalizing them helps. A person who got a felony for weed isn't someone that is a concern to me as far as them having a gun. If you need a gun, you can get one. And if you're a person who is planning on committing a crime with one, it being legal or illegal isn't going to stop them.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's probably not much consolation if you're sitting in jail for carrying illegally.  If you want to avoid that, you need incorporation or a state law to recognize the legal status of that natural right.

If you mean we've gotten far away from our foundational  principles,  then I agree.  Much crap passes for law nowadays.   

[Hoodat]

Correct. Individual States had their own Constitutions and Bills of Rights (or not).

Those State Constitutions had their own preambles as well.


Preamble - North Dakota Constitution

We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.[/b]

Sadly, we have fallen a very long way from what our Constitution says, or more importantly what it does not say.

[Jazzhead]

Have you seen any statistics on whether barring felons from having guns prevents crime? If you've done the time and paid for your crime why can't you have all your rights back? I don't see how marginalizing them helps. A person who got a felony for weed isn't someone that is a concern to me as far as them having a gun. If you need a gun, you can get one. And if you're a person who is planning on committing a crime with one, it being legal or illegal isn't going to stop them.

Without knowing the stats,  based on my gut instinct,  I think that's reasonable, BHF.   I don't think a non-violent felony (e.g., weed possession) ought to disqualify one from owning a gun, certainly not as a presumptive matter. 

I paid the debt I owed 'em
But they still aren't satisfied

Now I'm a branded man, out in the cold.

 - Hag

[truth_seeker]

Those State Constitutions had their own preambles as well.


Preamble - North Dakota Constitution

We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.[/b]

Sadly, we have fallen a very long way from what our Constitution says, or more importantly what it does not say.

South Dakota Constitution
 
Preamble

We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the state of South Dakota.

and

The Preamble to the Constitution is (Wyoming 1889):

We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

My grandfather was born in 1881 in then Dakota Territory, then headed for Wyoming & Montana as a teen

 
 

[Smokin Joe]

Those State Constitutions had their own preambles as well.


Preamble - North Dakota Constitution

We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.[/b]

Sadly, we have fallen a very long way from what our Constitution says, or more importantly what it does not say.

An examination of State Constitutions reveals similar sentiments throughout the Republic.