The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on March 27, 2018, 12:51:53 pm
-
Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
By Max Greenwood - 03/27/18 08:36 AM EDT
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment, decrying the right to bear arms as outdated and misunderstood.
In an op-ed published by The New York Times, Stevens, a Republican, said that students and anti-gun violence advocates should press lawmakers to take on the amendment.
While protests have so far focused on implementing new restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and strengthening background checks, he wrote, repealing the Second Amendment would result in more lasting change.
more
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/380406-former-supreme-court-justice-repeal-the-second-amendment (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/380406-former-supreme-court-justice-repeal-the-second-amendment)
-
...repealing the Second Amendment would result in more lasting change.
That's for sure.
-
He is addled beyond reason or reality. The 2nd Amendment is probably THE most important amendment of all and no way, no how, would Americans go along with eliminating it....
no matter how much the radical leftists moist-dream about it.
-
The 2A is a flawed amendment, but it doesn't need to be repealed. Rather, it should be clarified to extend to the individual right to self-defense. Arguably, the individual right to RKBA depends on the whim of a fickle court majority, no different than the abortion right. The 2A's focus on the militia is its great flaw; it is about time to ratify and confirm by Constitutional amendment the Heller decision.
-
As a former justice, I’m sure he’s familiar with the Amendment process by which repealing the Second would be impossible.
-
As a former justice, I’m sure he’s familiar with the Amendment process by which repealing the Second would be impossible.
Its impossible to 'repeal' a right enumerated in the BOR. To think otherwise belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the basis of the Constitution itself.
Although its not surprising a leftist would believe otherwise.
-
As a former justice, I’m sure he’s familiar with the Amendment process by which repealing the Second would be impossible.
I agree that repealing the 2A is a practical impossibility. But clarifying it to confirm the individual RKBA for purposes of self defense outside the context of a militia is both politically possible and desirable. The predicate clause provides the means for future mischief - for gun confiscation on the ground the right isn't an individual right like the rights to speech and the exercise of religion.
Just look at how the abortion right has been politicized for the past 40 years - many folks continue to be single issue voters out of the hope (or fear) that a new President will finally appoint the judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade. Heller was similarly a 5 - 4 decision, and its holding is similarly imperiled.
It is time for the people, by means of the Constitutional amendment process, to ratify the individual RKBA found by Heller.
-
The 2A is a flawed amendment, but it doesn't need to be repealed. Rather, it should be clarified to extend to the individual right to self-defense. Arguably, the individual right to RKBA depends on the whim of a fickle court majority, no different than the abortion right. The 2A's focus on the militia is its great flaw; it is about time to ratify and confirm by Constitutional amendment the Heller decision.
If you read what was said in its historical context, there is no flaw. The flaw exists in the distortions thereof and the semantic contortions those who have tried to make the words say something they do not.
The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed isn't ambiguous in its intent, nor is the concept of a well controlled army being necessary to the security of a free state--whether that army be controlled for the purpose of repelling invaders or whether it be controlled to prevent the military imposition of tyranny.
Reading the Federalist Papers will elucidate the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and the the relation to the debate surrounding the establishment of a federal Army. That the need was perceived by those who wrote the first ten Amendments to the Constitution to enshrine that Right in the Bill of Rights only underscores the anticipation that those bent on tyranny would attempt to disarm the People.
-
Oh no. Clarity of the amendment is not in question. Misinterpretation is, and always has been the problem.
The predicate clause makes the right unclear in the context of the individual right to ordinary self defense. It took 200 years for the SCOTUS to find such an individual right. It is not merely a question of misinterpretation - the language itself has always been flawed.
-
The predicate clause makes the right unclear in the context of the individual right to ordinary self defense. It took 200 years for the SCOTUS to find such an individual right. It is not merely a question of misinterpretation - the language itself has always been flawed.
It took two hundred years fo stupidity and creeping tyranny for there to be the need to have the SCOTUS hear a case to affirm that the Right to defend one's self, home, and family exists.
Before then, it was pretty well understood, and a right we would affirm exists for all nature's creatures.
The SCOTUS didn't "find the right", it has always existed, it is just that people were not so stupid nor tyrannical on these shores to deny it to the point of needing adjudication.
-
If you read what was said in its historical context, there is no flaw. The flaw exists in the distortions thereof and the semantic contortions those who have tried to make the words say something they do not.
The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed isn't ambiguous in its intent, nor is the concept of a well controlled army being necessary to the security of a free state--whether that army be controlled for the purpose of repelling invaders or whether it be controlled to prevent the military imposition of tyranny.
Reading the Federalist Papers will elucidate the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and the the relation to the debate surrounding the establishment of a federal Army. That the need was perceived by those who wrote the first ten Amendments to the Constitution to enshrine that Right in the Bill of Rights only underscores the anticipation that hose bent on tyranny would attempt to disarm the People.
Yes, but - you assume that judges will interpret the 2A in the way you describe by reference to the Federalist Papers. That's simply not a reasonable assumption. Even a conservative jurist like Justice Thomas will look primarily to plain meaning and will pointedly NOT refer to contemporaneous writings. The predicate clause is a real problem for anyone who asserts that right is a right with respect to ordinary, individual self-defense. Yes, Heller confirms that - but Heller was a 5 -4 decision. Put a Dem in the White House and the individual RKBA is likely gone.
-
It took two hundred years fo stupidity and creeping tyranny for there to be the need to have the SCOTUS hear a case to affirm that the Right to defend one's self, home, and family exists.
Before then, it was pretty well understood, and a right we would affirm exists for all nature's creatures.
The SCOTUS didn't "find the right", it has always existed, it is just that people were not so stupid nor tyrannical on these shores to deny it to the point of needing adjudication.
Don't be naïve, SJ. I know that's what you believe, but the predicate clause cannot simply be willed away.
The individual right to self defense is a judge-made right that is as fragile as the abortion right. It is better to face reality and take steps to ratify and confirm that right, than to place your hopes on the Federalist Papers.
-
Yes, but - you assume that judges will interpret the 2A in the way you describe by reference to the Federalist Papers. That's simply not a reasonable assumption. Even a conservative jurist like Justice Thomas will look primarily to plain meaning and will pointedly NOT refer to contemporaneous writings. The predicate clause is a real problem for anyone who asserts that right is an individual right. Yes, Heller confirms that - but Heller was a 5 -4 decision. Put a Dem in the White House and the individual RKBA is likely gone.
As I have already stated, the Right to defend self, family, home, all exist regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
Rights don't go away because some bunch of tyrants deem them gone, they exist, and continue to exist, UNalienable, regardless of decrees and edicts. Removing the 2nd Amendment will not remove the Right because the Amendment did not grant the Right, it only affirms it.
As the Founders intended, the Right exists to help stop those who would try to take it.
As common sense dictates, 80 million armed people have not spent the treasure on firearms and associated accessories to meekly give them up.
-
Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted in recent decades to extend beyond its original intent to allow citizens to form militias in the face of potential government tyranny.
There's no misinterpretation at all. The founders were painfully aware of how arms controlled by a permanent standing army would be under the authority of the government and not necessarily benign to the people they're supposedly protecting.
-
Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted in recent decades to extend beyond its original intent to allow citizens to form militias in the face of potential government tyranny.
There's no misinterpretation at all. The founders were painfully aware of how arms controlled by a permanent standing army would be under the authority of the government and not necessarily benign to the people they're supposedly protecting.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
-
Don't be naïve, SJ. I know that's what you believe, but the predicate clause cannot simply be willed away.
The individual right to self defense is a judge-made right that is as fragile as the abortion right. It is better to face reality and take steps to ratify and confirm that right, than to place your hopes on the Federalist Papers.
The individual right to self defense, the right to LIFE is and has ever been unalienable.
The alleged 'right' to slaughter your baby in the womb flies in the face of that unalienable right, and even the commandment that 'Thou Shall not murder.'
One of those rights is unalienable, one is a court fabrication.
Please revisit the meaning of unalienable, it is seminal to this discussion. A God-given Right to defend yourself is understood, but nowhere in scripture does The Almighty come down in favor of murdering your children in the womb.
That people finally got soft and stupid enough to question a right to be armed to defend themselves, enough so that their political servants thought they could take that away, is the only modern construct here, but even decades of Liberal indoctrination to the contrary and the creeping corruption of our servant class has not been enough for the government to successfully assert that the right to arm for self defense did not exist.
That it even required the affirmation of that Right by the SCOTUS is the sad result of 200 years of decay and departure from original intent.
-
Oh no. Clarity of the amendment is not in question. Misinterpretation is, and always has been the problem.
Isn’t that what he said?
But, I guess you misinterpreted Jazzys comment.
See how easy it is?
I thought he made an astute observation, Jazz did. Don’t leave it up to future courts, make the amendment clear enough even an addled liberal Justice can understand it’s meaning.
-
Isn’t that what he said?
But, I guess you misinterpreted Jazzys comment.
See how easy it is?
I thought he made an astute observation, Jazz did. Don’t leave it up to future courts, make the amendment clear enough even an addled liberal Justice can understand it’s meaning.
It is only through ignorance of the original intent and/or willful misinterpretation that the 2nd Amendment is taken to be anything other than an affirmation of the sanctity of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.
No one who has trouble with such a fundamental concept should ever be seated on the SCOTUS. That would be a failure of the nomination/confirmation process and those participating in it.
-
Isn’t that what he said?
But, I guess you misinterpreted Jazzys comment.
See how easy it is?
I thought he made an astute observation, Jazz did. Don’t leave it up to future courts, make the amendment clear enough even an addled liberal Justice can understand it’s meaning.
If we accept this premise then the entire BOR, excepting what the State prefers to retain, wouldn't be worth the parchment its printed on. No thanks.
-
Once you repeal the Second Amendment, it won't be long until the First is repealed as well.
-
I thought he made an astute observation, Jazz did. Don’t leave it up to future courts, make the amendment clear enough even an addled liberal Justice can understand it’s meaning.
That's it, AC - and you expressed it far more succinctly and effectively than I did.
-
Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted in recent decades to extend beyond its original intent to allow citizens to form militias in the face of potential government tyranny.
There's no misinterpretation at all. The founders were painfully aware of how arms controlled by a permanent standing army would be under the authority of the government and not necessarily benign to the people they're supposedly protecting.
Those who insist that the language is not clear or that the Amendment is 'misinterpreted beyond intent' are simply those who seek to abolish your God-granted right to arms for defense.
It would not matter if it was plainly written that guns in the hands of the people shall not be infringed, those intent on crushing and abolishing your rights, will find a clever argument to strip you of it, and tell you that the plain words written do not mean what they say, or are not applicable to today's society.
It's pointless to argue this anymore. They are going to abolish this right or regulate it into irrelevance for the little people come hell or high water and they are going to strip you of your right to arms, one way or another.
You simply have to decide whether to live as a slave and be at the mercy of the state and the criminal, or die on your feet free.
-
The individual right to self defense, the right to LIFE is and has ever been unalienable.
The alleged 'right' to slaughter your baby in the womb flies in the face of that unalienable right, and even the commandment that 'Thou Shall not murder.'
One of those rights is unalienable, one is a court fabrication.
Please revisit the meaning of unalienable, it is seminal to this discussion. A God-given Right to defend yourself is understood, but nowhere in scripture does The Almighty come down in favor of murdering your children in the womb.
That people finally got soft and stupid enough to question a right to be armed to defend themselves, enough so that their political servants thought they could take that away, is the only modern construct here, but even decades of Liberal indoctrination to the contrary and the creeping corruption of our servant class has not been enough for the government to successfully assert that the right to arm for self defense did not exist.
That it even required the affirmation of that Right by the SCOTUS is the sad result of 200 years of decay and departure from original intent.
The right to individual self-defense is no more explicitly stated in the Constitution than the individual rights of privacy and self-determination that undergird the abortion right. Each has been found Constitutionally protected by a decision of the Supreme Court. But, in each case, the right has been subjected to political attack, and it is naïve to assume that the political blowback over the "judge-made" abortion right won't be replicated with respect to the "judge-made" individual RKBA.
Better to address the predicate clause directly by means of a Constitutional amendment that ratifies Heller. Otherwise, you'll see the next Dem President and Congress ratify justices that will overturn it.
-
It's pointless to argue this anymore. They are going to abolish this right or regulate it into irrelevance for the little people come hell or high water and they are going to strip you of your right to arms, one way or another.
You simply have to decide whether to live as a slave and be at the mercy of the state and the criminal, or die on your feet free.
You're so full of shit. I know you relish the thought of armed insurrection, but the mechanism exists to ratify and confirm the individual RKBA without having to "die on your feet". *****rollingeyes*****
-
Some days, the news makes me feel like I'm in a really bad episode of Black Mirror.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html)
March 27, 2018
This weekend’s marches make it clear: To enact real gun control, we need to change the Constitution.
(excerpt)
-
The right to individual self-defense is no more explicitly stated in the Constitution than the individual rights of privacy and self-determination that undergird the abortion right. Each has been found Constitutionally protected by a decision of the Supreme Court. But, in each case, the right has been subjected to political attack, and it is naïve to assume that the political blowback over the "judge-made" abortion right won't be replicated with respect to the "judge-made" individual RKBA.
Better to address the predicate clause directly by means of a Constitutional amendment that ratifies Heller. Otherwise, you'll see the next Dem President and Congress ratify justices that will overturn it.
Your point here would be more credible if you weren't excoriating gunowners here immediately following the Parkland shooting for being 'selfish' for not accepting yet more state mandated limits to gun ownership.
-
The 2A is a flawed amendment, but it doesn't need to be repealed. Rather, it should be clarified to extend to the individual right to self-defense. Arguably, the individual right to RKBA depends on the whim of a fickle court majority, no different than the abortion right. The 2A's focus on the militia is its great flaw; it is about time to ratify and confirm by Constitutional amendment the Heller decision.
It's only flawed to those that wish to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
To those of us without a zeal to repress Constitutional liberties "shall not infringe" is pretty clear and to the point.
-
If you read what was said in its historical context, there is no flaw. The flaw exists in the distortions thereof and the semantic contortions those who have tried to make the words say something they do not.
Technically, it is a grammatically flawed amendment. A vindictive court could in theory throw it out as incomprehensible and senseless.
The only clear part of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Assuming that no court uses the grammatical gobbledygook ahead of it to strike the whole amendment down, that should be set in stone.
The sentence starts off on one subject (a well-regulated militia), continues with a descriptor (being necessary), but has no predicate before shifting off to another sentence with the subject "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
-
The sentence starts off on one subject (a well-regulated militia), continues with a descriptor (being necessary), but has no predicate before shifting off to another sentence with the subject "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
That's why the argument goes back to original intent. We were not supposed to have a large, permanent standing army. That's a relatively new aspect, since the end of WWII.
-
It's only flawed to those that wish to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
To those of us without a zeal to repress Constitutional liberties "shall not infringe" is pretty clear and to the point.
Where did he say that? Or, is that another misinterpretation?
-
Where did he say that? Or, is that another misinterpretation?
Virtually every word he says on this subject involves some scheme to infringe on the right, while over-protesting for the RKBA. @txradioguy's interpretation appears pretty clear to me.
-
Better to address the predicate clause directly by means of a Constitutional amendment that ratifies Heller. Otherwise, you'll see the next Dem President and Congress ratify justices that will overturn it.
They have no power to overturn an Amendment. There is no justification to have a Constitutional Amendment to address your silly 'predicate clause' argument, because it would not matter anyway. Those of you hellbent on repeal or regulating the right to the point of irrelevance, will not be deterred by what is written or amended as we continually see demonstrated.
Those intent on abolishing the right of the little people to have the ability to resist the state and the criminal under the guise of public safety will disregard any language or 'clarification'.
Your 'living Constitution' pals are going to push for repeal no matter what, and it doesn't matter what anyone says, does, writes or argues. It comes down to a very simple reality: how many thousands or millions of Americans will the they empower the government to kill in order to feel 'safe' from their neighbors and countrymen they do not trust with liberty?
You're so full of shit. I know you relish the thought of armed insurrection, but the mechanism exists to ratify and confirm the individual RKBA without having to "die on your feet".
Being willing to die on my feet against creeps that want to 'reasonably regulate' a right out of existence or abolish it altogether is the entire reason and purpose of the Second Amendment. A lawless government empowered by a morally bankrupt people are not going to be deterred by any 'laws' you want to add to the ones they are intent on eradicating.
But I invite you to demonstrate your stupidity by testing whether or not we are willing to die on our feet free, rather than to comply with what you and your compatriots intend to do.
Denninger is exactly correct: (https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=233205)
...anyone demanding more gun control or a repeal of the Second Amendment must answer the following question:
What are you going to do with the very large number of people who will not comply so long as they are alive?
In order to secure those weapons you are going to have to murder them. And it is not a few people who you will have to murder either -- conservatively we are talking about several million Americans, or several hundred years worth of firearm homicide victims.
If you are not willing to commit several million murders then shut up right now, because that's what you're going to have to do to get what you want. And if you are willing to do so then shut up about this being related to the murders committed today, including murders committed in a school, since you are willing to commit several hundred times more of those very same murders to get what you want.
Finally, one last point: The first such murders, if you get what you want, will be like shooting fish in a barrel.
As soon as those first murders take place, either by you directly or those who work for the government it won't be like that. Nobody with a working brain will sit quietly at home and wait to be slaughtered along with their loved ones, including their children.
Nobody with the mental capacity greater than that of a young child would ever intentionally set the nation upon that course and nobody (myself included) will want to live in a nation where the inevitable outcome of that course of action will lead yet this is exactly the course of action those who wish to repeal the 2nd Amendment or start stripping weapons from the population on any material basis is advocating for.
We the people must demand that Stevens, David Hogg and the rest answer to this question before one more march takes place or one more TV appearance occurs and we must not stop demanding that answer so as to understand exactly what their true motivations are and expose said motivations to the public so they can be judged appropriately for what they are.
The motivation clearly is not to reduce the homicide rate as the demanded course of action is defined by the willingness and declaration of intent to murder millions of Americans in a wholesale slaughter.
-
Even if we do as Jazz suggests and reword the Second to eliminate any vagueries it won't particularly matter. The left will just set about to twist and misconstrue that phrasing. The goal for them is civilian disarmament. Over 22,000 laws regulating the right that "shall not be infringed" makes that pretty obvious.
-
Even if we do as Jazz suggests and reword the Second to eliminate any vagueries it won't particularly matter. The left will just set about to twist and misconstrue that phrasing. The goal for them is civilian disarmament. Over 22,000 laws regulating the right that "shall not be infringed" makes that pretty obvious.
Exactly. Well said.
-
They have no power to overturn an Amendment. There is no justification to have a Constitutional Denninger is exactly correct: (https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=233205)
What are you going to do with the very large number of people who will not comply so long as they are alive?
In order to secure those weapons you are going to have to murder them. And it is not a few people who you will have to murder either -- conservatively we are talking about several million Americans, or several hundred years worth of firearm homicide victims.
Finally, one last point: The first such murders, if you get what you want, will be like shooting fish in a barrel.
As soon as those first murders take place, either by you directly or those who work for the government it won't be like that. Nobody with a working brain will sit quietly at home and wait to be slaughtered along with their loved ones, including their children.
This right here. Oh sure, the first people you violently disarm may very well go easily after being taken by surprise, but after the shock wears off, it's "shit's on" against the grabbers. Let's hope the government drones they send discover quickly that getting home safe from work every day will no longer be so assured.
-
As much as we probably don’t like to do it and wish we didn’t have to, human nature will always make it necessary to fight to preserve liberty.
There’s always going to be that struggle of those that want to be left alone in peace and freedom versus those that want power and control over their fellow man. This is nothing new and will continue for as long as Humans dominate the earth.
-
Technically, it is a grammatically flawed amendment. A vindictive court could in theory throw it out as incomprehensible and senseless.
The only clear part of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Assuming that no court uses the grammatical gobbledygook ahead of it to strike the whole amendment down, that should be set in stone.
The sentence starts off on one subject (a well-regulated militia), continues with a descriptor (being necessary), but has no predicate before shifting off to another sentence with the subject "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Thats because people usually wrongly connect the first sentence to the second. Read it again in the context Noah Webster implies:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
-
Your point here would be more credible if you weren't excoriating gunowners here immediately following the Parkland shooting for being 'selfish' for not accepting yet more state mandated limits to gun ownership.
I don't support "limits" on gun ownership. I don't support assault weapon bans, or other limitations on the numbers of guns one may want to acquire. I understand that for many of you gun ownership is a hobby and pastime. I understand - I enjoy collecting stuff, too (in my case, jazz records).
What I support is licensure and registration, same as with cars. Requiring guns to be registered and transferred in documented transactions does not "limit" gun ownership, any more than registration of automobiles to their lawful owners impedes my ability to own the cars I want and can afford.
-
As much as we probably don’t like to do it and wish we didn’t have to, human nature will always make it necessary to fight to preserve liberty.
There’s always going to be that struggle of those that want to be left alone in peace and freedom versus those that want power and control over their fellow man. This is nothing new and will continue for as long as Humans dominate the earth.
Except somehow idiots think that we in this country have evolved beyond history and human nature and can simply update an Amendment and 'reasonably regulate' the rights they say are too dangerous and a public liability in the hands of the little people. The concept of people willing to die in defense of those things they think are subject to reasonable regulation is absurd to them.
-
I don't support "limits" on gun ownership. I don't support assault weapon bans, or other limitations on the numbers of guns one may want to acquire. I understand that for many of you gun ownership is a hobby and pastime. I understand - I enjoy collecting stuff, too (in my case, jazz records).
What I support is licensure and registration, same as with cars. Requiring guns to be registered and transferred in documented transactions does not "limit" gun ownership, any more than registration of automobiles to their lawful owners impedes my ability to own the cars I want and can afford.
The problem is its not a hobby or pasttime. Its a God given un-enfringable right considered important enough by the writers of our guiding document to be specifically enumerated immediately following the right of free speech, as if accenting it.
The State has already shown us its ass on this issue. Its clear where they would take us, one step at a time or otherwise.
We simply do not trust them to be honest about their intentions. Nor did the founders think we should. Nor should any people who intend to remain free.
-
What I support is licensure and registration, same as with cars. Requiring guns to be registered and transferred in documented transactions does not "limit" gun ownership, any more than registration of automobiles to their lawful owners impedes my ability to own the cars I want and can afford.
You're so full of shit. Anyone with a working brain that ever read the lessons of history understands with complete clarity that licensing and registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.
It's only those full of shit with evil intent that insist that they want no such thing. Yes you do - despite what bullshit you say to the contrary.
We are not going to comply with any of these suggestions of yours anymore than we would comply with a confiscation order.
The question is going to be how many people in your government are going to be willing to die on their feet attempting to impose what you intend upon those willing to die on their feet resisting you?
-
As much as we probably don’t like to do it and wish we didn’t have to, human nature will always make it necessary to fight to preserve liberty.
There’s always going to be that struggle of those that want to be left alone in peace and freedom versus those that want power and control over their fellow man. This is nothing new and will continue for as long as Humans dominate the earth.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.
From Thomas Jefferson to William Smith
Paris, November 13, 1787
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm (https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm)
-
Even if we do as Jazz suggests and reword the Second to eliminate any vagueries it won't particularly matter. The left will just set about to twist and misconstrue that phrasing. The goal for them is civilian disarmament. Over 22,000 laws regulating the right that "shall not be infringed" makes that pretty obvious.
Rights can be regulated, they cannot be taken away. We have freedom of speech and assembly, but you need to get a permit in many places to hold a public demonstration. Women have the right to choose, but some states now limit the right to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The gun right (like any other) can be regulated, but not denied. Myself, I support licensure and registration, and all transactions being properly documented. None of those things infringe on the right, as compared to D.C.'s de facto ban on handguns that was overturned by Heller.
What is hanging by a thread is the Heller decision's ruling that the 2A right extends to the individual right to keep arms for self-defense, outside the context of a militia. That right is therefore Constitutionally protected, but also fragile because a court five years from now, with a majority appointed by Dems, could easily overturn Heller. That is the vulnerability that gun owners need to try to correct.
How many folks here have voted to elect candidates who have pledged to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade? The individual gun right is just as vulnerable to political exploitation, folks.
-
I don't support "limits" on gun ownership. I don't support assault weapon bans, or other limitations on the numbers of guns one may want to acquire. I understand that for many of you gun ownership is a hobby and pastime. I understand - I enjoy collecting stuff, too (in my case, jazz records).
What I support is licensure and registration, same as with cars.
So as the same with cars, ownership does not require licensure and registration. For collectors, those that keep only on their business and property, no requirement at all. Only if they want to be used in the public paid roads do they need a licensure and registration.
-
You're so full of shit. Anyone with a working brain that ever read the lessons of history understands with complete clarity that licensing and registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.
Licensure and registration hasn't led to the confiscation of cars.
The question is going to be how many people in your government are going to be willing to die on their feet attempting to impose what you intend upon those willing to die on their feet resisting you?
Stop huffing paint.
-
So as the same with cars, ownership does not require licensure and registration. For collectors, those that keep only on their business and property, no requirement at all. Only if they want to be used in the public paid roads do they need a licensure and registration.
Licensure and registration is appropriate whenever a gun or a motor vehicle is to be used for its intended purpose.
-
Rights can be regulated, they cannot be taken away. We have freedom of speech and assembly, but you need to get a permit in many places to hold a public demonstration. Women have the right to choose, but some states now limit the right to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The gun right (like any other) can be regulated, but not denied. Myself, I support licensure and registration, and all transactions being properly documented. None of those things infringe on the right, as compared to D.C.'s de facto ban on handguns that was overturned by Heller.
What is hanging by a thread is the Heller decision's ruling that the 2A right extends to the individual right to keep arms for self-defense, outside the context of a militia. That right is therefore Constitutionally protected, but also fragile because a court five years from now, with a majority appointed by Dems, could easily overturn Heller. That is the vulnerability that gun owners need to try to correct.
How many folks here have voted to elect candidates who have pledged to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade? The individual gun right is just as vulnerable to political exploitation, folks.
Of course this argument has been used in the case of each and every one of the the laws enacted 'regulating' firearms ownership to the present time, and will continue to be used right up until the time the State passes a law requiring all privately owned arms be kept under lock and key at some government sanctioned gun club.
And even then they'll still be telling us they haven't 'infringed' upon our right to own firearms.
-
Technically, it is a grammatically flawed amendment. A vindictive court could in theory throw it out as incomprehensible and senseless.
The only clear part of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Assuming that no court uses the grammatical gobbledygook ahead of it to strike the whole amendment down, that should be set in stone.
The sentence starts off on one subject (a well-regulated militia), continues with a descriptor (being necessary), but has no predicate before shifting off to another sentence with the subject "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, used to agree that the Amendment is grammatically flawed, but after he did massive research on other legal documents produced by the colonies, he discovered that the American colonists followed a tradition of presenting an inarguably clear "objective" clause along with a single "justification clause." More importantly, Volokh noticed that the justification clause would ordinarily present only a single reason of arguably numerous reasons for a given law.
So, Volokh no longer regards the wording of the 2nd Amendment as grammatically weird. It is stylistically odd from our modern standpoint, but Volokh is now a gun rights guy who believes that the "originalist intent" is very clearly found ONLY in the objective clause--which clause obviously presents the self-evident, God-given right to self defense.
John Paul Stevens is a political reprobate, likely a spiritual reprobate as well--since he has no grasp of a God-given right.
-
Licensure and registration is appropriate whenever a gun or a motor vehicle is to be used for its intended purpose.
You know that is a false claim. Cars, trucks, etc are only registered based upon where they are used, not how.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/raLUi.jpg)
It isn't because of a lack of danger, that those above are not registered nor carry liability insurance.
-
Isn’t that what he said?
But, I guess you misinterpreted Jazzys comment.
See how easy it is?
I thought he made an astute observation, Jazz did. Don’t leave it up to future courts, make the amendment clear enough even an addled liberal Justice can understand it’s meaning.
A senseless endeavor when judges can pull penumbras out of their asses any time they want to.
-
You know that is a false claim. Cars, trucks, etc are only registered based upon where they are used, not how.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/raLUi.jpg)
It isn't because of a lack of danger, that those above are not registered nor carry liability insurance.
Those cars are clearly being used for their intended purpose, yet are not licensed. Huh. How can this be?
-
Those cars are clearly being used for their intended purpose, yet are not licensed. Huh. How can this be?
Some people have a hard time understanding life outside their sheltered environment.
(http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/30593209+w660+h440+re0+cr1+ar0/30401134.jpg)
(http://www.performancetopdrives.com/high-racks/IMG_7903.JPG)
-
A senseless endeavor when judges can pull penumbras out of their asses any time they want to.
Judges can pull entire arguments not made by litigants standing in a courtroom before them. That's how Obamacare turned into a tax.
-
Licensure and registration hasn't led to the confiscation of cars.
Apples and bowling balls. Licensure and registration has led to confiscation of arms 100% of the time.
We do not trust you with the assurances you make.
Quite the opposite.
When you tell us that such 'regulation' will not end up with bans and confiscation, we assert and assume for a fact that it will, and will treat it the same ay we would a confiscation order.
-
Apples and bowling balls. Licensure and registration has led to confiscation of arms 100% of the time.
Simply not true. Licensure and registration exists in several states - and have not led to confiscation. Countries like Switzerland, which have long standing traditions respecting both the shooting sports and self-defense, nevertheless require licensure and registration - again without confiscation.
-
Apples and bowling balls. Licensure and registration has led to confiscation of arms 100% of the time.
It may not necessarily always but licensing and registration firearms do make it easier if, God for bid, a true dictator ever comes to power. An unarmed citizenry is easier to subjugate that an armed one. I don’t mean citizens going toe to toe with their 30-30 rifle’s with the United States Marine Corps. It’s just historically speaking, citizens are easier to control and manage when they are disarmed
I guess it boils down to how much do you trust the government. Is government honest and trustworthy enough to not abuse a registration lists?
-
Apples and bowling balls. Licensure and registration has led to confiscation of arms 100% of the time.
We do not trust you with the assurances you make.
Quite the opposite.
When you tell us that such 'regulation' will not end up with bans and confiscation, we assert and assume for a fact that it will, and will treat it the same ay we would a confiscation order.
The only good news I can offer is that only the U.S. military is an American entity powerful enough to confiscate the millions and millions of civilian firearms in the USA--and they will not obey an order for wholesale confiscation of firearms based on registration data.
U.N. troops on American soil would be another story. If you were to hunker down in your house to resist the U.N., they would stand off and blow you and your home to smithereens.
-
Some people have a hard time understanding life outside their sheltered environment.
But what's your point? So there's a narrow exception for folks who only drive their cars off road. Who cares? The vast majority of cars are bought and intended for use on public roads, where the danger of harming others is obvious. Such use requires licensure and regulation - and no one, to my knowledge, goes cock-eyed barmy threatening to start an armed insurrection.
-
The only good news I can offer is that only the U.S. military is an American entity powerful enough to confiscate the millions and millions of civilian firearms in the USA--and they will not obey an order for wholesale confiscation of firearms based on registration data.
Makes sense to me. So, no, licensure and registration will not lead to confiscation.
-
The only good news I can offer is that only the U.S. military is an American entity powerful enough to confiscate the millions and millions of civilian firearms in the USA--and they will not obey an order for wholesale confiscation of firearms based on registration data.
U.N. troops on American soil would be another story. If you were to hunker down in your house to resist the U.N., they would stand off and blow you and your home to smithereens.
The first few times they peel off a civilian, yes. Not so much once everybody gets word of it.
(https://www.politusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UN_helmet-bullet-holes-paranoid-republicans.jpg)
-
Simply not true. Licensure and registration exists in several states - and have not led to confiscation. Countries like Switzerland, which have long standing traditions respecting both the shooting sports and self-defense, nevertheless require licensure and registration - again without confiscation.
Look bub, I'll make this simple so even and idiot can understand it: any stupid scheme to license or register the inalienable exercising of a right, is a tyrannical affront on liberty and will be dealt with accordingly.
Because if one must comply with government licensing and registration before one is permitted to exercise a Right - then you have confiscated and stripped us of our rights and replaced them with govenment-granted privileges.
If you want to get started with watering the tree of liberty - by all means, keep pushing this garbage of yours.
-
Simply not true. Licensure and registration exists in several states - and have not led to confiscation. Countries like Switzerland, which have long standing traditions respecting both the shooting sports and self-defense, nevertheless require licensure and registration - again without confiscation.
Switzerland has a license to buy a handgun from a dealer. It is not required to buy from an individual. It is not required to buy a rifle or shotgun. The registration is not required for hunting rifles.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php (https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php)
-
Makes sense to me. So, no, licensure and registration will not lead to confiscation.
There is still a problem with the remote but non-zero probability of U.N. peacekeepers on American soil (or, say, Chinese troops in China, perhaps).
Also, local police forces might be corrupt enough to use thug tactics at a local level--perhaps in coordination with leftover Deep State thugs in our 75 non-military but militarized federal agencies (like the Bureau of Land Management).
So, registration is still a problem. Again, however, gun confiscation would be the final stroke of a Socialist takeover by a corrupt federal government using foreign resources (like happens in a typical Communist takeover of a free state).
-
Makes sense to me. So, no, licensure and registration will not lead to confiscation.
Creeping confiscation, just like boiling a frog. Get people who are not objects of sympathy first. Going on right now:
In Hawaii, they passed a "reasonable restriction" that anybody with a Medical Marijuana card could not possess a firearm. They used the gun registration database, matched it to the medial card database and showed up at their houses with warrants to seize the weapons. it's also happened in CA to vets who were accused of having PTSD. Your assertion that registration doesn't lead to confiscation has already been firmly refuted in modern-day United States. It clearly does.
-
But what's your point?
That you continue to make a false analogy.
So there's a narrow exception for folks who only drive their cars off road. Who cares? The vast majority of cars are bought and intended for use on public roads, where the danger of harming others is obvious.
Are you trying to claim the other locations don't have such a danger? They do. Be honest. The primary reason for license and registration is government revenue and control, to identify individuals.
Such use requires licensure and regulation
Only on public roads. Not because of ownership.
- and no one, to my knowledge, goes cock-eyed barmy threatening to start an armed insurrection.
The second amendment was written by people who just led an armed insurrection against their lawful government. The first incident of armed rebellion began with the attempted confiscation of the peoples' firearms. To pretend this wasn't part of the intent is just silly.
-
Creeping confiscation, just like boiling a frog. Get people who are not objects of sympathy first. Going on right now:
In Hawaii, they passed a "reasonable restriction" that anybody with a Medical Marijuana card could not possess a firearm. They used the gun registration database, matched it to the medial card database and showed up at their houses with warrants to seize the weapons. it's also happened in CA to vets who were accused of having PTSD. Your assertion that registration doesn't lead to confiscation has already been firmly refuted in modern-day United States. It clearly does.
He knows that. It was mentioned before on this subject. He willfully chooses to ignore it in order to push his own 'reasonable regulation' schemes.
Today he will insist he is not for gun bans or confiscation and his plan will do no such thing.
Tomorrow he will tell you that gun bans and confiscation and limits on who is allowed to have a weapon are 'reasonable'.
His ideas and advocacies are the very definition of tyranny and what is unreasonable to anyone who values liberty.
-
any stupid scheme to license or register the inalienable exercising of a right, is a tyrannical affront on liberty
Unquestionably and the infringement on a natural right guaranteed by the Constitution makes it so. This is not a privilege like driving a car on public roads. What is the purpose of registration if not to document ownership and location? Why would you want to help a tyranny take your rights? And even assuming you do, what do citizens get in return other than more tyranny?
-
Also, local police forces might be corrupt enough to use thug tactics at a local level--perhaps in coordination with leftover Deep State thugs in our 75 non-military but militarized federal agencies (like the Bureau of Land Management).
That's what Civil Asset Forfeiture is good for. Look for it to be used by "local authorities" to bolster their armories this way.
-
Licensure and registration is appropriate whenever a gun or a motor vehicle is to be used for its intended purpose.
In CA a separate license/registration category for vehicles is available, for non-operation. It could be used, for a long-term restoration project as one example. Or a site used to display a collection, not driven on the highways.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/forms/reg/reg102 (https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/forms/reg/reg102)
-
That's what Civil Asset Forfeiture is good for. Look for it to be used by "local authorities" to bolster their armories this way.
Right.
-
In CA a separate license/registration category for vehicles is available, for non-operation. It could be used, for a long-term restoration project as one example. Or a site used to display a collection, not driven on the highways.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/forms/reg/reg102 (https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/forms/reg/reg102)
Curious: Does the State of California require licenses for NASCAR vehicles?
-
The comments to Jazz so far only serve to buttress his point. Everyone seems to have a different perspective on the meaning of the second amendment as written. I’ve heard these same arguments now for decades.
Seems to me if someone finds it necessary to quote writers from the day to explain what the second amendment means to say, and if we want to make the second amendment immune from liberal misinterpretation, we might want to correct the sentence structure to clarify and strengthen the language protecting the individual right to KABA.
-
Simply not true. Licensure and registration exists in several states - and have not led to confiscation. Countries like Switzerland, which have long standing traditions respecting both the shooting sports and self-defense, nevertheless require licensure and registration - again without confiscation.
But this is not 100% of the time, in 100% of the cases.
Switzerland is unique among European countries, and you know this.
Other European countries require Licences and registration for gun ownership, but do not actually allow the gun owner to keep the firearm at home.
It allows the "owner" to kept their firearms in a government sanctioned gun club, where the owner may "visit" his firearms from time to time, rendering the whole idea of "ownership" in these countries as useless and preposterous.
So, you can draw the conclusion that most countries that require licenses,registrations, and insurance will not be like Switzerland. They are not now like Switzerland, but rather like the gun club example.
-
Apples and bowling balls.
Good thing Newton was under the right tree.
-
The first few times they peel off a civilian, yes. Not so much once everybody gets word of it.
(https://www.politusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UN_helmet-bullet-holes-paranoid-republicans.jpg)
My concerns is that "peacekeepers" would not "peel off" a civilian or two. They would mortar an entire town to "pacify" it. So, we would have to throw together a militia to mobilize outside our homes.
-
The comments to Jazz so far only serve to buttress his point. Everyone seems to have a different perspective on the meaning of the second amendment as written. I’ve heard these same arguments now for decades.
Seems to me if someone finds it necessary to quote writers from the day to explain what the second amendment means to say, and if we want to make the second amendment immune from liberal misinterpretation, we might want to correct the sentence structure to clarify and strengthen the language protecting the individual right to KABA.
Good idea. Let's allow lawyers to rewrite the Second Amendment. That way, they can use legalese to parse it to the point of being meaningless.
-
My concerns is that "peacekeepers" would not "peel off" a civilian or two. They would mortar an entire town to "pacify" it. So, we would have to throw together a militia to mobilize outside our homes.
They might even get away with that...until the members of the military start activating themselves and start mortaring the UN troops, and trying the ones not killed in the barrage for the murder of US citizens.
-
Some clown on Facebook just attempted to remind me that prohibition once was in the Constitution and then it was repealed.
Oh yes, I can see how prohibition is essential to the rights of Americans vs. a tyrannical government. *****rollingeyes*****
-
They might even get away with that...until the members of the military start activating themselves and start mortaring the UN troops, and trying the ones not killed in the barrage for the murder of US citizens.
Perzackly.
-
Some people have a hard time understanding life outside their sheltered environment.
(http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/30593209+w660+h440+re0+cr1+ar0/30401134.jpg)
(http://www.performancetopdrives.com/high-racks/IMG_7903.JPG)
And some people in the sparsely populated countryside have a hard time understanding the problems that folks living in the asphalt jungles of America face every day. It goes both ways.
-
Some clown on Facebook just attempted to remind me that prohibition once was in the Constitution and then it was repealed.
Oh yes, I can see how prohibition is essential to the rights of Americans vs. a tyrannical government. *****rollingeyes*****
Prohibition has stood for nearly a century as an example of why we don't do crap like that. Do it again with firearms and the non-compliance will make Prohibition look like a church ice-cream social.
-
And some people in the sparsely populated countryside have a hard time understanding the problems that folks living in the asphalt jungles of America face every day. It goes both ways.
The difference being that as a rule, the country isn't imposing itself upon the city - Quite the other way around.
-
And some people in the sparsely populated countryside have a hard time understanding the problems that folks living in the asphalt jungles of America face every day. It goes both ways.
We have multiple clear demonstrations of strict gun control and the results against homicide and violent crime in Chicago, Detroit, DC, as well as others.
Decades of failure seems to only bring continued ignorance.
In 1980, the US and Brazil had similar homicide rates. Since then we have done a lot to give more individual rights of arms and Brazil went the other way with strict control. Now the US homicide rate is about half while Brazil's has tripled. They are finally beginning to see the light.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309715.msg1643656.html#msg1643656 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309715.msg1643656.html#msg1643656)
-
And some people in the sparsely populated countryside have a hard time understanding the problems that folks living in the asphalt jungles of America face every day. It goes both ways.
That would be a reasonable comparison if the country folk were demanding the right to drive around the city sans license and registration, or were demanding the city-folk assume similar rules as country-folk and abolish all registration.
That's not happening, your argument is invalid.
-
Prohibition has stood for nearly a century as an example of why we don't do crap like that. Do it again with firearms and the non-compliance will make Prohibition look like a church ice-cream social.
At the same time,look at the near police state we’re getting when it comes to the drug war. Hard to say how much our country has learned from the experiment called Prohibition
-
At the same time,look at the near police state we’re getting when it comes to the drug war. Hard to say how much our country has learned from the experiment called Prohibition
It would appear we have not learned. Instead, grabbers have decided that's the path they want to take with guns.
-
It would appear we have not learned. Instead, grabbers have decided that's the path they want to take with guns.
I don’t know if you have Netflix but there’s a Ken Burns Documentary about Prohibition and it’s history. The rhetoric used to Outlaw alcohol is the same rhetoric people use to outlaw firearms
-
The difference being that as a rule, the country isn't imposing itself upon the city - Quite the other way around.
Not on this issue, though. On the subject of guns, country folks want their values imposed on the city.
-
I don’t know if you have Netflix but there’s a Ken Burns Documentary about Prohibition and it’s history. The rhetoric used to Outlaw alcohol is the same rhetoric people use to outlaw firearms
No, don't have Netflix. I had it, but after months of not finding anything worth watching I nixed it.
Did they call for "common sense restrictions on booze" and insist they weren't going to take anybody's away from them?
-
Not on this issue, though. On the subject of guns, country folks want their values imposed on the city.
We want the Constitution upheld, not ignored. The same Constitution applies to us all.
-
That was an anomaly. It will never happen today. Remember repeal only happened because the women got the vote, Pretty much and everything went to hell after that. So, while our boys was overseas fighting the Kaiser, they got prohibition enacted all because the men folk weren't here to control the hussy's. It was a sad time. A dark time when drinking and gambling and whoring were declared unlawful.
Not exactly. The 18th Amendment was enacted in January 1920. Women got the right to vote 8 months later in August with the 19th Amendment. WWI had been over almost 2 years, by that time.
-
Somewhere between 16-20,000 laws from the local to the federal level in this country regulating guns and their use...and not one of the people advocating for even further regulation can tell us what one more law would accomplish.
It's an open question I'll continue to post in these debates until one of the gun grabbers decides to quit ignoring to question and actually try to explain why one more law will make a difference.
-
Not on this issue, though. On the subject of guns, country folks want their values imposed on the city.
No, the cities all have ineffective and constitution defying gun controls, that are not only egregious (to the point of insanity), but also, flatly, don't work. Their answer to that, as all things liberal, is more of the same, only now at a federal level - imposing their insanity nation-wide. That is without a doubt, city imposing itself on the country.
-
Not on this issue, though. On the subject of guns, country folks want their values imposed on the city.
The hazard of agreeing individual people in the city do not have the right to protect themselves from predators is the probability that governmental sentiment will spread to all other places around the country. Take a natural right away from one person, and it becomes easier to take that right away from all people (while reserving that right to the people writing the rules).
-
If I hadn't used all my tinfoil grilling last week when the weather was nice, I'd make a hat and swear this op-ed is designed to foment a reaction from some group to seize the Harper's Ferry Armory.
-
No, the cities all have ineffective and constitution defying gun controls, that are not only egregious (to the point of insanity), but also, flatly, don't work. Their answer to that, as all things liberal, is more of the same, only now at a federal level - imposing their insanity nation-wide. That is without a doubt, city imposing itself on the country.
Licensure and registration is not insanity. Requiring all gun transactions to be documented and subject to background checks is not insanity. These are reasonable and efficacious measures to both permit law enforcement to determine a firearm's provenance, as well as to discourage private, underground sales. And none of these things infringe on our natural right to defend ourselves.
-
More like the Harper Valley PTA.
Valerie would have to wear the pirate ensemble, like her Rhoda character.
-
Licensure and registration is not insanity. Requiring all gun transactions to be documented and subject to background checks is not insanity. These are reasonable and efficacious measures to both permit law enforcement to determine a firearm's provenance, as well as to discourage private, underground sales. And none of these things infringe on our natural right to defend ourselves.
What about the instances that have been mentioned about registration turning into confiscation right here in the good old US of A?
-
Licensure and registration is not insanity.
Yes, it most certainly is.
Requiring all gun transactions to be documented and subject to background checks is not insanity.
Yes, it most certainly is - Again your citified ways do not work. Especially so out here. y'all have been doing exactly this in cities all around the country, and it is beyond ineffective.
These are reasonable and efficacious measures to both permit law enforcement to determine a firearm's provenance, as well as to discourage private, underground sales.
No, they are nether reasonable, nor efficacious. Or gun crime would be nonexistent in the mega-cities that already employ these methods.
And none of these things infringe on our natural right to defend ourselves.
The hell you say. A natural right is not subject to imposition. It is natural. You are making it a privilege, assigned by men. What men assign, men can take away.
-
Basic math makes repealing the Second Amendment impossible (Sorry John Paul Stevens)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/basic-math-makes-repealing-the-second-amendment-impossible-sorry-john-paul-stevens (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/basic-math-makes-repealing-the-second-amendment-impossible-sorry-john-paul-stevens)
-
Basic math makes repealing the Second Amendment impossible (Sorry John Paul Stevens)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/basic-math-makes-repealing-the-second-amendment-impossible-sorry-john-paul-stevens (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/basic-math-makes-repealing-the-second-amendment-impossible-sorry-john-paul-stevens)
That's only because we need to take the government away from the old-ass grownups and let the children operate the democracy. The same way we do when we see them trying to send an old-ass text message. /Hogg voice.
-
The hell you say. A natural right is not subject to imposition. It is natural. You are making it a privilege, assigned by men. What men assign, men can take away.
And the designs of men are constrained by the Constitution. Which brings us back to the topic thread. The 2A doesn't address the natural right of individual self defense - the Heller decision does. The 2A needs to be clarified to ratify Heller, to prevent the Constitution's protection to be taken away by a maverick Supreme Court.
-
And the designs of men are constrained by the Constitution. Which brings us back to the topic thread. The 2A doesn't address the natural right of individual self defense - the Heller decision does. The 2A needs to be clarified to ratify Heller, to prevent the Constitution's protection to be taken away by a maverick Supreme Court.
You keep saying that, and we're not casting light. Let me try a different tack: Are there any rights that are not subject to a SCOTUS decision? Any at all?
-
And the designs of men are constrained by the Constitution. Which brings us back to the topic thread. The 2A doesn't address the natural right of individual self defense - the Heller decision does. The 2A needs to be clarified to ratify Heller, to prevent the Constitution's protection to be taken away by a maverick Supreme Court.
NOTHING stops a maverick supreme court except a congress jealous of its powers. It will just imagine another penumbra and declare by fiat.
But a congress, jealous of its powers, renders all of this unnecessary. Because in fact, the Constitution, in its plain reading DOES protect the right of the individual, as any strict constructionist will proclaim. The problem is not with the Constitution, the problem is with the congress unconcerned with it's powers, and allowing a radical SCOTUS, refusing to impeach or limit.
-
The comments to Jazz so far only serve to buttress his point. Everyone seems to have a different perspective on the meaning of the second amendment as written. I’ve heard these same arguments now for decades.
Seems to me if someone finds it necessary to quote writers from the day to explain what the second amendment means to say, and if we want to make the second amendment immune from liberal misinterpretation, we might want to correct the sentence structure to clarify and strengthen the language protecting the individual right to KABA.
We don't need lawyers to rewrite what is already clear, but since we are dumbed down as a society to the point of stupidity and ignorance of plain English - I can spell it out for you in what used to pass for modern English:
Well-trained, armed and able-bodied male citizens, being necessary to preserve our liberty from tyrants both domestic and foreign, it therefore is the people's inalienable Right to keep, bear, possess, use, exercise, shoot, plink, and blow holes into old appliances with arms, meaning guns of all shapes, sizes, calibers and styles - SHALL NOT BE TOUCHED, INFRINGED UPON, "REASONABLY REGULATED" OR OTHERWISE RESTRICTED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FASHION BY GOVERNMENT. PERIOD.
Clear it up any?
Or maybe for this generation this needs to be the way it is worded:
DON'T TOUCH THE GUNS OR THE PEOPLE ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO USE THEM ON THOSE ATTEMPTING TO DO SO.
-
And the designs of men are constrained by the Constitution. Which brings us back to the topic thread. The 2A doesn't address the natural right of individual self defense - the Heller decision does. The 2A needs to be clarified to ratify Heller, to prevent the Constitution's protection to be taken away by a maverick Supreme Court.
False.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The Heller decision didn't make new law. It overturned law that violated the 2nd Amendment.
-
The predicate clause makes the right unclear in the context of the individual right to ordinary self defense. It took 200 years for the SCOTUS to find such an individual right. It is not merely a question of misinterpretation - the language itself has always been flawed.
You are taking the position that I believe Eugene Volokh formerly held. After further study, Volokh concluded that the language is not flawed if we read it in the historical context of other legal documents of the period. Volokh completely abandoned the position that the language was flawed. He takes the position that liberals are historically ignorant--or worse still, contemptuous of history. (For example, liberals are contemptuous of the Federalist Papers--which are important to understanding original intent.)
See my post #52 on this thread for further discussion of Volokh's revelations. (See also his video ad for Prager U when you get a chance.)
By the same token, Volokh would say that the individual right to self defense was not found by the SCOTUS, whether only recently or otherwise.
In addition to the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence is germane since it talks about unalienable rights--among which is the right to life and by an inarguably proper extension, the right to self defense. This right obviously overlaps with the right to liberty and by another inarguably proper extension, the right of the citizenry to use arms to oppose tyrannical abuse of power.
If we were to say that the Founders/Framers never intended the citizenry to be able to resist the government by force of arms, Thomas Jefferson (who was no Federalist) would scream at us for being complete fools. Speaking of fools, the people who say that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated because it was dealing with single-shot muskets do not know what they are talking about. Whether liberals like it or not, our Founders/Framers envisioned the citizenry as possessing the same kinds of arms as a standing army--for the reasons cited above. (For that matter, there were repeating firearms, even in 1776, but they were too expensive until Madison and Monroe encouraged mass production techniques for the expressed purpose of making the best possible firearms widely available to private citizens.)
We've had too much of the infringement crap already. Please pardon me for being suspicious of gun registration. Twentieth Century tyrants have used gun registration records against their citizens.
-
Basic math makes repealing the Second Amendment impossible (Sorry John Paul Stevens)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/basic-math-makes-repealing-the-second-amendment-impossible-sorry-john-paul-stevens (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/basic-math-makes-repealing-the-second-amendment-impossible-sorry-john-paul-stevens)
Great post! Perhaps the most important line of the entire article is the very last line and one that I think we should all take seriously; ..."Stevens is speaking to the next generation, those children-marchers too young to even vote. The Second Amendment will survive Stevens. It might not survive them.
-
False.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The Heller decision didn't make new law. It overturned law that violated the 2nd Amendment.
And it did so by first finding, for the first time in 200 years, that the 2A protected that individual right.
Are you comfortable that future courts will follow Heller? And you certain that future courts won't rule that the reach of the 2A right is constrained by the predicate clause? I'm not.
My message is very simple. Don't be so smug that you know what the 2A means. Constitutional interpretation by reference to the Federalist Papers is a minority view these days, even by conservative jurists like Justice Thomas. The wording of the 2A is flawed, and it is foolish IMO to rely on one SCOTUS opinion to secure your right. The Heller opinion needs to be ratified by the People.
-
5 pages on what some half dead POS Nixon appointee has to say about something. Nice work people.
-
5 pages on what some half dead POS Nixon appointee has to say about something. Nice work people.
No one's truly concerned about Stevens' opinion. As has been stated, the 2A is in no danger of repeal. But the next SCOTUS could very well overturn Heller.
-
Stevens is just saying what a lot of this past weekend's march attendees think, but won't say out loud. Now that someone 'respectable' has said it, they'll unmask.
-
And once again despite all the logic and facts to the contrary....nothing will stop our Liberal Lawyer friend from extolling the virtues of gun registration and confiscation.
-
Next week we are going to refight the War of Northern Aggression. Please stay tuned.
Ah shit. Now this thread is going to go another 10 pages today on that.
-
And once again despite all the logic and facts to the contrary....nothing will stop our Liberal Lawyer friend from extolling the virtues of gun registration and confiscation.
Registration does not equal confiscation. Be honest in your arguments, sir.
-
....extolling the virtues of gun registration and confiscation.
This calls for a Jesse-ism
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/G8ohZM_PVJEoLyg8.Iu8Tg--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD01Mzk7dz00MDA-/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Jesse_Jackson_at_Max_Palevsky_Cinema_crop.jpg.cf.jpg)
The youth will be on every station across the nation with the motivation for the declaration of registration and confiscation.
-
@Jazzhead
@Smokin Joe
And it did so by first finding, for the first time in 200 years, that the 2A protected that individual right.
Are you comfortable that future courts will follow Heller? And you certain that future courts won't rule that the reach of the 2A right is constrained by the predicate clause? I'm not.
My message is very simple. Don't be so smug that you know what the 2A means. Constitutional interpretation by reference to the Federalist Papers is a minority view these days, even by conservative jurists like Justice Thomas. The wording of the 2A is flawed, and it is foolish IMO to rely on one SCOTUS opinion to secure your right. The Heller opinion needs to be ratified by the People.
Forgive me for not pinging you to my post #114 or to my earlier post #52.
I do not have time today to post any more on this thread, TBR friend (yes, you do have some friends here). Anyway, suffice it to say that context is crucial in communication. That includes the near context, of course, but the larger context helps us to understand the significance of more terse statements in their near context. The larger context is the historical context. And when you are honest about the historical text, every point you tried to make simply evaporates, IMHO.
I have no patience for ANYONE who dismisses historical context in the interpretation of the Constitution. If a federal judge does not take the Federalist Papers or the Declaration of Independence very seriously indeed, he/she should never have been appointed to the bench. Disregard for the Framers' original intent, an intent that is quite ordinarily gleanable from historical documents, is just a SCARCELY-VEILED CONTEMPT FOR THE CONSTITUTION. I am even grieved that we have so many lawyers that don't appreciate this. (Hey, I know a few very good lawyers, but the 99% make the 1% look really bad.)
-
The Heller opinion needs to be ratified by the People.
I doubt that will happen. Not impossible, but a more theoretical discussion at this time, in my opinion.
-
Registration does not equal confiscation. Be honest in your arguments, sir.
Honestly, throughout history, that has been the most common result.
-
And some people in the sparsely populated countryside have a hard time understanding the problems that folks living in the asphalt jungles of America face every day. It goes both ways.
I seem to recall instances, at least in movies, whereby frontier town sheriffs imposed "no guns" allowed in their jurisdiction.
So when the "rowdies" came off the range, to town to get wasted drunk and play poker, they were disarmed.
Read some articles for yourselves
https://www.google.com/search?num=20&newwindow=1&source=hp&ei=G7m6WqGvINicjwPqsL_ADw&q=no+guns+in+western+towns&oq=no+guns+in+western+towns&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30k1.1488.6956.0.7369.25.24.0.0.0.0.187.2343.15j9.24.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.24.2338.0..0j46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.Bmplz84FNLc (https://www.google.com/search?num=20&newwindow=1&source=hp&ei=G7m6WqGvINicjwPqsL_ADw&q=no+guns+in+western+towns&oq=no+guns+in+western+towns&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30k1.1488.6956.0.7369.25.24.0.0.0.0.187.2343.15j9.24.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.24.2338.0..0j46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.Bmplz84FNLc)
-
Registration does not equal confiscation. Be honest in your arguments, sir.
Then what is it for? I asked earlier in the thread
What is the purpose of registration if not to document ownership and location? Why would you want to help a tyranny take your rights? And even assuming you do, what do citizens get in return other than more tyranny?
Be honest in your answers, sir. ;)
-
The 2A is a flawed amendment, but it doesn't need to be repealed. Rather, it should be clarified to extend to the individual right to self-defense. Arguably, the individual right to RKBA depends on the whim of a fickle court majority, no different than the abortion right. The 2A's focus on the militia is its great flaw; it is about time to ratify and confirm by Constitutional amendment the Heller decision.
Flawed in your mind, but perfect for the continuance of the governmental system we have set up in this country however. It is the ONLY way that our freedoms can be preserved, and you and no amount of anti-gun bigots will ever be able to take that away from us citizens.
I encourage you to keep espousing your liberal bias on all things this country stands for, as it refreshes our fight for freedoms.
-
Some people have a hard time understanding life outside their sheltered environment.
(http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/30593209+w660+h440+re0+cr1+ar0/30401134.jpg)
(http://www.performancetopdrives.com/high-racks/IMG_7903.JPG)
That shelter is invariably an urban one, not one over most of this country.
-
But what's your point? So there's a narrow exception for folks who only drive their cars off road. Who cares? The vast majority of cars are bought and intended for use on public roads, where the danger of harming others is obvious. Such use requires licensure and regulation - and no one, to my knowledge, goes cock-eyed barmy threatening to start an armed insurrection.
The point is you once again make a mindless claim that can be proved a lie, and yet you continue the lie.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29541467_1765531616839163_4429305711772851219_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=e8fa83ed4548a8847976cb6fbdd6d666&oe=5B424E20)
-
And it did so by first finding, for the first time in 200 years, that the 2A protected that individual right.
Are you comfortable that future courts will follow Heller? And you certain that future courts won't rule that the reach of the 2A right is constrained by the predicate clause? I'm not.
My message is very simple. Don't be so smug that you know what the 2A means. Constitutional interpretation by reference to the Federalist Papers is a minority view these days, even by conservative jurists like Justice Thomas. The wording of the 2A is flawed, and it is foolish IMO to rely on one SCOTUS opinion to secure your right. The Heller opinion needs to be ratified by the People.
Really, must you continue that fervent babbling when @Smokin Joe already made such a coherent rebuttal?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309647.msg1643497.html#msg1643497 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309647.msg1643497.html#msg1643497)
-
I seem to recall instances, at least in movies, whereby frontier town sheriffs imposed "no guns" allowed in their jurisdiction.
So when the "rowdies" came off the range, to town to get wasted drunk and play poker, they were disarmed.
Read some articles for yourselves
https://www.google.com/search?num=20&newwindow=1&source=hp&ei=G7m6WqGvINicjwPqsL_ADw&q=no+guns+in+western+towns&oq=no+guns+in+western+towns&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30k1.1488.6956.0.7369.25.24.0.0.0.0.187.2343.15j9.24.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.24.2338.0..0j46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.Bmplz84FNLc (https://www.google.com/search?num=20&newwindow=1&source=hp&ei=G7m6WqGvINicjwPqsL_ADw&q=no+guns+in+western+towns&oq=no+guns+in+western+towns&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30k1.1488.6956.0.7369.25.24.0.0.0.0.187.2343.15j9.24.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.24.2338.0..0j46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.Bmplz84FNLc)
True enough, when the cowhands came into town after a drive, spent their pay on seldom available (otherwise) endless beer and liquor, and had the occasion to find (often alcohol fueled) conflict with those from their own or other outfits, the opportunities for conflict were unreal. Some towns did have no guns policies enforced by someone ( a marshal, sheriff, or deputies) with a gun.
Still, today, there are nearly universal serious restrictions on possessing (carrying) firearms while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, especially for concealed carry permit holders, and in some jurisdictions, on carrying them in establishments which serve alcoholic beverages, still enforced by people who carry guns as part of their job.
That, of course, is as effective as a gun free school zone (with the exception of the proprietor or their employees who may be armed in some cases) at protecting the patrons as the management at Luby's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting)was.
However, many of those "wild west" towns were not even in States (yet) but territories, and the level of violence is often exaggerated. When everyone is armed, people exhibit a distinct tendency to be polite, at least in rural areas.
That said, I feel safer in the hinterlands where the actions of predators are relatively predictable over the unpredictable and sometimes random violence of any modern urban area--not that I will ever give up my guns.
Regardless of such distractions, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that a Government which exceeded the consent of the governed and was outside the boundaries of its just powers could be constrained, and, if necessary, changed. For this purpose, primarily, to secure the Rights, to guarantee the security of a Free State, the people were to be armed and that Right sacrosanct.
The concepts of hunting and self-defense against any predator were so fundamental they never entered into the question.
-
Any word on whether Stevens liked Roy Moore or not?
-
Any word on whether Stevens liked Roy Moore or not?
Dunno, but it is irrelevant. I doubt Roy would ever swing that way.
-
Any word on whether Stevens liked Roy Moore or not?
Only as a friend. Roy had other ideas after their dinner at Catfish Cabin. That got Moore banned from the Washington Mall.
-
Registration does not equal confiscation.
I does in my book and we will not comply.
You are going to have to empower your government to initiate a bloodbath to try and enforce any of this shit you are advocating.
-
Registration does not equal confiscation. Be honest in your arguments, sir.
Okay: In virtually every jurisdiction in which firearms have been registered, at least some of them have been confiscated. Yes, Virginia, even in California with the 'assault weapon' registration, all they had to do was change the interpretation of the definition. In Australia, semiautomatic weapons and those which held too many cartridges were rounded up and destroyed.
In Canada, when the long gun registry was attempted, taking a cue from Americans, or perhaps inherently deciding that historically, registration precedes confiscation of at least some long arms, the Canadians refused in a massive act of non-compliance, so widespread that the Government gave up on the program after considerable overruns in cost and time.
Now, the reason I bring those up is that those are governments which find at least some commonality with America, and not the generally Marxist or Fascist examples which were far more brutal in their confiscation and the results thereof.
Traditionally, slaves have never been armed, serfs were unarmed, citizens, however were, and need ask no one's permission to exercise that Right.
-
I don't know why folks here argue with Jasshead. I put him on ignore quite a while back.
You're wasting your collective breaths, unless you enjoy the sound of your own typing.
Regarding Stevens on the Second, he's old and senile, and an example of the "kind of Justices" that Republican presidents of the past had to nominate to get by democrat-communist controlled Senates.
Regarding the Second Amendment -- at some point in our future, its "future" will depend on shootin' -- the REAL kind, not that of mouths poppin' off.
Can't say just when that will happen.
But... it's coming.
-
I don't know why folks here argue with Jasshead. I put him on ignore quite a while back.
You're wasting your collective breaths, unless you enjoy the sound of your own typing.
Regarding Stevens on the Second, he's old and senile, and an example of the "kind of Justices" that Republican presidents of the past had to nominate to get by democrat-communist controlled Senates.
I don't ever expect to change @Jazzhead 's mind, but one cannot let such wild statements go unchallenged. Call it a form of intellectual OCD, but some concepts are so egregiously tweaked out of place, the attempt to right them comes instinctively. If nothing else, we provide exposure of and balance to the error of that alleged but grievously flawed logic.
Regarding the Second Amendment -- at some point in our future, its "future" will depend on shootin' -- the REAL kind, not that of mouths poppin' off.
Can't say just when that will happen.
But... it's coming.
I wish I could argue with that, but historically speaking, it is inevitable that some conflict will occur. It may not happen in my lifetime, but the one legacy I can leave to my family is the option to deal with that from a position of relative strength.
-
Okay: In virtually every jurisdiction in which firearms have been registered, at least some of them have been confiscated. Yes, Virginia, even in California with the 'assault weapon' registration, all they had to do was change the interpretation of the definition. In Australia, semiautomatic weapons and those which held too many cartridges were rounded up and destroyed.
In Canada, when the long gun registry was attempted, taking a cue from Americans, or perhaps inherently deciding that historically, registration precedes confiscation of at least some long arms, the Canadians refused in a massive act of non-compliance, so widespread that the Government gave up on the program after considerable overruns in cost and time.
Now, the reason I bring those up is that those are governments which find at least some commonality with America, and not the generally Marxist or Fascist examples which were far more brutal in their confiscation and the results thereof.
Traditionally, slaves have never been armed, serfs were unarmed, citizens, however were, and need ask no one's permission to exercise that Right.
There's zero point arguing with someone who insists that registration will not lead to confiscation.
They know it will. That is exactly what people like that actually want to happen - even though they deny that is their intent.
Yes it is their intent.
We need to simply tell them that registration is the same thing as confiscation in our estimation - and we will not comply.
They will have to attempt to do what that imbecilic sheriff candidate in Asheville said they would do. Then it's game on and open season on tyrants.
-
There's zero point arguing with someone who insists that registration will not lead to confiscation.
They know it will. That is exactly what people like that actually want to happen - even though they deny that is their intent.
Yes it is their intent.
We need to simply tell them that registration is the same thing as confiscation in our estimation - and we will not comply.
They will have to attempt to do what that imbecilic sheriff candidate in Asheville said they would do. Then it's game on and open season on tyrants.
I just wanted to take the opportunity to point out that the registration=>confiscation scenario is not limited to the usual totalitarian suspects, but can raise its ugly head in allegedly 'free' societies as well.
It is nice to have the opportunity to shred the flawed and distractive arguments against the 2nd and the Right.
-
Flawed in your mind, but perfect for the continuance of the governmental system we have set up in this country however. It is the ONLY way that our freedoms can be preserved, and you and no amount of anti-gun bigots will ever be able to take that away from us citizens.
I encourage you to keep espousing your liberal bias on all things this country stands for, as it refreshes our fight for freedoms.
Oh cut it out. I'm not an "anti-gun bigot" with "liberal bias'; I represent a perfectly mainstream position - preserve the RKBA, but give law enforcement the tools to assign guns to persons legally responsible for them. Just as we are all perfectly comfortable with when it comes to cars.
And I am concerned that the entire individual gun right is on very shakey Constitutional ground. You don't like that message, so you attack the messenger. But the individual gun right is as fragile as the abortion right, and the Dems are prioritizing the need to appoint judges who will overturn Heller.
It is time to stop fighting the last war (or even sillier, to engage like INVAR in masturbatory fantasies about armed insurrection), and realize that an amendment of the Second Amendment is essential to secure the individual RKBA. Yes, that's my opinion and you will attack me for it. But check back in five years after the Dems again control the Presidency and Congress.
-
I represent a perfectly mainstream position - preserve the RKBA, but give law enforcement the tools to assign guns to persons legally responsible for them.
Assign them? Can you clarify that?
-
Assign them? Can you clarify that?
Licensure and registration, and documented transfers of ownership. Like with cars.
-
Gun advocates must recognize it will ultimately rest in large measure on persuassion by "emotion," not on legalisms like the Constitution.
The truth is the US is different from Canada or Europe. Or even Switzerland.
So I suggest polishing the emotional persuassion arguments, along with the legal Constitutional ones.
(Increasingly the population is dumbed down, more open to emotional manipulation)
-
You keep saying that, and we're not casting light. Let me try a different tack: Are there any rights that are not subject to a SCOTUS decision? Any at all?
@Jazzhead You may have missed my question.
-
Licensure and registration, and documented transfers of ownership. Like with cars.
No. Next question.
-
I would love to see them try to repeal the 2nd Amendment! That would be a spectacular thing to watch.
-
Licensure and registration, and documented transfers of ownership. Like with cars.
Besides the revenue possibilities, what is the utility to the state of registering and licensing cars and how would that utility be manifested by registering and licensing guns?
-
Dunno, but it is irrelevant. I doubt Roy would ever swing that way.
Yeah. Stevens is too old.
-
Licensure and registration, and documented transfers of ownership. Like with cars.
That idea doesn't appeal to me, but the original term of 'assigning' made it sound as if they would determine what type you could own. I appreciate the clarification.
-
@Jazzhead You may have missed my question.
There are two kinds of Constitutional rights - enumerated rights and rights created by the interpretation of the Constitution by judges. They are both valid, but the latter is much more fragile to the vagaries of politics.
The Constitution explicitly provides for freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. It does not explicitly provide for a right to privacy (that is, the right to be free from the government intruding without consent on one's privacy). Yet that right was deemed by a SCOTUS majority to be among the natural rights protected by the Constitution, and undergirds the right to choose whether or not to procreate.
That right, for better or worse, hangs in the balance of 5 - 4 SCOTUS majority. And millions of us have become single issue voters, concerned with electing politicians who will appoint judges who will overturn or confirm the Constitution's right to abortion.
The INDIVIDUAL gun right likewise hangs in the balance of a 5 - 4 SCOTUS majority. And likewise there is a political movement to elect politicians who will appoint judges to deny the right. I've said for years that the proper reaction to Roe v. Wade is for the People to act and either codify it or amend the Constitution to provide fetuses with the rights of citizens. I support the same approach with respect to Heller - to secure the right, turn to the People to codify it.
-
Licensure and registration, and documented transfers of ownership.
Despite your insistence that such a move is not abolishing a Right into a Government-granted privilege - you just revealed the bullshit of your own statement. Because unless one complies with the above and is approved by the state, one cannot exercise the keeping or bearing of arms per your own advocacy. Which, as I have told you before - amounts to the abolition of an inalienable right, into a grant and privilege from Government.
Your stupid ideas are the very definition of alienating us from our rights. Which makes you an enemy of the Constitution and liberty itself.
Just get it through your thick-fascist skull that we will not comply with such bullshit if your advocacy for such tyranny gets enacted by your government.
We will resist you and anyone attempting to impose it.
And if you think it's "masturbatory fantasy' that we are going to resist people like you, test us and find out.
Go ahead.
We know where your advice leads, and we have no intention of allowing that to happen without a fight.
-
I would love to see them try to repeal the 2nd Amendment! That would be a spectacular thing to watch.
They can try, but I will not comply. I'd sick of arguing about with with someone who ignores my points, so I'm just taking @INVAR's stand and resolutely say, "I will not comply." Period. End of paragraph. I asked if we have any rights at all not granted by SCOTUS and there's been no reply.
There will be mass non-compliance. There are probably more than 300 Million firearms in this country, and if they try to even register them they'll sweep up maybe 1 Million. Maybe.
-
There are two kinds of Constitutional rights - enumerated rights and rights created by the interpretation of the Constitution by judges.
And right there, is the express evidence that you are overt enemy of both the Constitution and our liberties.
As you have been told and routinely ignore and attempt to argue otherwise - our Rights do not come from the Constitution, enumerated or by grant of a judge in a black robe.
-
Despite your insistence that such a move is not abolishing a Right into a Government-granted privilege - you just revealed the bullshit of your own statement. Because unless one complies with the above and is approved by the state, one cannot exercise the keeping or bearing of arms per your own advocacy. Which, as I have told you before - amounts to the abolition of an inalienable right, into a grant and privilege from Government.
Your stupid ideas are the very definition of alienating us from our rights. Which makes you an enemy of the Constitution and liberty itself.
Just get it through your thick-fascist skull that we will not comply with such bullshit if your advocacy for such tyranny gets enacted by your government.
We will resist you and anyone attempting to impose it.
And if you think it's "masturbatory fantasy' that we are going to resist people like you, test us and find out.
Go ahead.
We know where your advice leads, and we have no intention of allowing that to happen without a fight.
The smaller the penis, the bigger the gun. *****rollingeyes*****
-
our Rights do not come from the Constitution
The protection of your rights from the government sure as hell does. You think God gives a damn about your rights?
-
The smaller the penis, the bigger the gun. *****rollingeyes*****
Is that why you are a big Dick?
-
They can try, but I will not comply. I'd sick of arguing about with with someone who ignores my points, so I'm just taking @INVAR's stand and resolutely say, "I will not comply." Period. End of paragraph. I asked if we have any rights at all not granted by SCOTUS and there's been no reply.
There will be mass non-compliance. There are probably more than 300 Million firearms in this country, and if they try to even register them they'll sweep up maybe 1 Million. Maybe.
And this is probably why, despite rhetoric and demands for such, we may never have gun registration and/or confiscation. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare and enforcement would be impossible due to non compliance and it's doubtful most Americans would accept an iron fisted police state against their fellow citizens.
@Cyber Liberty
-
There are two kinds of Constitutional rights - enumerated rights and rights created by the interpretation of the Constitution by judges. They are both valid, but the latter is much more fragile to the vagaries of politics.
The Constitution explicitly provides for freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. It does not explicitly provide for a right to privacy (that is, the right to be free from the government intruding without consent on one's privacy). Yet that right was deemed by a SCOTUS majority to be among the natural rights protected by the Constitution, and undergirds the right to choose whether or not to procreate.
That right, for better or worse, hangs in the balance of 5 - 4 SCOTUS majority. And millions of us have become single issue voters, concerned with electing politicians who will appoint judges who will overturn or confirm the Constitution's right to abortion.
The INDIVIDUAL gun right likewise hangs in the balance of a 5 - 4 SCOTUS majority. And likewise there is a political movement to elect politicians who will appoint judges to deny the right. I've said for years that the proper reaction to Roe v. Wade is for the People to act and either codify it or amend the Constitution to provide fetuses with the rights of citizens. I support the same approach with respect to Heller - to secure the right, turn to the People to codify it.
So the only way the right to keep and bear arms could be an "enumerated right" would be if a court had never decided on it, or maybe if a court (or "super legislature) decided on it by a huge majority vote. Nice. Newsflash: Natural rights, like the right of self protection, cannot be voted away, even by a group of nine robed tyrants.
"I will not comply."
-
The protection of your rights from the government sure as hell does.
And our guns provide us and our rights protection from people like you who empower government to 'reasonably regulate, license and register' with them for the privilege of exercising them.
You think God gives a damn about your rights?
Spoken just like Satan himself. I'm sure you're going to tell us next that He doesn't and that the Founders were full of crap when they wrote that liberty was a gift from Him.
-
The protection of your rights from the government sure as hell does. You think God gives a damn about your rights?
You just steered off the road, crashed through the guardrail and drove straight over the cliff.
-
You just steered off the road, crashed through the guardrail and drove straight over the cliff.
No worries! @Jazzhead has INSURANCE for his car! :laugh:
-
Oh cut it out. I'm not an "anti-gun bigot" with "liberal bias'; I represent a perfectly mainstream position - preserve the RKBA, but give law enforcement the tools to assign guns to persons legally responsible for them. Just as we are all perfectly comfortable with when it comes to cars.
And I am concerned that the entire individual gun right is on very shakey Constitutional ground. You don't like that message, so you attack the messenger. But the individual gun right is as fragile as the abortion right, and the Dems are prioritizing the need to appoint judges who will overturn Heller.
It is time to stop fighting the last war (or even sillier, to engage like INVAR in masturbatory fantasies about armed insurrection), and realize that an amendment of the Second Amendment is essential to secure the individual RKBA. Yes, that's my opinion and you will attack me for it. But check back in five years after the Dems again control the Presidency and Congress.
It is hideously grotesque for you to equate these in any way!
The former being a natural right bestowed upon mankind by its Creator, and the latter being state sanctioned murder created out of whole cloth by a renegade court!!
Are you not thinking straight?
-
Are you not thinking straight?
I don't find many Leftists who think at all, much less straight.
-
So the only way the right to keep and bear arms could be an "enumerated right" would be if a court had never decided on it, or maybe if a court (or "super legislature) decided on it by a huge majority vote.
The 2A DOES represent an enumerated right, but the presence of the predicate clause means that it took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution's protection applies to the individual RKBA. As I've said many times, I agree with Heller. But I also recognize that another SCOTUS could overturn that decision, on the basis of the predicate clause. It is time to fix that.
-
Newsflash: Natural rights, like the right of self protection, cannot be voted away, even by a group of nine robed tyrants.
You miss the point. What can be voted away is PROTECTION of your natural rights. The 2A is defective. It needs to be fixed.
-
I don't find many Leftists who think at all, much less straight.
If not from (malformed) thought I can not understand where such an abomination arises from?
-
The protection of your rights from the government sure as hell does. You think God gives a damn about your rights?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Amen!
-
It is hideously grotesque for you to equate these in any way!
The former being a natural right bestowed upon mankind by its Creator, and the latter being state sanctioned murder created out of whole cloth by a renegade court!!
Are you not thinking straight?
The natural, God-given right is the right to privacy and self-determination. Do you believe abortion is wrong? Newsflash - so do I. But the State cannot compel a woman to reproduce. That is a violation of her natural rights.
-
If not from (malformed) thought I can not understand where such an abomination arises from?
He gave us a clue from whom such an abomination of thought comes from in Post 160.
-
The 2A DOES represent an enumerated right, but the presence of the predicate clause means that it took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution's protection applies to the individual RKBA. As I've said many times, I agree with Heller. But I also recognize that another SCOTUS could overturn that decision, on the basis of the predicate clause. It is time to fix that.
If it can be twisted by lawyers and Judges, then it is not a right at all. Dress it up with "Predicate Clause" all you like, "I will not comply." There, I fixed it.
Because the right to protect myself, among others, come from God (as the founders had declared), and not a piece of parchment, then I don't care how many clauses can be teased from the words of a law, I will not comply.
-
That idea doesn't appeal to me, but the original term of 'assigning' made it sound as if they would determine what type you could own. I appreciate the clarification.
As far as I am concerned, as long as you're licensed and register them (and don't use them to commit crimes), you can own as many kinds of guns as you like.
-
The natural, God-given right is the right to privacy and self-determination. Do you believe abortion is wrong? Newsflash - so do I. But the State cannot compel a woman to reproduce. That is a violation of her natural rights.
Balderdash! That hogwash is the line of thinking that led that renegade court astray!! Surely you can't afford it any credence!
-
Because the right to protect myself, among others, come from God (as the founders had declared), and not a piece of parchment
You miss the point. God doesn't protect your rights. The Constitution - that piece of parchment - does.
-
He gave us a clue from whom such an abomination of thought comes from in Post 160.
If he is fool enough to deny the existence of our Creator, is he also fool enough to misunderstand the nature of humanity?
-
Balderdash! That hogwash is the line of thinking that led that renegade court astray!! Surely you can't afford it any credence!
Why should the State force a woman to reproduce? Why don't you make the moral case against abortion and let her decide for herself?
-
The natural, God-given right is the right to privacy and self-determination.
And yet, you constantly argue that life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the mechanisms of self defense and private property are somehow the privilege and grant of government to license, reasonably regulate and restrict if not abolish.
It goes to figure the only thing you consider God-given is a right for someone to have sex with whatever or whomever and call it marriage while killing the consequence of normal sex so as not to force a woman to reproduce.
You truly are a transformation into an angel of light.
-
If he is fool enough to deny the existence of our Creator, is he also fool enough to misunderstand the nature of humanity?
What gave you the idea I deny the existence of the Creator? I believe in God, but I'm not so foolish as to rely on Him to protect my rights against the State.
For that, I rely on the Constitution.
-
You miss the point. God doesn't protect your rights. The Constitution - that piece of parchment - does.
No, WE do.
-
Why should the State force a woman to reproduce? Why don't you make the moral case against abortion and let her decide for herself?
I have neither the time nor patience to indulge in this line of sophistry beyond stating the obvious: the State is not compelling anyone (man nor woman) to "reproduce!" The choice which results in such is made by individuals. Murder is murder, regardless of what some black robed fools may have deemed to create out of whole cloth!
-
No, WE do.
Bullshit. We are a nation of laws, not of men.
-
You miss the point. God doesn't protect your rights. The Constitution - that piece of parchment - does.
A piece of parchment in no wise protects my Rights from despotic creatures who advocate the imposition of tyranny while declaring it *reasonable*. Nor does it protect my rights against a lawless government hellbent on imposing tyranny.
My Rights are protected by that gun you want registered and licensed so it can be confiscated in due time.
And My God grants us perfection in our aim, dexterity in our members and discernment in resisting and overcoming such tyrants.
-
I have neither the time nor patience to indulge in this line of sophistry beyond stating the obvious: the State is not compelling anyone (man nor woman) to "reproduce!" The choice which results in such is made by individuals. Murder is murder, regardless of what some black robed fools may have deemed to create out of whole cloth!
A woman the same as a man has the natural, God given right of self-determination. She cannot be forced by the state to reproduce.
-
It is hideously grotesque for you to equate these in any way!
The former being a natural right bestowed upon mankind by its Creator, and the latter being state sanctioned murder created out of whole cloth by a renegade court!!
Are you not thinking straight?
Hear here!!!! Well said my friend!
-
Bullshit. We are a nation of laws, not of men.
By the consent of the governed. When my rights are no longer being served, I will no longer consent. Legitimately. Legally. By way of the very first document ever penned herein.
-
The protection of your rights from the government sure as hell does. You think God gives a damn about your rights?
Yes he does. And the fact you don't comprehend that our unalienable right come from Him says a lot about why you so frequently fail to truly understand the Constitution...religion...and man's relationship with both.
-
Bullshit. We are a nation of laws, not of men.
When your "laws" put a gun to the heads of Christians to force them to 'bake the damn cake'; when they engender the genocide of an entire generation of Americans in the womb; when they rob us and our posterity via trillions in debt spending; when a government system of corruption is endemic to it's entire operation and existence - you have lawlessness imposing a tyranny under the color of law.
It has no legitimate authority.
All it has are guns people like you will empower a tyrannical government to use against those who will not comply with evil.
Alas, we have the guns to resist you.
And that is why you are so hellbent on getting them registered and licensed, so they can be confiscated.
So we say piss on you, and your ideas - because they are tyrannical bullshit we will not comply with and resist with every fiber of our being.
-
You miss the point. God doesn't protect your rights. The Constitution - that piece of parchment - does.
Not if lawyers and Judges are able to twist the meanings written upon it.
I will not comply.
-
When your "laws" put a gun to the heads of Christians to force them to 'bake the damn cake'; when they engender the genocide of an entire generation of Americans in the womb; when they rob us and our posterity via trillions in debt spending; when a government system of corruption is endemic to it's entire operation and existence - you have lawlessness imposing a tyranny under the color of law.
It has no legitimate authority.
All it has are guns people like you will empower a tyrannical government to use against those who will not comply with evil.
Alas, we have the guns to resist you.
And that is why you are so hellbent on getting them registered and licensed, so they can be confiscated.
So we say piss on you, and your ideas - because they are tyrannical bullshit we will not comply with and resist with every fiber of our being.
I simply will not comply.
-
Oh cut it out. I'm not an "anti-gun bigot" with "liberal bias'; I represent a perfectly mainstream position - preserve the RKBA, but give law enforcement the tools to assign guns to persons legally responsible for them. Just as we are all perfectly comfortable with when it comes to cars.
And I am concerned that the entire gun right is on very shakey Constitutional ground. You don't like that message, so you attack the messenger. But the individual gun right is as fragile as the abortion right, and the Dems are prioritizing the need to appoint judges who will overturn Heller.
It is time to stop fighting the last war (or even sillier, engage like INVAR in masturbatory fantasies about armed insurrection), and realize that an amendment of the Second Amendment is essential to secure the individual RKBA.
What will you do if we don't acquiesce? Engage armed fantasies (by proxy, of course) to disarm those of us who are armed? Isn't that asking for armed insurrection--or is that the armed insurrection against the Rights enshrined in the seminal documents of this Republic? Who is the insurrectionist, there? You speak of those who would deny a fundamental Civil Right to a third of the American People as if they are "mainstream", yet they are the 'revolutionaries' decrying one of the bases of this Republic.
If y'all don't like this country, one which has been traditionally one of the best armed per capita, to its benefit, then by all means, leave and go elsewhere and request they disarm, or go someplace else which has effectively disarmed their citizenry. I am sure you will be feel much more free there from evil and oppression. Or not.
How can a species old Right be on shakier or even as shaky ground as one invented to facilitate the murder one's own inconvenient offspring? What silliness. Note, too that the Right is to keep and bear ARMS--not just guns but instruments of blunt force trauma, devices designed to cut or pierce an enemy, along with those which propel a projectile through mechanical, chemical or other means. Firearms may be a popular option, but they are far from the only option.
In fact, "Arms" could be construed as virtually anything which makes defense (or offense, for that matter) more effective.
I'm a geologist. Will the government come for my rocks? (the original murder weapon, or at least the first documented one). How about sticks, lengths of pipe, or your hands and feet if deemed too large--the tools of murder in over 5% of cases--more than rifles and shotguns combined in 2011. Or knives, which exceeded the total for rifles and shotguns as well, by an even greater margin. Will we have to register our roast beef slicers and bread knives (because with a little filing/grinding, the latter could be repurposed as a nasty penetrating weapon)?
Will we ban all sharp, pointy things, blunt things, heavy things, every possibly lethal chemical, every immersion hazard, pillows? All have been used as murder weapons, and will likely be again. Ban one technology, another will replace it. And before you deem those crude weapons ineffective, recall the Hutus and Tutsis managed to kill a half million people during that fracas, mostly with machetes. History proves, time and again, that when the people stand helpless in front of their government, it goes poorly for those people. When they stand against those who are armed, no matter how crudely, the effectiveness of or absence of their own weapons is relevant.
My point is that changing the availability of weapons will not cure the underlying ills which lead to violent acts, large or small, although it might shift the players to the big and strong rather than smaller and weaker contenders, and the violence of the acts will become more vigorous, more vicious, more up close and personal. In a word, messier.
Weapons which rely more on surprise, stealth, and skill than the presentation of a threat of overwhelming force might shift the numbers from robbery to murder, because they will be employed preemptively instead of relying on intimidation to render their victims harmless. After all, unintended consequences are the hallmark of Liberal schemes.
Then you have folks like me. I respect the law and those who enforce it. We know where each other stand, and there have been no problems. But try to loot my gun cabinet, and we're going to have problems.
Violating the very fabric of this nation by trying to do so under color of law makes the act all the more reprehensible.
I don't care who you are, be it pauper or Pope, keep your meathooks off the hardware.
I will defend my Right with all I need to do so, against all comers, as long as I am capable of doing so.
I am not alone.
There are millions more like me and we ask nothing of others other than to leave our Rights alone.
-
What will you do if we don't acquiesce? Engage armed fantasies (by proxy, of course) to disarm those of us who are armed? Isn't that asking for armed insurrection--or is that the armed insurrection against the Rights enshrined in the seminal documents of this Republic? Who is the insurrectionist, there? You speak of those who would deny a fundamental Civil Right to a third of the American People as if they are "mainstream", yet they are the 'revolutionaries' decrying one of the bases of this Republic.
If y'all don't like this country, one which has been traditionally one of the best armed per capita, to its benefit, then by all means, leave and go elsewhere and request they disarm, or go someplace else which has effectively disarmed their citizenry. I am sure you will be feel much more free there from evil and oppression. Or not.
How can a species old Right be on shakier or even as shaky ground as one invented to facilitate the murder one's own inconvenient offspring? What silliness. Note, too that the Right is to keep and bear ARMS--not just guns but instruments of blunt force trauma, devices designed to cut or pierce an enemy, along with those which propel a projectile through mechanical, chemical or other means. Firearms may be a popular option, but they are far from the only option.
In fact, "Arms" could be construed as virtually anything which makes defense (or offense, for that matter) more effective.
I'm a geologist. Will the government come for my rocks? (the original murder weapon, or at least the first documented one). How about sticks, lengths of pipe, or your hands and feet if deemed too large (the tools of murder in over 5% of cases--more than rifles and shotguns combined in 2011. Or knives, which exceeded the total for rifles and shotguns as well, by an even greater margin. Will we have to register our roast beef slicers and bread knives (because with a little filing/grinding, the latter could be repurposed as a nasty penetrating weapon)?
Will we ban all sharp, pointy things, blunt things, heavy things, every possibly lethal chemical, every immersion hazard, pillows? All have been used as murder weapons, and will likely be again. Ban one technology, another will replace it. And before you deem those crude weapons ineffective, recall the Hutus and Tutsis managed to kill a half million people during that fracas, mostly with machetes. History proves, time and again, that when the people stand helpless in front of their government, it goes poorly for those people.
My point is that changing the availability of weapons will not cure the underlying ills which lead to violent acts, although it might shift the players to the big and strong rather than smaller and weaker contenders, and the violence of the acts will become more vigorous, more vicious, more up close and personal. In a word, messier.
Weapons which rely more on surprise, stealth, and skill than the presentation of a threat of overwhelming force might shift the numbers from robbery to murder, because they will be employed preemptively instead of relying on intimidation to render their victims harmless. After all, unintended consequences are the hallmark of Liberal schemes.
Then you have folks like me. I respect the law and those who enforce it. We know where each other stand, and there have been no problems. But try to loot my gun cabinet, and we're going to have problems.
Violating the very fabric of this nation by trying to do so under color of law makes the act all the more reprehensible.
I don't care who you are, be it pauper or Pope, keep your meathooks off the hardware.
I will defend my Right with all I need to do so, against all comers, as long as I am capable of doing so.
I am not alone.
There are millions more like me and we ask nothing of others other than to leave our Rights alone.
I will not comply.
-
Hear here!!!! Well said my friend!
888high58888
-
A woman the same as a man has the natural, God given right of self-determination. She cannot be forced by the state to reproduce.
That's right - and like a man, the choice is lost at the point of copulation.
-
A woman the same as a man has the natural, God given right of self-determination. She cannot be forced by the state to reproduce.
The reproductive act has concluded with the fertilization of the egg.
The State did not force her to engage in sexual intercourse. In relatively rare instances (when talking about abortion) an individual might have, but for the most part there was a consensual act with the other donor of genetic material, whether the outcome was intended or convenient, the act was not forced.
All that remains is the normal gestation of a human being, a life which already exists, and no one has a Right to take. .
-
What our Liberal legal scholar doesn't seem to comprehend either is that the 2nd Amendment protects all the others.
-
What our Liberal legal scholar doesn't seem to comprehend either is that the 2nd Amendment protects all the others.
I believe that is the foremost reason it comes under attack. Those who seek to remove the others must remove it first. But what they don't get is that while they may successfully suppress that right, they will not remove it, and noncompliance with their edicts will grow, not diminish. The young love to rebel, and what better than totalitarianism to rebel against?
-
Wow, I go grab a bite and things really move ahead.
I know I'm just a low post lurker around here but I'd like to point out that I've asked 3 times for an explanation of what registration and licensure accomplishes - aside from taxation and confiscation - and haven't received an answer of any kind. I am genuinely interested but it seems there really isn't an answer that is publicly acceptable.
Oh well, doesn't really matter. 2A is unalienable, driving is just driving. I'm not complying either. Carry on.
-
Wow, I go grab a bite and things really move ahead.
I know I'm just a low post lurker around here but I'd like to point out that I've asked 3 times for an explanation of what registration and licensure accomplishes - aside from taxation and confiscation - and haven't received an answer of any kind. I am genuinely interested but it seems there really isn't an answer that is publicly acceptable.
Oh well, doesn't really matter. 2A is unalienable, driving is just driving. I'm not complying either. Carry on.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=29&v=1hUtIwDtoLs#)
-
What will you do if we don't acquiesce? Engage armed fantasies (by proxy, of course) to disarm those of us who are armed? Isn't that asking for armed insurrection--or is that the armed insurrection against the Rights enshrined in the seminal documents of this Republic? Who is the insurrectionist, there? You speak of those who would deny a fundamental Civil Right to a third of the American People as if they are "mainstream", yet they are the 'revolutionaries' decrying one of the bases of this Republic.
If y'all don't like this country, one which has been traditionally one of the best armed per capita, to its benefit, then by all means, leave and go elsewhere and request they disarm, or go someplace else which has effectively disarmed their citizenry. I am sure you will be feel much more free there from evil and oppression. Or not.
How can a species old Right be on shakier or even as shaky ground as one invented to facilitate the murder one's own inconvenient offspring? What silliness. Note, too that the Right is to keep and bear ARMS--not just guns but instruments of blunt force trauma, devices designed to cut or pierce an enemy, along with those which propel a projectile through mechanical, chemical or other means. Firearms may be a popular option, but they are far from the only option.
In fact, "Arms" could be construed as virtually anything which makes defense (or offense, for that matter) more effective.
I'm a geologist. Will the government come for my rocks? (the original murder weapon, or at least the first documented one). How about sticks, lengths of pipe, or your hands and feet if deemed too large--the tools of murder in over 5% of cases--more than rifles and shotguns combined in 2011. Or knives, which exceeded the total for rifles and shotguns as well, by an even greater margin. Will we have to register our roast beef slicers and bread knives (because with a little filing/grinding, the latter could be repurposed as a nasty penetrating weapon)?
Will we ban all sharp, pointy things, blunt things, heavy things, every possibly lethal chemical, every immersion hazard, pillows? All have been used as murder weapons, and will likely be again. Ban one technology, another will replace it. And before you deem those crude weapons ineffective, recall the Hutus and Tutsis managed to kill a half million people during that fracas, mostly with machetes. History proves, time and again, that when the people stand helpless in front of their government, it goes poorly for those people. When they stand against those who are armed, no matter how crudely, the effectiveness of or absence of their own weapons is relevant.
My point is that changing the availability of weapons will not cure the underlying ills which lead to violent acts, large or small, although it might shift the players to the big and strong rather than smaller and weaker contenders, and the violence of the acts will become more vigorous, more vicious, more up close and personal. In a word, messier.
Weapons which rely more on surprise, stealth, and skill than the presentation of a threat of overwhelming force might shift the numbers from robbery to murder, because they will be employed preemptively instead of relying on intimidation to render their victims harmless. After all, unintended consequences are the hallmark of Liberal schemes.
Then you have folks like me. I respect the law and those who enforce it. We know where each other stand, and there have been no problems. But try to loot my gun cabinet, and we're going to have problems.
Violating the very fabric of this nation by trying to do so under color of law makes the act all the more reprehensible.
I don't care who you are, be it pauper or Pope, keep your meathooks off the hardware.
I will defend my Right with all I need to do so, against all comers, as long as I am capable of doing so.
I am not alone.
There are millions more like me and we ask nothing of others other than to leave our Rights alone.
This is just insane. Poster after poster is engaged in masturbatory fantasies about shooting the "gun grabbers". No one is willing to rely on the Constitution and the rule of law, it's just head for the bunker and get ready to rumble or die trying.
What I've proposed is simple licensure and registration. Not confiscation of "assault rifles". If there are bills out there that promise the latter, I join with you in urging their unconstitutionality. But for cryin' out loud, let the system work. The Heller decision showed that the system works. I urge the codification of that decision, but even if that offends you, at least let this great Republic and its institutions protect you from tyranny as they were designed to do. We are a nation of laws, not men.
-
This is just insane. [...] But for cryin' out loud, let the system work.
This IS the system working. Your tyranny will cost you.
I will not comply.
-
@Jazzhead
Will we have to register and insure our 1st Amendment opinions and ideas when they are considered dangerous to society?
-
This is just insane. Poster after poster is engaged in masturbatory fantasies about shooting the "gun grabbers". No one is willing to rely on the Constitution and the rule of law, it's just head for the bunker and get ready to rumble or die trying.
What I've proposed is simple licensure and registration. Not confiscation of "assault rifles". If there are bills out there that promise the latter, I join with you in urging their unconstitutionality. But for cryin' out loud, let the system work. The Heller decision showed that the system works. I urge the codification of that decision, but even if that offends you, at least let this great Republic and its institutions protect you from tyranny as they were designed to do. We are a nation of laws, not men.
We're just not the kind of folks who wave pieces of paper to protect ourselves. We're not Neville. This is too important to trust to a malevolent government.
-
This is just insane. Poster after poster is engaged in masturbatory fantasies about shooting the "gun grabbers". No one is willing to rely on the Constitution and the rule of law, it's just head for the bunker and get ready to rumble or die trying.
What I've proposed is simple licensure and registration. Not confiscation of "assault rifles". If there are bills out there that promise the latter, I join with you in urging their unconstitutionality. But for cryin' out loud, let the system work. The Heller decision showed that the system works. I urge the codification of that decision, but even if that offends you, at least let this great Republic and its institutions protect you from tyranny as they were designed to do. We are a nation of laws, not men.
The Heller decision only showed that the level of Constitutional compliance has sunken to a new low, that the right to defend one's self and to own and carry arms for that purpose needed to be judicially affirmed.
What you have proposed (registration) is the historically consistent precursor to confiscation. It is the first step to the wholesale collection of the people's arms. I and others have provided examples from here in the US, to Australia, and others, not to mention the Weimar Republic and East Bloc, and in each case, the result has been the same: those records were used to confiscate registered arms.
Even the Canadian gun owners resisted long gun registration by noncompliance (not violence), as we have said we will also do. Somehow, in your distorted, bodily fluid soaked liberal fantasies, you have not only ignored historical precedent but continue to promote an infringement of the right and project your sexual level of excitement over the topic upon others. (Ick.Nasty image.)
We are indeed a nation of laws, but men make those laws and claim of late to interpret plain language to mean something it clearly does not. When men pull a right from a warm dark orifice and wave it as if they 'found' it in the Constitution, they have departed from their sworn task. That "right" does not pass the smell test.
The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms is not only far more clear than you would admit, but only the enforced ignorance of the American public via government approved education schemes would even allow any interpretation other than that which the Founders intended.
That somehow, in the phrases and paragraphs of the Constitution or the supporting documentation that any Right to shred the developing baby in the mother's womb could be found completely relies on ignorance of the documents, the Founders, the language, and original intent.
The Law, the concept, of the RKBA is not flawed, but the alleged interpretation sure is in many popular instances.
Ruling on the Constitutionality of such laws as would further infringe upon the Right, if done with a flawed interpretation of the original premise, will yield flawed rulings in many cases (Miller was a fine example, which ignored, even with the Militia interpretation of the 2nd, the martial utility of short barrelled shotguns in WWI .
As for laws, those laws only exist, along with any authority given them, by the consent of the people: the governed. If they are imposed against the will of the people, then they will be resisted, especially if they go against the documents argued to be the Supreme Law of the Land, second only to God's law, and His judgement.
While we have said that we will respond to violence in kind, who would not? None here, not even yourself, has debated the right to defend one's self, home, and family against marauders. Who would meekly surrender their lives, their property, their material safety to those who have come to loot it, even under color of law? Not happening, peaches.
While possible, we will quietly and nonviolently resist. Noncompliance is the first tool, the one which preserves the tools which may be needed for more serious resistance, something the Founders fully intended.
As for violent resistance to the confiscation of arms goes, the precedent has been established, whether at Lexington, or Bull Run, or on Pratt Street, the people will resist. It's the American way.
-
Not if lawyers and Judges are able to twist the meanings written upon it.
I will not comply.
https://www.compliance.gov (https://www.compliance.gov)
-
https://www.compliance.gov (https://www.compliance.gov)
LOL! I'll comply like they do.... :rolling:
-
Amazing that someone thinks it's "insane" that Americans would be willing to stand in the face of tryanny and defend their rights and freedoms from those that wish to take them away.
-
This is just insane. Poster after poster is engaged in masturbatory fantasies about shooting the "gun grabbers".
Because that is the end-result of what you advocate. At some point, the government you empower will have to force compliance - and at that point the bloodletting will begin and you will rue the day you were stupid enough to suggest anyone in government take advisement upon your bullshit.
No one is willing to rely on the Constitution and the rule of law,
You are not relying on the Constitution OR the rule of law. You are advocating tyranny under the color of law with your stupid registration and licensing schemes that turn a right into a privilege granted by the state upon compliance with your idiotic ideas.
it's just head for the bunker and get ready to rumble or die trying.
Exactly. Don't say you were not warned in advance about the consequences your harebrained tyrannical ideas will engender.
What I've proposed is simple licensure and registration. Not confiscation of "assault rifles".
Same difference. That is how we see and how we will treat your stupid idea. License and registration is confiscation, and nothing you say or argue to the contrary is going to convince us otherwise. We will not ever comply with the demand to register or license our arms - and we are not turning them in either.
You and your state come get them.
We will be waiting.
If there are bills out there that promise the latter, I join with you in urging their unconstitutionality.
Not that we don't believe you - but we don't believe you. But you go ahead and urge when you feel the urge to do so.
But for cryin' out loud, let the system work.
The system is broken and we are not going to give your stupid idea a chance in the hands of a lawless government hellbent on it's own power.
at least let this great Republic and its institutions protect you from tyranny as they were designed to do.
You truly are an idiot to think this way. None us are stupid enough to leave our liberty and safety in the hands of a corrupt government you want to empower to impose even greater tyranny. You are the anti-Reagan, where government in your twisted world is the solution and not the problem.
What protects us from tyranny is ourselves and our willingness to stop tyrants with our guns that you want registered and confiscated.
-
As far as I am concerned, as long as you're licensed and register them (and don't use them to commit crimes), you can own as many kinds of guns as you like.
As far as I am concerned, as long as you're licensed and register them (and don't use them to commit crimes), you can own as many kinds of guns as you like.
If you commit crimes, with or without guns, you should be prosecuted.
-
What protects us from tyranny is ourselves and our willingness to stop tyrants with our guns that you want registered and confiscated.
We're not living under King George. This is a Constitutional Republic, with laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives. "Tyrants" can be addressed through free and fair elections, not by threatening to shoot your fellow citizens.
And once again, since you love to perpetuate lies - registration is not confiscation. That sort of extremism does the cause of lawful gun ownership no good.
-
When the revolution starts the politicians and lawyers will the 1st to be shot.
Be afraid Jazz Be very afraid! :smokin:
Hell, I should have been shot four weeks ago.
-
And once again, since you love to perpetuate lies - registration is not confiscation.
We make no distinction between the two. Registration is the same thing as confiscation AFAWC, regardless of what you claim.
And we will treat it as such. We will regard those who propose such things to be overt domestic enemies deserving of nothing but contempt.
That sort of extremism does the cause of lawful gun ownership no good.
We don't care that tyranny advocates like you think we are extreme. Just get it through your thick skull that we're deadly serious about resisting your stupid ideas and a lot of bloodshed will be initiated if anyone in government is actually stupid enough to take you up on it.
-
Your rights are protected by our Constitution and system of governance better than any place else on earth. Yet you still insist on your "right" to be a law unto yourself and threaten to shoot dead those with whom you disagree. That is anarchy, sir. You have no respect for this great nation.
-
So much for common sense reform. The real agenda is complete confiscation of privately owned firearms.
-
threaten to shoot dead those with whom you disagree.
Bullhockey. No one here has done so.
-
Your rights are protected by our Constitution and system of governance better than any place else on earth.
Because people like me have guns to make sure people like you don't get to 'reasonably regulate' our rights out of existence.
Yet you still insist on your "right" to be a law unto yourself and threaten to shoot dead those with whom you disagree. That is anarchy, sir.
It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of stopping tyrants like you attempting to infringe on our liberties under the color of law. I give a rat's ass whether or not you think it anarchy.
-
Your rights are protected by our Constitution and system of governance better than any place else on earth.
Tell that to LaVoy Finicum. Oh, right...you can't because he's dead from all that protection provided by our system of governance.
-
Your rights are protected by our Constitution and system of governance better than any place else on earth. Yet you still insist on your "right" to be a law unto yourself and threaten to shoot dead those with whom you disagree. That is anarchy, sir. You have no respect for this great nation.
Bull, the 1st is almost gone due to "hate speech" laws, the 4th is gone via "war on drugs" and patriot
act. The 2cd is fading fast with "common sense" gun control laws. The 6th is gone as is the 10th.
-
Bull, the 1st is almost gone due to "hate speech" laws,
Were do we have “hate speech†laws?
-
Bullshit. We are a nation of laws, not of men.
That response, in a nutshell, reinforces the need for the second amendment. To protect our rights from those who wish to take them away.
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309841.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309841.0.html)
-
Were do we have “hate speech†laws?
Hate-speech Laws USA? California Prosecutes Man for Anti-Muslim Posts (https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/27881-hate-speech-laws-usa-california-prosecutes-man-for-anti-muslim-posts)
-
That response, in a nutshell, reinforces the need for the second amendment. To protect our rights from those who wish to take them away.
Of course we need the Second Amendment. Indeed, as I've said on this thread, the primary need is to STRENGTHEN the 2A by codifying the Heller decision. (See, e.g., former Justice Stevens' recent comments as well as his dissenting opinion in Heller, which was joined by three other Justices, and construed the 2A in terms of the militia, not any individual natural right of self defense.
But the hysteria on this thread is appalling to me. I understand anger directed at proposals to confiscate firearms, but the threats of violence here are extended to mere registration. Registration is, without doubt, consistent with both the 2A and Scalia's opinion in Heller which found the individual RKBA. It is, simply put, not an infringement. So the anarchists will start shooting even in the face of reforms that are PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL?
That's insane.
-
the primary need is to STRENGTHEN the 2A by codifying the Heller decision
I would never be in favor of beginning the process of modifying the second amendment because I could never trust the politicians involved in the process.
Those with ability to strengthen it would have the same ability to greatly weaken it.
-
This is from justice Thomas Cooley in the 1880s
"that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. (my bold) But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."
The Founders assumed that people would recognize the basic right of the people to keep and bear arms and that the militia would be drawn from those people. They certainly didn't mean that only a militia, beholden to the state, would have the right to keep and bear arms.
-
Its impossible to 'repeal' a right enumerated in the BOR. To think otherwise belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the basis of the Constitution itself.
Although its not surprising a leftist would believe otherwise.
Huh? Of course it is possible to repeal an Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits that, nor does the Constitution give any particular exalted status to the first 10 amendments.
-
But the hysteria on this thread is appalling to me.
Good. It means you are afraid that we aren't going to just suck up your ideas or comply with them should anyone be stupid enough to enact them.
I understand anger directed at proposals to confiscate firearms, but the threats of violence here are extended to mere registration.
Yup. Because registration or licensing is going to be considered and depicted as the same thing as confiscation AFAWAC. Because it will be, and we are not going to afford you or the Beast in D.C the tools or precedent to do so.
Registration is, without doubt, consistent with both the 2A and Scalia's opinion in Heller which found the individual RKBA. It is, simply put, not an infringement.
Well we say it is. And we will treat it the same way we would a confiscation order.
We will not comply.
You will have to empower your government to start killing those who refuse to comply.
-
Huh? Of course it is possible to repeal an Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits that, nor does the Constitution give any particular exalted status to the first 10 amendments.
I think what Skeeter meant was the basic right can't be repealed irrerespective of the constitution. Since basic rights are natural/God-given, they can't be repealed.
-
I think what Skeeter meant was the basic right can't be repealed irrerespective of the constitution. Since basic rights are natural/God-given, they can't be repealed.
Why would you limit it just to the Bill of Rights, especially given that at least some of them are more procedural than fundamental or God-given?
-
I would never be in favor of beginning the process of modifying the second amendment because I could never trust the politicians involved in the process.
Those with ability to strengthen it would have the same ability to greatly weaken it.
Then I hope your not one of those who virtue-signals how he won't vote Republican. Keeping the Senate and Presidency in GOP hands is the only way to prevent a change in the SCOTUS that will overrule Heller.
If, like me, you dislike the Constitution being held hostage to the vagaries of politics, you'll support amending the Constitution to codify Heller.
-
This is from justice Thomas Cooley in the 1880s
"that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. (my bold) But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."
The Founders assumed that people would recognize the basic right of the people to keep and bear arms and that the militia would be drawn from those people. They certainly didn't mean that only a militia, beholden to the state, would have the right to keep and bear arms.
For another view, read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller. The individual right hangs by a thread.
-
Of course we need the Second Amendment. Indeed, as I've said on this thread, the primary need is to STRENGTHEN the 2A by codifying the Heller decision. (See, e.g., former Justice Stevens' recent comments as well as his dissenting opinion in Heller, which was joined by three other Justices, and construed the 2A in terms of the militia, not any individual natural right of self defense.
But the hysteria on this thread is appalling to me. I understand anger directed at proposals to confiscate firearms, but the threats of violence here are extended to mere registration. Registration is, without doubt, consistent with both the 2A and Scalia's opinion in Heller which found the individual RKBA. It is, simply put, not an infringement. So the anarchists will start shooting even in the face of reforms that are PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL?
That's insane.
I've tried to explain this eight ways from Sunday, so let me just make this short and simple and leave it right here:
I don't trust the government, meaning the courts, lawyers and especially the politicians, to respect my Constitutional rights because I've seen violation after violation throughout my life. A right as important as the one under discussion is non-negotiable to me, and I will not comply with the slightest infringement upon it.
That's it. You may heap as much frosting as you like upon the cake, and it won't change my opinion one iota. Call me, or others of the same opinion as me all the names you like. You can stand on your head and point a Luger at me, and I will remain steadfast in my conviction.
-
I think what Skeeter meant was the basic right can't be repealed irrerespective of the constitution. Since basic rights are natural/God-given, they can't be repealed.
I understand, but that's not the issue. What's at stake is the repeal of the PROTECTION of those rights.
God won't protect your rights. The Constitution will. The Constitution exists to protect a citizen's natural rights from the arbitrary whims of government - that's why it has been interpreted over the years to protect such natural rights - even if not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution - as the rights of privacy and self-determination. That's why abortion is legal.
Heller likewise affirmed that among the Constitution's protected natural rights is the right to self defense of person, home and property. But the dissent in Heller was based on the unique wording of the 2A - couching the right in terms of a COLLECTIVE endeavor (the militia). No other such right's protection is couched in terms of the collective. The 2A's protection of the individual right is, therefore, uniquely vulnerable to repeal since it rests on fragile court majority.
-
For another view, read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller. The individual right hangs by a thread.
Any reasonable person should conclude from the amendment itself and all the interpretations by non-leftist experts and not stooges like Stevens that it means what it says....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But you are correct...the amendment, and all amendments, are subject to reinterpretation by knaves and stooges....like Stevens.
For instance, a very large percentage of millennials do not believe the first amendment should cover speech that hurts other people's feelings.
So yes, the constitution is constantly under siege by aforesaid knaves and stooges. One huge reason why people have guns.
-
That's it. You may heap as much frosting as you like upon the cake, and it won't change my opinion one iota. Call me, or others of the same opinion as me all the names you like. You can stand on your head and point a Luger at me, and I will remain steadfast in my conviction.
And what I'm suggesting is to fix the flaw in the Constitution's protection of your right by codifying Heller. Do that before you start shooting at people.
-
For another view, read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller. The individual right hangs by a thread.
No it doesn't.
The trust in this government to secure our rights is what is hanging by a thread. Should they continue to break the covenant with stupid ideas like yours - We the people will no longer consent for them to govern us and we will work to abolish the forms to which this people are become accustomed.
My right to arms is not what hangs by a thread. Your government having any legitimacy by which a free people are obligated to obey and trust is what hangs by that thread.
-
And what I'm suggesting is to fix the flaw in the Constitution's protection of your right by codifying Heller. Do that before you start shooting at people.
Codifying Heller is pointless because it can be repealed easily whenever Democrats gain control of the political branches.
Alternatively, any Surpreme Court that is willing to reverse/significantly modify Heller as constitutional law would be just as willing to interpret any codification of Heller in the same way. Long term, the continuing viability of Heller is going to be up to the Courts no matter what a temporary GOP political majority may have to say about it.
-
Then I hope your not one of those who virtue-signals how he won't vote Republican. Keeping the Senate and Presidency in GOP hands is the only way to prevent a change in the SCOTUS that will overrule Heller.
If, like me, you dislike the Constitution being held hostage to the vagaries of politics, you'll support amending the Constitution to codify Heller.
I have exact same reply to this as before:
I would never be in favor of beginning the process of modifying the second amendment because I could never trust the politicians involved in the process.
Those with ability to strengthen it would have the same ability to greatly weaken it.
Nothing you have stated anywhere in this thread has changed my opinion of that in the slightest.
Cheers.
-
And what I'm suggesting is to fix the flaw in the Constitution's protection of your right by codifying Heller. Do that before you start shooting at people.
It doesn't need "fixing." The only flaws in the Second Amendment have been wrought by courts, lawyers and politicians. What needs fixing is a court system, lawyers and politicians who think it's malleable. No matter what is written on a piece of paper, it can be twisted by the aforementioned to the point the right becomes worthless. Example: You, yourself have made proposals that constitute an infringement on what is already in the Constitution.
If I allow the courts, lawyers and politicians to make one single change to it, I can rely upon them to make it worse. If they make several changes they will damage it even further. If they are allowed to "fix it" by rewriting it, then it will be gone forever and what we call a "government" will have well and truly lost the "consent of the governed."
Y'all may try to do so, but you will find that forcing compliance is an impossible task, the attempt will require you and others to do things you will find distasteful. Are you up to it, counselor?
-
And what I'm suggesting is to fix the flaw in the Constitution's protection of your right by codifying Heller. Do that before you start shooting at people.
if this is your argument, let us all know why this did not happen when the Dems possessed that control?
-
if this is your argument, let us all know why this did not happen when the Dems possessed that control?
The Heller opinion is recent (my guess without checking is 2010 or so). To overturn that decision, the composition of the Court must change (and the right case must be presented to it).
This was, of course, THE defining issue in the 2016 election. So many of us swallowed hard and voted for Trump solely because of his promise to fill the Court's recent vacancy with a conservative. (And so many of us were grateful that McConnell recognized the importance of the Court majority by refusing to entertain the Garland nomination.)
There is no greater divide between right and left right now than the composition of the courts. For the right, more conservative jurists hold out the hope of overturning Roe v. Wade. For the left, more liberal jurists hold out the hope of overturning Heller. Both these important and valuable constitutional rights are being held hostage to politics. That's why I favor amending the 2A to codify Heller, while we still have the chance to do so.
-
Y'all may try to do so, but you will find that forcing compliance is an impossible task, the attempt will require you and others to do things you will find distasteful. Are you up to it, counselor?
We are not a tyranny. We are a Constitutional Republic grounded in the rule of law and Peoples' freedom to choose their elected representatives. It is your choice whether to defy the People and the law, and suffer the consequences. But the nation doesn't revolve around you and your narrow priorities, and it is offensive to me as an American that you so vainly declare our grand experiment in self-government to be akin to a tyranny.
It is your choice to give up your freedoms as an American by defying the law. But I suggest your freedoms won't be better respected or protected in any other nation on earth.
-
We are not a tyranny. We are a Constitutional Republic grounded in the rule of law and Peoples' freedom to choose their elected representatives. It is your choice whether to defy the People and the law, and suffer the consequences. But the nation doesn't revolve around you and your narrow priorities, and it is offensive to me as an American that you so vainly declare our grand experiment in self-government to be akin to a tyranny.
It is your choice to give up your freedoms as an American by defying the law. But I suggest your freedoms won't be better respected or protected in any other nation on earth.
It is rather clear from the results in the liberal New York and California how a National Gun Registration would be received.
Far from being extreme, the "We will not comply" attitude appears to be overwhelming common in the general public in response to this topic.
In New York, Gun Owners Balk At New Handgun Database
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/581879702/in-new-york-gun-owners-balk-at-new-handgun-database (https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/581879702/in-new-york-gun-owners-balk-at-new-handgun-database)
...As of the deadline, more than 81,000 people – or 20 percent of affected handgun owners in New York – haven't responded to the state's request....
-
So, I haven't posted in a few pages, I'll try this:
A few pages ago the subject went to abortion for awhile.
Abortion is one of the reasons I want the 2nd amendment to be left alone.
Do you all really think the the people who are staunchly pro-choice really care what happens to people who disagree with them?
Think about it. They take out lives at the tune of hundreds of thousands every year.
Now these people want to have "commonsense" gun laws.
If they have to do it by force, they will.
They think nothing of killing.
Call me crazy, okay, but you've all heard the rhetoric fed to these high school kids who are protesting.
They are talking about people like Rubio having blood on his hands, and worse.
Gun owners are being demonized to the point that we are now sub-human, and that is by design.
If we were real humans, they couldn't come after us, because that would be wrong.
(That's why they convince themselves the babies aren't real humans).
They have to make us seem like a weird alien life form, not at all in tuned with the real world.
...and it would be okay to eradicate that alien life form, right?
Let's throw in the squelching of the 1st amendment, at colleges across the country, that many of our tax dollars pay for.
If they don't like your opinion, they jut shut it down.
After all, if you were a real human being, you'd think like they do.
This is all just the beginning.
-
We are not a tyranny.
Your stupid ideas would make it so. Which is why your schemes of registration or licensing are regarded as such.
We are a Constitutional Republic grounded in the rule of law and Peoples' freedom to choose their elected representatives.
That is made irrelevant when representatives violate their oaths of office to infringe upon and impose the schemes you propose upon our inalienable rights you say can be *reasonably regulated*.
It is your choice whether to defy the People and the law, and suffer the consequences.
Bring it. We're waiting for idiots like you to make that last mistake. The tree of liberty is parched, so if you want to begin fertilizing it with it's natural manure - just push for someone in government to make your tyrannical ideas policy.
It is your choice to give up your freedoms as an American by defying the law.
Such "law" has no authority except to be defied. Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God. And we will be wholly disobedient to the bullshit ideas you push here should the Leftists in office take you up on enacting them.
-
Hmmm. Bookmark
-
We are not a tyranny. We are a Constitutional Republic grounded in the rule of law and Peoples' freedom to choose their elected representatives. It is your choice whether to defy the People and the law, and suffer the consequences. But the nation doesn't revolve around you and your narrow priorities, and it is offensive to me as an American that you so vainly declare our grand experiment in self-government to be akin to a tyranny.
It is your choice to give up your freedoms as an American by defying the law. But I suggest your freedoms won't be better respected or protected in any other nation on earth.
This post from you does not encourage me in the slightest the courts, the lawyers and the politicians intend to protect my rights. You can threaten to throw me in jail all you like, sir, I still will not comply.
-
But the hysteria on this thread is appalling to me. I understand anger directed at proposals to confiscate firearms, but the threats of violence here are extended to mere registration. Registration is, without doubt, consistent with both the 2A and Scalia's opinion in Heller which found the individual RKBA. It is, simply put, not an infringement. So the anarchists will start shooting even in the face of reforms that are PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL?
That's insane.
No, it isn't constitutional. Shall NOT be infringed.
And even if it were, it is useless. Utterly useless, to any task except for confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens, or make them liable for crimes they did not commit... It will do nothing to the criminally inclined.
And I guarantee you - it will do nothing to me.
-
No, it isn't constitutional. Shall NOT be infringed.
He calls it 'reasonably regulated'.
'Infringement' is dependent upon whatever mood he and his government are in.
And even if it were, it is useless. Utterly useless, to any task except for confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens, or make them liable for crimes they did not commit... It will do nothing to the criminally inclined.
That's not the point and they don;t give a shit about the criminally inclined. All their schemes are not intended to inhibit criminals, but to make criminals out of you and I. He and his government do not trust us little people with the ability to defend ourselves or have the power to overthrow them when they overstep their limits.
So they use public safety, same as Hitler did to gin up the masses, to surrender their right to arms willingly - slowly with schemes like this before confiscation commences or is attempted.
-
No, it isn't constitutional. Shall NOT be infringed.
And even if it were, it is useless. Utterly useless, to any task except for confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens, or make them liable for crimes they did not commit...
If it's your gun, why shouldn't you be liable for harm committed with it? Shouldn't you as the owner be responsible for ensuring the gun is safely stored, and duly reported when lost, stolen or transferred?
That's simply a matter of taking responsibility. And no, it is not an infringement on your right to be legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own.
-
This is all just the beginning.
The day will come, it surely will.
It always does.
-
That's why I favor amending the 2A to codify Heller, while we still have the chance to do so.
Okay, I'm really confused by this post. @Jazzhead
You mentioned earlier that you wanted to "codify" Heller. "Codify" means write into the U.S. Code, which means you're talking about writing a law. But now, you just mentioned amending the Second Amendment itself, which means writing a constitutional amendment. So are you talking about a law, or a constitutional amendment?
I addressed the former upthread, but as to the latter, there is no way in the universe we could get that kind of Amendment passed. You, as a political realist, should be able to see that. Anyway, while I personally disagree with an suggestion that registration is cause for armed rebellion, I also wouldn't consider for a moment complying with such a requirement should one be passed into law. I'm not going to start shooting, but I'm not going to register, either.
-
New York Times has such a brilliant suggestion. Feel free to disagree. *****rollingeyes*****
NYT Opinion Verified account @nytopinion
A revised Second Amendment could read: "The right to bear arms for hunting, sport and recreation being a cherished and time-honored tradition, the exercise of this right by responsible persons for these purposes shall not be infringed" #NYTLetters
---------------------
Founding Ideals @founding_ideals
17h17 hours ago
Replying to @nytopinion
Re-writing the amendment so that it would not fill it's original and intended purpose and also removing a strong protection for the other amendments seems like a REALLy bad idea. #SMDH
---------------------
J.R. Salzman @jrsalzman
4h4 hours ago
J.R. Salzman Retweeted NYT Opinion
Yes, brilliant. The founding fathers, having just won their independence by taking up arms, wrote the Second Amendment about taking up arms... to go hunting.
-
If it's your gun, why shouldn't you be liable for harm committed with it? Shouldn't you as the owner be responsible for ensuring the gun is safely stored, and duly reported when lost, stolen or transferred?
That's simply a matter of taking responsibility. And no, it is not an infringement on your right to be legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own.
The gun isn't the source of harm. It is the one using it.
-
If it's your gun, why shouldn't you be liable for harm committed with it? Shouldn't you as the owner be responsible for ensuring the gun is safely stored, and duly reported when lost, stolen or transferred?
NO.
That's simply a matter of taking responsibility. And no, it is not an infringement on your right to be legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own.
Like hammers? The sawbox in my pickup is full of things that can make you just as dead, and many of which would do so in a far more horrifying manner. How many of those 'dangerous implements' will be treated likewise? Your frame of mind is not only appalling, but invincibly ignorant.
-
HAMILTON: Even Without The Second Amendment, Our Natural Right To Self-Preservation Is Inalienable
Recall The Federalist No. 84
By Elliott Hamilton
March 28, 2018
Nearly eight years after retiring from public service, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens penned an article in The New York Times calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment. Just as he had done in his dissent in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, Stevens expressed his belief that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. He also went further by stating that Article V amendment procedures should be utilized to "weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation." In essence, Stevens believes that killing the Second Amendment would result in killing the foundation for our right to have a firearm.
However, Stevens is categorically wrong there, too. To believe that the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment, provides the people with individual liberty is to assume that government granted them. However, our Founding Fathers did not believe that to be the case. ...
Locke emphasizes a seemingly universal principle that individuals not only have rights and liberties, but they do not possess any rights to infringe upon those of others. He states that no man can harm life, health, liberty, possessions, or interfere with one's property. More importantly, he states that man is "bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully." This highlights the natural right of self-preservation, which states that man has an obligation to defend himself from actors who seek to infringe upon his natural liberties. This includes not only man, but also the government itself. ...
More at Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/28785/hamilton-even-without-second-amendment-our-natural-elliott-hamilton)
-
Anyway, while I personally disagree with an suggestion that registration is cause for armed rebellion, I also wouldn't consider for a moment complying with such a requirement should one be passed into law. I'm not going to start shooting, but I'm not going to register, either.
That's fine. The agents of the state will come to shoot you for refusing to comply. That is what is inevitable when they pass registration under the color of law.
We will then have the choice to live on our knees as slaves to the state and their mercies or die on our feet resisting their attempts to force compliance with an illegal "law" they think gives them the authority to infringe upon an inalienable right.
-
The gun isn't the source of harm. It is the one using it.
@thackney that is a piece of logic and critical thinking that escapes most of the people advocating for registration and/or confiscation.
Load a gun and put it on a table and it does nothing...kills no one...injures not one inch of a person's body.
It's not until someone intent on either defending themselves from bodily harm or someone intent on doing evil things picks up that gun that it becomes the killing machine the Libs fear.
-
New York Times has such a brilliant suggestion. Feel free to disagree. *****rollingeyes*****
Brilliant! One thing we know for sure, the founders feared a deer uprising the most. *****rollingeyes*****
-
I'm not going to start shooting, but I'm not going to register, either.
Same here.
-
@thackney that is a piece of logic and critical thinking that escapes most of the people advocating for registration and/or confiscation.
Load a gun and put it on a table and it does nothing...kills no one...injures not one inch of a person's body.
It's not until someone intent on either defending themselves from bodily harm or someone intent on doing evil things picks up that gun that it becomes the killing machine the Libs fear.
The liability for harm comes from the one that actually causes the harm.
If someone steals my car and runs down a pedistrian, no one would reasonably consider me responsible.
-
Same here.
The leftists think there are only two buckets. "Comply and register" or "Come out shooting."
-
Erick Erickson
â€Verified account @EWErickson
4m4 minutes ago
I will say on the gay marriage-gun control fight, the media is lying through its teeth again. The media will keep pushing the “it’ll never happen†thing until they get close. Then they’ll demonize anyone who stands in the way. They’re doing that now.
-
Anyway, while I personally disagree with an suggestion that registration is cause for armed rebellion, I also wouldn't consider for a moment complying with such a requirement should one be passed into law. I'm not going to start shooting, but I'm not going to register, either.
There is a lot of chest thumping and bravado about shooting government agents here. But even soidiers in war become haunted from having to kill another human being. Simple non compliance by enough people would put the government in an unpleasant position to expand a police state, which wouldn’t be popular with the general public and would be extremely costly both politically and financially for the government to pursue.
Of course, the media would be critical of those who disobey and the anti gun crowd would name call.
-
The gun isn't the source of harm. It is the one using it.
Correct. But the owner of the gun should be legally responsible. He's the one who benefits from the gun's utility, and he's the one with the incentive to keep it safely stored, and to document its loss, destruction or transfer.
Common sense.
-
Correct. But the owner of the gun should be legally responsible. He's the one who benefits from the gun's utility, and he's the one with the incentive to keep it safely stored, and to document its loss, destruction or transfer.
Common sense.
We're not gonna comply, so you can stop trying to argue the merits of your tyranny.
-
The Heller opinion is recent (my guess without checking is 2010 or so). To overturn that decision, the composition of the Court must change (and the right case must be presented to it).
This was, of course, THE defining issue in the 2016 election. So many of us swallowed hard and voted for Trump solely because of his promise to fill the Court's recent vacancy with a conservative. (And so many of us were grateful that McConnell recognized the importance of the Court majority by refusing to entertain the Garland nomination.)
There is no greater divide between right and left right now than the composition of the courts. For the right, more conservative jurists hold out the hope of overturning Roe v. Wade. For the left, more liberal jurists hold out the hope of overturning Heller. Both these important and valuable constitutional rights are being held hostage to politics. That's why I favor amending the 2A to codify Heller, while we still have the chance to do so.
Now you are veering dangerously close to lunacy.
Here's the quote you made in a prior post "But check back in five years after the Dems again control the Presidency and Congress. "
Heller was in 2008, and the Dems had both the Presidency and Congress afterwards.
I ask again: Why did they not do what you say at that time?
Hell, why did they not do any gun control for that matter?
-
Correct. But the owner of the gun should be legally responsible. He's the one who benefits from the gun's utility, and he's the one with the incentive to keep it safely stored, and to document its loss, destruction or transfer.
Common sense.
If your car is stolen from your parking lot and the thief runs down a couple of elderly pedestrians, it's your responsibility for leaving the car where somebody would steal it.
Common sense.
-
...Simple non compliance by enough people would put the government in an unpleasant position to expand a police state, which wouldn’t be popular with the general public and would be extremely costly both politically and financially for the government to pursue....
The Canadian gun registration had so much non-compliance, they gave up, eventually.
Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up)
... Canada tried it and gave up, discovering like several other nations that attempting to identify every gun in the country is an expensive and ultimately unproductive exercise. Criminals, of course, don't register their guns. And even law-abiding citizens tend to ignore registration when it comes to long guns mostly used for hunting and target shooting....
...The program turned out to be far more expensive than expected and didn't have any discernable impact on crime, perhaps because long guns are used so rarely by criminals in the first place. Canada's gun homicide rate, according to the handy statistics at Gunpolicy.org, has held steady since the late 1990s.
Canada passed a strict gun-control law in 1995, partly in reaction to a 1989 shooting at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique with a semiautomatic rifle. The law required universal regulation of guns, including rifles and shotguns. Proponents said the central registry would give law-enforcement agencies a powerful new tool for tracking guns used in crimes. They also claimed it would help reduce domestic violence and suicide....
...In 2002 Canada's auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada's 34 million residents....
... From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry....
...gun registration rarely delivers the results proponents expect. In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country...
-
Correct. But the owner of the gun should be legally responsible. He's the one who benefits from the gun's utility, and he's the one with the incentive to keep it safely stored, and to document its loss, destruction or transfer.
Common sense.
Can you provide examples where this is true of something besides a gun?
-
There is a lot of chest thumping and bravado about shooting government agents here. But even soidiers in war become haunted from having to kill another human being.
Some of us remember the lessons of history when people did not have the foresight or stomach to defend themselves from disarmament and we recall what ensued afterwards.
So it's a matter of how we perceive those going about the task of disarmament or forcing the compliance with registration. Our Forbears had no problems shooting agents of the Crown when they came to take the ammunition stores at Bunker Hill and Concord Green. Why should we be any less resolved? They at least understood what it meant if the agents succeeded. They did not comfort themselves in the notion that if they let the Crown do as it wanted that they could simply go about life unmolested.
Simple non compliance by enough people would put the government in an unpleasant position to expand a police state, which wouldn’t be popular with the general public and would be extremely costly both politically and financially for the government to pursue.
It depends on how determined those who want a police state are in seeing that goal realized. Given the amount of open in-our-face corruption and the blatant open declarations of what they want to do in terms of everything - they are already immune from what half the population opposes, and are busy ginning up the rest to become their army.
Of course, the media would be critical of those who disobey and the anti gun crowd would name call.
As has been pointed out, demonizing enemies of the state makes it easier for the state to eradicate the undesirables.
-
Correct. But the owner of the gun should be legally responsible. He's the one who benefits from the gun's utility, and he's the one with the incentive to keep it safely stored, and to document its loss, destruction or transfer.
Common sense.
That is not commons sense. Be careful what you wish for.
If someone steals my hammer and later uses it to beat someone to death, you are saying that I am to be made liable for that act, rather than the one who actually did it?
That is absurdity.
-
These guys all get liberal after spending too many years in DC.
-
These guys all get liberal after spending too many years in DC.
Or obtaining a doctorate in jurisprudence, which is an ironic misnomer.
-
These guys all get liberal after spending too many years in DC.
When was Stevens not Liberal?
-
If it's your gun, why shouldn't you be liable for harm committed with it? Shouldn't you as the owner be responsible for ensuring the gun is safely stored, and duly reported when lost, stolen or transferred?
That's simply a matter of taking responsibility. And no, it is not an infringement on your right to be legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own.
"If it's your gun, why shouldn't you be liable for harm committed with it?"
By that "logic," any tool (guns, knives, cars, hammers, clubs, matches, gasoline/chemicals, electrical equipment, etc.) anybody has can cause them to be held liable by somebody who steals it and uses it for a crime.
-
Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God.
The hubris you display is ultimately comical. You aren't eager to confront and shoot "tyrants", you are eager to confront and shoot your own neighbors.
We are a Constitutional Republic, with our leaders chosen in free and fair elections. If laws are passed that trample on your rights, a system exists for impartial judges to consider the primacy of your rights under the Constitution, the political and moral compact that binds us.
If the day should come where you may have to register your precious firearms, the law will come not from a tyrant but from the American people, speaking through their elected representatives. The system is fair, is respectful of and embodies the Peoples' will, and provides the means for peaceful redress and justice because our Constitution, uniquely, declares the government's role is to secure our rights, not abrogate them.
Yet you declare yourself above the law; not only will you not comply, you are prepared for "bloodshed" against peace officers. That is a travesty, sir, a slap in the face to every decent conservative who believes in the goodness and potential of this nation. IMO, you are a selfish disgrace to the good name and reputation of this board.
-
The liability for harm comes from the one that actually causes the harm.
If someone steals my car and runs down a pedistrian, no one would reasonably consider me responsible.
Your post piqued my curiosity, @thackney , so I looked it up.
The common law rule is the "permissive use" rule; as a car owner you are responsible for mayhem caused by those who you expressly or impliedly permit to use your car. So mayhem caused by a car thief is not your legal responsibility. The thief didn't have your consent to use your car.
The common law rule has been modified by statute in some jurisdictions, providing for the owner's liability if the owner's negligence made the theft of the vehicle reasonably foreseeable. In New York, for example, if you leave your keys in the car with the engine running, and the car is stolen, you're on the hook. The idea is that by leaving the keys in the ignition you have created an attractive target for theft. As one case put it, to depart from the principle that a car owner is not responsible for the actions of a thief "involves the balancing of a number of considerations, the major ones are the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff [would] suffer injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of prevent future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved". Kiick v. Levitas, (Ct. App. 1980)
I leave it to you to apply similar principles and factors to the responsibility of a gun owner for the dangerous tool he chooses to possess.
-
you are eager to confront and shoot your own neighbors.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Huh? Of course it is possible to repeal an Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits that, nor does the Constitution give any particular exalted status to the first 10 amendments.
The Constitution would never have been ratified without the Bill of Rights.
-
Your post piqued my curiosity, so I looked it up.
The common law rule is the "permissive use" rule; as a car owner you are responsible for mayhem cause by your use, or those who you expressly or impliedly permit to use your car. So mayhem caused by a car thief is not your legal responsibility. The thief didn't have your consent to use your car.
The common law rule has been modified by statute in some jurisdictions, providing for the owner's liability if the owner's negligence made the theft of the vehicle reasonably foreseeable. In New York, for example, if you leave your keys in the car with the engine running, and the car is stolen, you're on the hook. The idea is that by leaving the keys in the ignition you have created an attractive target for theft. As one case put it, to depart from the principle that a car owner is not responsible for the actions of a thief "involves the balancing of a number of considerations, the major ones are the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff [would] suffer injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of prevent future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved". Kiick v. Levitas, (Ct. App. 1980)
I leave it to you to apply similar principles and factors to the responsibility of a gun owner for the dangerous tool he chooses to possess.
That makes sense to me.
If I leave a gun visible on the dashboard or seen through the open window from the public sidewalk, I have some responsibility.
If they break into my house and bust open the locked gun cabinet, not so much.
Thanks!
-
The hubris you display is ultimately comical. You aren't eager to confront and shoot "tyrants", you are eager to confront and shoot your own neighbors.
We are a Constitutional Republic, with our leaders chosen in free and fair elections. If laws are passed that trample on your rights, a system exists for impartial judges to consider the primacy of your rights under the Constitution, the political and moral compact that binds us.
If the day should come where you may have to register your precious firearms, the law will come not from a tyrant but from the American people, speaking through their elected representatives. The system is fair, is respectful of and embodies the Peoples' will, and provides the means for peaceful redress and justice because our Constitution, uniquely, declares the government's role is to secure our rights, not abrogate them.
Yet you declare yourself above the law; not only will you not comply, you are prepared for "bloodshed" against peace officers. That is a travesty, sir, a slap in the face to every decent conservative who believes in the goodness and potential of this nation. IMO, you are a selfish disgrace to the good name and reputation of this board.
I understand your point, and in this particular context of an extremist position, it may seem reasonable.
But -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you seem to be saying that "as long as the laws are passed in accordance with the procedures established by the Constitution, we have a moral duty to follow them." And the related point is that we also owe a moral deference to the decisions of Article III courts in terms of interpreting what the Constitution (and statutes) truly mean. I've highlighted the phrases in your post that I believe fairly imply both of those statements. In other words, if the majority decides something, and the Courts say it is constitutionally permitted, the rest of us have a moral obligation to follow those laws and decisions.
Is that a fair summary of your position?
@Jazzhead
-
I understand your point, and in this particular context of an extremist position, it may seem reasonable.
But -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you seem to be saying that "as long as the laws are passed in accordance with the procedures established by the Constitution, we have a moral duty to follow them." And the related point is that we also owe a moral deference to the decisions of Article III courts in terms of interpreting what the Constitution (and statutes) truly mean. I've highlighted the phrases in your post that I believe fairly imply both of those statements. In other words, if the majority decides something, and the Courts say it is constitutionally permitted, the rest of us have a moral obligation to follow those laws and decisions.
Is that a fair summary of your position?
@Jazzhead
Very well put, @Maj. Bill Martin . Yes, I think that is a fair summary of my position. The moral obligation to follow such laws and decisions derives from the voluntary nature of the political and community compact, and the existence of means of redress. Even if the court says a law with which you disagree is good, you can still act together with your fellow citizens to change it - without resort to violence.
-
Very well put, @Maj. Bill Martin . Yes, I think that is a fair summary of my position. The moral obligation to follow such laws and decisions derives from the voluntary nature of the political and community compact, and the existence of means of redress. Even if the court says a law with which you disagree is good, you can still act together with your fellow citizens to change it - without resort to violence.
I hope you understand there are ways to be non-compliant without having to shoot someone....
-
The hubris you display is ultimately comical. You aren't eager to confront and shoot "tyrants", you are eager to confront and shoot your own neighbors.
My neighbors are heavily armed and are of the same mindset that I am.
You however, are not my "neighbor". You are an advocate of tyranny devising schemes to impose and trample inalienable God-given rights as 'reasonable' and are nothing but an enemy to every single thing I am beholden in principle and belief.
If laws are passed that trample on your rights, a system exists for impartial judges to consider the primacy of your rights under the Constitution, the political and moral compact that binds us.
The moral compact has already been violated repeatedly and anyone stupid enough to take your advocacies up and make them policy will have completely severed any and all allegiance or respect I owe to the state and your precious government. It will have officially rendered itself illegitimate, and an enemy of liberty just as you are and will be regarded as such.
If the day should come where you may have to register your precious firearms, the law will come not from a tyrant but from the American people, speaking through their elected representatives.
Right - so you are paraphrasing Obama's insistence that the government 'is us' and we must always bend the knee to it.
Pound sand. Tomorrow this people could "vote" though their representatives that all white people are stripped of the right to property and must have their wealth taxed at 100% and it will not have any more legitimacy than what you propose for gun owners. The moment you impose tyranny under the color of law - it has no authority we are obligated to respect.
And we won't. You will have helped your government declare war on it's undesirables.
The system is fair...
No it is not. It is corrupted and perverted beyond measure and I for one have no trust or respect for it whatsoever.
Yet you declare yourself above the law;
The infringement and abolition of a Right into a government-granted privilege under the color of 'law' as you propose, is no law at all.
not only will you not comply, you are prepared for "bloodshed"...
Yes, Good. We understand one another.
That is a travesty, sir, a slap in the face to every decent conservative who believes in the goodness and potential of this nation. IMO, you are a selfish disgrace to the good name and reputation of this board.
Then go and attempt to do something about it then.
Go on.
I'll be waiting.
-
If it's your gun, why shouldn't you be liable for harm committed with it? Shouldn't you as the owner be responsible for ensuring the gun is safely stored, and duly reported when lost, stolen or transferred?
That's simply a matter of taking responsibility. And no, it is not an infringement on your right to be legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own.
What makes you think the hundreds of millions of firearms in this country aren't generally owned by responsible people who store them adequately? Those committing mayhem and personal injury overwhelmingly do so intentionally, and will not be the least bit hampered by any laws, because they are already hell-bent on breaking them.
All you propose in an increase in the layers of infringement of the RKBA for people who are already doing things right. The number of accidental shootings in paltry in comparison to those done of malice and with with forethought by people who will neither register nor insure their weapons.
If someone fails to insure their vehicle, I am not the one who should have to pay for the damage they do with it illegally, nor should my vehicle insurance company have to pay for the liability for the actions of another. What you propose is only a camel's nose under the tent, because it will be ineffective, anyway (even if everyone would go for it), and from there the tinkering with the measure to further infringe upon the Right would begin. We have seen that strategy already. It is how the health care system was "fixed" and will likely never be as great as it was unless that ACA crap is stripped out, root and branch, as we were told it would be. If we can't trust our own liars in Government to perform the signature tasks which led to their election, how in the Hell can we trust anyone in Government to look out for our Rights? The simple answer is that we can't. Power corrupts, and it is ever more evident.
The only counter to that power, usurped above and beyond the limitations of the Constitution by twisted interpretation of the SCOTUS, is the overwhelming force of Americans, who by benefit of being Armed and even without martial training represent the only serious balancing deterrent to the corruption in Government. Consider it a two hundred plus year old detente.
Enough of this stupidity, please. No matter how many times you regurgitate this nonsense, the smell is the same.
-
I hope you understand there are ways to be non-compliant without having to shoot someone....
That was explained to him pages ago, with the example given of the demise of the Canadian long gun registry.
The person you are responding to is famous for ignoring real-world examples and well documented historical information which refutes his ideas.
-
What makes you think the hundreds of millions of firearms in this country aren't generally owned by responsible people who store them adequately?
Adequately according to whom? That's the next shoe to drop...
-
What makes you think the hundreds of millions of firearms in this country aren't generally owned by responsible people who store them adequately? Those committing mayhem and personal injury overwhelmingly do so intentionally, and will not be the least bit hampered by any laws, because they are already hell-bent on breaking them.
All you propose in an increase in the layers of infringement of the RKBA for people who are already doing things right. The number of accidental shootings in paltry in comparison to those done of malice and with with forethought by people who will neither register nor insure their weapons.
If someone fails to insure their vehicle, I am not the one who should have to pay for the damage they do with it illegally, nor should my vehicle insurance company have to pay for the liability for the actions of another. What you propose is only a camel's nose under the tent, because it will be ineffective, anyway (even if everyone would go for it), and from there the tinkering with the measure to further infringe upon the Right would begin. We have seen that strategy already. It is how the health care system was "fixed" and will likely never be as great as it was unless that ACA crap is stripped out, root and branch, as we were told it would be. If we can't trust our own liars in Government to perform the signature tasks which led to their election, how in the Hell can we trust anyone in Government to look out for our Rights? The simple answer is that we can't. Power corrupts, and it is ever more evident.
The only counter to that power, usurped above and beyond the limitations of the Constitution by twisted interpretation of the SCOTUS, is the overwhelming force of Americans, who by benefit of being Armed and even without martial training represent the only serious balancing deterrent to the corruption in Government. Consider it a two hundred plus year old detente.
Enough of this stupidity, please. No matter how many times you regurgitate this nonsense, the smell is the same.
888high58888
-
That was explained to him pages ago, with the example given of the demise of the Canadian long gun registry.
The person you are responding to is famous for ignoring real-world examples and well documented historical information which refutes his ideas.
He has yet to acknowledge your example and mine about registration leading straight to confiscation right here in the modern-day US of A.
-
I hope you understand there are ways to be non-compliant without having to shoot someone....
He understands.
He is appalled and upset that anyone would dare not comply with his "law" to turn an inalienable Right into a privilege granted by the state should something like it get passed. He is beyond horrified that any of us would actually give thought to resisting attempts made to force compliance with what he wants done.
Because as he has revealed, refusal to comply with his "law" should anyone be stupid enough to enact it - will be actionable and require enforcement.
Which will bring about that which he is horrified anyone would be willing to do.
He is an advocate of tyranny under the color of law - and insists we must bend the knee.
He will be resisted.
-
Adequately according to whom? That's the next shoe to drop...
None of mine have gone running out into the road shooting at passers by. They have yet to climb out of their repose and attack anyone. I tell them "Stay!" and they do a far better job than my dog.
In the absence of any evildoing on the part of my firearms, they are adequately stored. They are in places where even the best of the climbing great grands cannot access them. But I know where they are if I need them. That is adequate. Anything which adversely affects the ability to deploy such if the need arises is inadequate, also, by virtue of being an impediment to the timely utilization of such arms in self-defense.
-
He has yet to acknowledge your example and mine about registration leading straight to confiscation right here in the modern-day US of A.
Yep. I brought up Australia's registry being used to round up the semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and the peril of registering semi-automatic rifles in California, which only had to change the definition of what was prohibited to pull their roundup. And the Canadians just "saying no" to the whole long gun registration scheme--to the point where the Government threw in the towel--provides a wonderful example of non violent resistance.
If the government were to take it to the next level and surround some fellow, they might well find themselves surrounded, in turn. It has happened over grazing fees, it would be even more likely over guns. (No more Wacos).
I am not advocating violent action by anyone, just leave our Rights alone and we'll all get along just fine. If the folks who don't want guns, don't want guns, then they don't have to buy them. But leave ours the heck alone.
-
He understands.
He is appalled and upset that anyone would dare not comply with his "law" to turn an inalienable Right into a privilege granted by the state should something like it get passed. He is beyond horrified that any of us would actually give thought to resisting attempts made to force compliance with what he wants done.
Because as he has revealed, refusal to comply with his "law" should anyone be stupid enough to enact it - will be actionable and require enforcement.
Which will bring about that which he is horrified anyone would be willing to do.
He is an advocate of tyranny under the color of law - and insists we must bend the knee.
He will be resisted.
Some folks can't get their mind wrapped around this concept: People do not obey laws, or follow Judges' orders. A Judge will tell a man, "You are ordered to stay away from your ex-girlfriend." What's he do? Steals a gun and shoots her. Surprise, surprise!
Well, not a surprise to you or me....
-
If the folks who don't want guns, don't want guns, then they don't have to buy them. But leave ours the heck alone.
Funny how that works when it applies to homosexuals demanding cakes be made to celebrate their lifestyle and perversity. We have been told on this very board that if we do not like homosexuality - don't practice it - but leave them alone.
Of course they have no intention of leaving Christians alone, they are bigots who have no right to refuse someone demanding they cater to an abomination and happily use the government to punish and impoverish them.
But when it comes to guns, - you have no right to be left alone according to them, because what you own is dangerous and they want it licensed, insured and registered with the government so the state knows you have what you have when they come a'callin' for you to turn them in because it is a REASONABLE REGULATION to turn a Right into a privilege.
-
The leftists think there are only two buckets. "Comply and register" or "Come out shooting."
No, that's what INVAR thinks. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Your frame of mind is not only appalling, but invincibly ignorant.
Expecting a gun owner to exericse responsibility is ignorant? The Second Amendment give you the right to own a gun, not license to act like you're above the law.
-
No, that's what INVAR thinks. *****rollingeyes*****
:silly:
Oh great swami, I'm thinking of a number between 1 and infinity.....
What is it?
-
Expecting a gun owner to exericse responsibility is ignorant? The Second Amendment give you the right to own a gun, not license to act like you're above the law.
The Second Amendment DOES NOT give us the right to own a gun(s) or arms of any kind.
The Second Amendment PROHIBITS the government and creeps like you from infringing on it.
So any "law" you make to regulate and restrict that right - is no law at all, and not one we are going to comply with.
The only way to enforce it is to put guns to our heads to force compliance - and when that day comes, it is game ON to water the tree of liberty.
-
None of mine have gone running out into the road shooting at passers by. They have yet to climb out of their repose and attack anyone. I tell them "Stay!" and they do a far better job than my dog.
In the absence of any evildoing on the part of my firearms, they are adequately stored. They are in places where even the best of the climbing great grands cannot access them. But I know where they are if I need them. That is adequate. Anything which adversely affects the ability to deploy such if the need arises is inadequate, also, by virtue of being an impediment to the timely utilization of such arms in self-defense.
Yes. According to you... Wanna bet registration requires particular storage (safes and trigger locks, with ammo stored separately) to exclude liability?
-
Expecting a gun owner to exericse responsibility is ignorant? The Second Amendment give you the right to own a gun, not license to act like you're above the law.
Your definition of 'responsibility' is ignorant, guaranteed.
-
No, that's what INVAR thinks. *****rollingeyes*****
I wouldn't say he does that but you don't. Its a long way because we're over 300 posts on this thread, but you've been doing it too.
As another said (I think it was @Maj. Bill Martin), I'm not ready to start shooting people, but I'm not ready to comply, either. Simply put: I will not comply.
-
Yes. According to you... Wanna bet registration requires particular storage (safes and trigger locks, with ammo stored separately) to exclude liability?
I have no doubt at all that if the leftists have their way, all guns will be mandated to be stored and locked up, with trigger locks, and unloaded. Meanwhile... when the leftists' bros break into your house to rob and/or worse you.... you'll be too busy trying to load and unlock your gun to save your own life and that of your family members. Which fits right into that leftist agenda. It's no secret that most felons are DemocRATs, after all. Which is why the rats want to give felons back their right to vote. They protect their own... and disarming law-abiding citizens ... or making it more difficult to get TO your gun.... would be just one method of that protection.
-
I wouldn't say he does that but you don't. Its a long way because we're over 300 posts on this thread, but you've been doing it too.
As another said (I think it was @Maj. Bill Martin), I'm not ready to start shooting people, but I'm not ready to comply, either. Simply put: I will not comply.
Neither will I. And that goes for all of my friends, family and a few neighbors.
-
Yes. According to you... Wanna bet registration requires particular storage (safes and trigger locks, with ammo stored separately) to exclude liability?
I believe California ready requires those things you mention.
-
I have no doubt at all that if the leftists have their way, all guns will be mandated to be stored and locked up, with trigger locks, and unloaded. Meanwhile... when the leftists' bros break into your house to rob and/or worse you.... you'll be too busy trying to load and unlock your gun to save your own life and that of your family members. Which fits right into that leftist agenda. It's no secret that most felons are DemocRATs, after all. Which is why the rats want to give felons back their right to vote. They protect their own... and disarming law-abiding citizens ... or making it more difficult to get TO your gun.... would be just one method of that protection.
Heck that ain't all - I wouldn't have a chicken, nor any other critter left on this place if I had to fuss with all that. But that's what you get when ivy league idiots back east ordain what 'being responsible' is.
-
Your definition of 'responsibility' is ignorant, guaranteed.
I'm still laughing at the "impartial Judges will protect your rights" line.... :silly: :rolling:
-
I'm still laughing at the "impartial Judges will protect your rights" line.... :silly: :rolling:
Laugh all you want, but the main reason the government can't confiscate your guns is Justice Scalia.
-
! No longer available (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ooy0GFMYafY#)
For the non-compliant. Remember, the chair is against the wall and John has a long mustache.
-
Laugh all you want, but the main reason the government can't confiscate your guns is Justice Scalia.
Do you know what most lefties called Scalia? Biased.
Yes, I will laugh, and laugh some more every time I hear somebody call Judges "impartial." At the Federal level I don't think there's a damned one of those left in the country. That "impartial" crap has been boiled out of them by the Senate confirmation process, so no truly impartial Judge can even get nominated (let alone confirmed) anymore. That's why I don't trust ANY of them.
Oh, I forgot to mention: The government is already confiscating guns, despite your precious Heller and Scalia. It's been pointed out to you numerous times in the past 300+ posts.
-
I wouldn't say he does that but you don't. Its a long way because we're over 300 posts on this thread, but you've been doing it too.
As another said (I think it was @Maj. Bill Martin), I'm not ready to start shooting people, but I'm not ready to comply, either. Simply put: I will not comply.
I have always believed that one should Not Reward Negative Behavior. If you believe that a law, rule, edict is counter to your personal beliefs of Right and Wrong, I believe you have a Moral Duty to Disobey. I remember back to Thoreau and his "Civil Disobedience".
--After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?- in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. ---
Powerful words, and I believe that everyone has a moral duty to attempt to live by what you believe is right.
-
If it's your gun, why shouldn't you be liable for harm committed with it? Shouldn't you as the owner be responsible for ensuring the gun is safely stored, and duly reported when lost, stolen or transferred?
That's simply a matter of taking responsibility. And no, it is not an infringement on your right to be legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own.
@Jazzhead I raise my cup in your general direction for the fortitude you've shown by almost singlehandedly defending your position. I know it's taken you time and it's not always easy.
Could you please take a moment to explain how the "license and registration" that you've talked about earlier leads to the owner being "legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own" on a physical, practical basis. I fill out a form, what's on it? Where does that info go, a govt database? You pull a projectile from a body, how do you trace it back to the purchaser? Is the purchaser the perp? How do you know? If the owner's not the perp, what's the liability? What protections are in the legislation that you admire that keep whatever data you collect from being used for confiscation or punitive taxation?
Devil's in the details. How does that work?
-
@Jazzhead I raise my cup in your general direction for the fortitude you've shown by almost singlehandedly defending your position. I know it's taken you time and it's not always easy.
Could you please take a moment to explain how the "license and registration" that you've talked about earlier leads to the owner being "legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own" on a physical, practical basis. I fill out a form, what's on it? Where does that info go, a govt database? You pull a projectile from a body, how do you trace it back to the purchaser? Is the purchaser the perp? How do you know? If the owner's not the perp, what's the liability? What protections are in the legislation that you admire that keep whatever data you collect from being used for confiscation or punitive taxation?
Devil's in the details. How does that work?
Your move, @Jazzhead. :2popcorn:
(In case you're wondering if anybody is keeping score, I think I saw @Meldrew ask a similar question a couple hundred posts ago.)
-
I raise my cup in your general direction.....
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/I3.eOw4GubgepFNhQnL5qA--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz00MDA-/http://www.colonialmedical.com/images/extra/p_5615_1341261242.jpg.cf.jpg)
-
@Jazzhead I raise my cup in your general direction for the fortitude you've shown by almost singlehandedly defending your position. I know it's taken you time and it's not always easy.
Could you please take a moment to explain how the "license and registration" that you've talked about earlier leads to the owner being "legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own" on a physical, practical basis. I fill out a form, what's on it? Where does that info go, a govt database? You pull a projectile from a body, how do you trace it back to the purchaser? Is the purchaser the perp? How do you know? If the owner's not the perp, what's the liability? What protections are in the legislation that you admire that keep whatever data you collect from being used for confiscation or punitive taxation?
Devil's in the details. How does that work?
Thanks, Mildrew. As you point out, I've staked out a position - a Second Amendment supporter who nevertheless advocates licensure and registration - that is profoundly unpopular here. I can't answer every post, so please accept my apologies for missing your earlier inquiry.
I start from what I believe is the reasonable position that, presumptively, the owner of an inherently dangerous implement is responsible for its use. The gunowner is in the best position to make sure the gun is used safely and lawfully. As noted in my recent post above, laws differ regarding the liability of a motor vehicle owner regarding mayhem caused by others, but those laws can be seen as a basic framework regarding when the owner's liability is reasonable and when it is not.
To me, the primary value of registration of firearms is to encourage gunowners to always acquire and relinquish their guns in documented transactions. When a gun is sold, a record of the registration changing hands is created. When a gun is disposed of, a record of ownership being abandoned is created. When a gun is stolen, it is promptly reported to the police, so that the owner can be relieved of liability.
Registration creates a means of assigning a gun to a specific individual who is responsible for it. That encourages safe practices, and discourages underground transactions. The purpose of registration is NOT confiscation - and that's where the protection of the Constitution and the rule of law comes in to protect the gun owner - like any lawful property owner - from arbitrary, illegal action by government.
I keep making the point that if laws requiring registration are enacted, they will come not from a tyranny, but from the community. Laws are enacted by the peoples' elected representatives, and citizens are protected against abuse by the rule of law.
-
Funny how that works when it applies to homosexuals demanding cakes be made to celebrate their lifestyle and perversity. We have been told on this very board that if we do not like homosexuality - don't practice it - but leave them alone.
Of course they have no intention of leaving Christians alone, they are bigots who have no right to refuse someone demanding they cater to an abomination and happily use the government to punish and impoverish them.
But when it comes to guns, - you have no right to be left alone according to them, because what you own is dangerous and they want it licensed, insured and registered with the government so the state knows you have what you have when they come a'callin' for you to turn them in because it is a REASONABLE REGULATION to turn a Right into a privilege.
The gay couple purposely sought out and found the baker that had objections to baking their wedding cake.
All this to impugn and punish that person, restrict their first amendment rights, and send a warning to the rest of us.
We all know good and well they knew of bakers who would make them a cake without any reservations, they did this on purpose.
The anti-gun crowd will do the same.
They will start off with some sort of comment along the lines of, "Hey, don't worry about the registration, and insurance, it's no big deal, and everybody's doing it, it is actually for your own protection."
Then, the first time some commits a Vegas or Parkland type incident, whether the criminal legally registered those guns or not, or obtained them legally or not, they will all shout "never again", and come for our guns
...and they will do this on purpose.
-
...Registration creates a means of assigning a gun to a specific individual who is responsible for it. That encourages safe practices, and discourages underground transactions. The purpose of registration is NOT confiscation - and that's where the protection of the Constitution and the rule of law comes in to protect the gun owner - like any lawful property owner - from arbitrary, illegal action by government....
I have to disagree with this bolded point. This will take current law abiding citizens to move to underground transactions. It will grow crime, not reduce it. Primarily by taking current legal activities that won't end, and declaring them illegal.
-
@Meldrew to kinda play off what you were asking...what's to stop someone wounded in a home invasion or street robbery who is shot by a gun owner in self defense from being sued. Y the thing for damages because the gun owner is "legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own"?
-
Neither will I. And that goes for all of my friends, family and a few neighbors.
And enough would to make any registration schemes unworkable. To say registration doesn’t lead to confiscation ignores history. I’m not saying if they passed a law today demanding registration confiscation will soon follow. But as some real world examples have shown, it can. Gun owners are aware of this. Registering firearms would make confiscation easier if the unthinkable were to ever happen.
It’s our nature to believe that our worldview is everyone else’s. Not everyone who wants registration may want gun confiscation. But you can’t speak for others nor predict the future. And all this is combined with the fact that trust in government is at an all time low
-
Thanks, Mildrew. As you point out, I've staked out a position - a Second Amendment supporter who nevertheless advocates licensure and registration - that is profoundly unpopular here. I can't answer every post, so please accept my apologies for missing your earlier inquiry.
That's all very interesting, @Jazzhead , but all you did was restate your assertions that you have made this entire thread. You ignored the very specific questions @Meldrew asked about the details of how your proposals would work in practice.
-
Approximately 3% of criminals who use guns get them legally. Tightening gun control focused on the legal purchases is ineffective in reducing gun crimes including shootings.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/)
-
Very well put, @Maj. Bill Martin . Yes, I think that is a fair summary of my position. The moral obligation to follow such laws and decisions derives from the voluntary nature of the political and community compact, and the existence of means of redress. Even if the court says a law with which you disagree is good, you can still act together with your fellow citizens to change it - without resort to violence.
So there is no moral right to resist a tyranny of the majority -- under any circumstances?
What bothers me about your approach is that I believe you're ignoring how increasingly easy it is becoming to undermine the long-understood meaning of the Constitution, which is supposed to protect minority rights. If the Supreme Court reads out of existence the Second Amendment, and much of the First as well (and I think there is a legitimate danger of that happening to the a decade or two under the guise of regulating political campaigning), are we still morally bound to accept that? On what basis? You say it's because of the "voluntary nature of the political and community compact", but we're not individual signatories to the Constitution, and the vast majority of us were simply born here, under these laws and political/legal system. So where is the "voluntariness" aspect?
The core question is this: at what point, if any, do people have the right to resist a government they believe to be unjust, and abusive of the rights of minorities? Because it seems as though you've carved out a rather absolutist position on that -- we're always bound to obey the majority.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not defending INVAR's position other than conceptually. But neither can I agree with your seeming absolutist position -- that we are required to obey the government no matter what.
@Jazzhead
-
That's all very interesting, @Jazzhead , but all you did was restate your assertions that you have made this entire thread. You ignored the very specific questions @Meldrew asked about the details of how your proposals would work in practice.
I do the best I can, CL, to respond to posts given my time and physical constraints.
-
So there is no moral right to resist a tyranny of the majority -- under any circumstances?
You put the rabbit in the hat there, @Maj. Bill Martin . Of course there is a moral right to resist tyranny. But the United States is not a tyranny. The government's authority derives from the consent of the governed.
-
I do the best I can, CL, to respond to posts given my time and physical constraints.
I understand that, and I encourage anybody to take some time and reflect when anybody offers novel points to a debate, to see where they go. Not meaning to pick on you here, Meldrew brought up some details I like to see somebody who knows the mechanics of these things could fill out.
-
About 3% of criminals using guns obtain the guns legally.
Making it more difficult to legally obtain and keep guns is not the problem that needs fixing.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/)
And the follow up on those attempting illegal purchases is pathetic.
U.S. files criminal charges in fraction of gun denial cases, Mayors Against Illegal Guns says
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/feb/03/mayors-against-illegal-guns/us-files-criminal-charges-fraction-gun-denial-case/ (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/feb/03/mayors-against-illegal-guns/us-files-criminal-charges-fraction-gun-denial-case/)
-
Laugh all you want, but the main reason the government can't confiscate your guns is Justice Scalia.
Except....
(https://spiritualmusclehead.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/hes-dead-jim.jpg?w=300&h=227)
The Supreme Court completely flipped itself on gay issues in less than two decades. Absolutely no reason to assume Heller will last any longer.
-
You put the rabbit in the hat there, @Maj. Bill Martin . Of course there is a moral right to resist tyranny. But the United States is not a tyranny. The government's authority derives from the consent of the governed.
You're dodging the question. I specifically mentioned the tyranny of the majority, and you know what that means. Does the minority have a moral right to resist that, or are they perpetually at the mercy of the majority that happens to control the elected government?
I certainly understand that exactly where we draw the line is a very complicated issue that isn't subject to sound-bite arguments. I'm just discussing the principle -- does "that's what the majority wants, so we are all morally bound to follow" have exceptions, or not?
@Jazzhead
-
“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops …†- Noah Webster
-
I think I'll just leave this here....
http://fortune.com/2016/09/01/medical-marijuana-gun/ (http://fortune.com/2016/09/01/medical-marijuana-gun/)
-
The Second Amendment DOES NOT give us the right to own a gun(s) or arms of any kind.
The Second Amendment PROHIBITS the government and creeps like you from infringing on it.
So any "law" you make to regulate and restrict that right - is no law at all, and not one we are going to comply with.
The only way to enforce it is to put guns to our heads to force compliance - and when that day comes, it is game ON to water the tree of liberty.
And THIS right here is why you are so screwed in the head @Jazzhead
You have a completely faulty understanding of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2A. And because you operate from this faulty and diabolical premise, all of your thoughts, posturing and general bullsh!t that you’re spouting here is faulty.
I don’t care how many times you repeat it, it is a faulty premise, fraught with danger to this republic and more importantly, a critical danger to MY liberty. I not only will not comply, I strongly urge you to lead the brigade of door-breakers when the confiscations THAT WILL INEVITABLY RESULT from your folly start to happen. You sir are either a damned fool or a tyrant... there is NO middle ground. Given your choice to disregard @INVAR comment above and your refusal to answer the questions from @Maj. Bill Martin that put the idiocy of your scheme to the test, I choose to believe that you are fully in the latter camp.
-
@Jazzhead Thanks for the response. I appreciate you taking the time. I have been curious about this issue as I'm seeing the idea of restating the 2nd/registration pop up more in the current public discussions. As @Cyber Liberty summed up...
That's all very interesting, @Jazzhead , but all you did was restate your assertions that you have made this entire thread. You ignored the very specific questions @Meldrew asked about the details of how your proposals would work in practice.
...it was a lovely answer but really didn't answer my questions about the specifics of how your proposals work. Without that, they're just more of the same kind of feel good catch phrases that we're seeing from the left on this. It's like the videos we saw over the weekend asking people "what is an assault weapon" and no one had any clue. You want registration to "encourage" gun owners to be responsible. In my experience, gun owners (especially concealed carriers) already are responsible. My questions asked what protections you envision to ensure that "encouragement" doesn't become coersion (Nudge, Shove, Shoot) but I didn't see you address that.
I keep making the point that if laws requiring registration are enacted, they will come not from a tyranny, but from the community.
Your community is already trying to outlaw "the shoulder thing that goes up". They're attempting to ban a class of firearms they can't even define. You yourself want to enact a restriction above and beyond what we already have presumably and yet you have no details on what that entails or requires. All of this is little more than mob rule based on feelz exclusively.
Laws are enacted by the peoples' elected representatives, and citizens are protected against abuse by the rule of law.
We're teaching our betters that they can get what they want sans logic or facts - a bad lesson to be teaching them. Of course, they already do that in other areas - spending, social policy etc - but that kind of vacuuous lawmaking has no place a natural rights/bill of rights context. And isn't the protection "against abuse by the rule of law" backed up by guns? Who get's to control those?
Again, thanks for your time with this Jazz. I must be candid though and say that all you've accomplished is confirm that this isn't really about responsibility or safety, it's about leftist power. I still won't comply.
-
I keep making the point that if laws requiring registration are enacted, they will come not from a tyranny, but from the community.
No one from the 'community' voted for ObamaCare or trillions of dollars in debt we are saddled with - and NONE voted for Homosexual Marriage - which came from a court decree.
So once again, the premise of your statement is full of shit.
Laws are enacted by the peoples' elected representatives, and citizens are protected against abuse by the rule of law.
Right. And Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real too.
-
The core question is this: at what point, if any, do people have the right to resist a government they believe to be unjust, and abusive of the rights of minorities?
Don't forget about the abuse of the rights of the majority when government and activists shop for the right pliable judge and court that leans in favor of their political ideology.
-
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell
-
Of course there is a moral right to resist tyranny. But the United States is not a tyranny.
You would have said the same exact thing back in 1774-75 in reference to the Crown. We suffer even more insidious and diabolical meddlesome tyranny fostered by people like you than the Colonists did at that time from their monarch. Neither king nor parliament attempted to impose the kinds of moral evils as a legal 'good' upon their subjects that you advocate.
You wouldn't recognize tyranny anymore than you recognize sin. Your definition of sin and tyranny are a 180 degree opposite phase from most of the rest of us on this board.
-
You put the rabbit in the hat there, @Maj. Bill Martin . Of course there is a moral right to resist tyranny. But the United States is not a tyranny. The government's authority derives from the consent of the governed.
And, that is because we have guns.
-
Roy Moore says guns are good. If they had more of them the South wouldn't have suffered a humiliating defeat in the Civil War.
-
And, that is because we have guns.
Perzackly.
-
And, that is because we have guns.
Eurotrash countries that don't have guns throw people in jail for Bookface posts and Tweets.
-
Eurotrash countries that don't have guns throw people in jail for Bookface posts and Tweets.
And for hundreds of years, they have moved the borders frequently and had many, many wars.
-
The Supreme Court completely flipped itself on gay issues in less than two decades. Absolutely no reason to assume Heller will last any longer.
I don't disagree. And I'm just about the only one on this thread that thinks something should be done to codify it. Too many of the rest are just huffing hubris.
-
Too many of the rest are just huffing hubris.
(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.0sDnTVhIcSQ_U_6WuTu6sAEsD2&pid=15.1&H=131&W=160&P=0)
-
Too many of the rest are just huffing hubris.
Or maybe, perhaps, they just simply disagree with you
-
Or maybe, perhaps, they just simply disagree with you
Or don't wish to entrust their and their families lives to his good intentions. Perhaps I've become too cynical in my dotage.
-
I don't disagree. And I'm just about the only one on this thread that thinks something should be done to codify it. Too many of the rest are just huffing hubris.
Since you brought it up, what is it you are huffing?
-
Since you brought it up, what is it you are huffing?
I understand the metallic paints produce the best buzz, which is why the fellow a few posts up us covered in gold paint.
-
...it was a lovely answer but really didn't answer my questions about the specifics of how your proposals work.
Like most of us, I'm addressing concepts rather than specifics. Do you have a background in public policy such that you'd care at all about what some schlub on the internet has to say about the nuts and bolts of legislation?
Conceptually, I favor registration because it will encourage documented transactions and documented dispositions of firearms. Roamer has bragged about buying his guns off the back of a truck. Sorry, but think the community deserves better. Gunowners should be responsible for the dangerous implements they choose to own, and to do that there has to be a means of assigning firearms to their responsible owners. If a registered gun is stolen, the owner will have every incentive to report it to the police. Not so much when he's bought the thing off the back of a truck.
The specifics of the liability to which gunowners should reasonably be subject is a complex subject. It would an effort for me to do justice to it, and I don't think anyone really gives a damn, since no one apparently buys into the concept that gunowners should be responsible for their guns.
As I've explained elsewhere, the reasonableness and constitutionality of a regime of liability depends in part on the ability of the responsible party to AT REASONABLE COST insure himself against the risk. So in large part the details of the liability regime depend on the presence of an insurance regime. The 2A says the right cannot be infringed - if the gunowner is to be liable for mayhem caused by his guns, IMO it is an infringement on his basic right if he cannot reasonably insure himself against the risk. The design of a reasonable and affordable insurance regime is crucial.
Rather than rambling on for thousands of words, if you're truly interested in the design of a liability regime for firearms, then say so and ask the questions you like. I'll try my best to respond. But from what I can tell, the theme of poster after poster on this thread is that they don't care - they won't comply with registration, and they will defy any attempt to impose a regime of liability on gunowners, no matter how reasonable. Gun owners are special, you see, their ability to amass an arsenal in secret and buy and sell guns off the backs of trucks is sacrosanct; otherwise the tyrants will prevail. *****rollingeyes*****
-
We don't need more government intervention to make a careless gunowner liable for any damages resulting from his own carelessness. That's what plaintiffs' attorneys are for, isn't it?
-
Since you brought it up, what is it you are huffing?
Highland Park 12.
-
Highland Park 12.
Well, that explains a lot. You're supposed to sip it. Slowly.
-
Nice dodging there, Jazz. Tell him he can ask specific questions, which he already did, and you'll fill in the answers, which you are not about to do. This is why you are getting the "I will not comply" responses. It's because you don't respond to anything else. Speaking for myself, that's why I've given up and simply reply with those four words.
-
Like most of us, I'm addressing concepts rather than specifics. Do you have a background in public policy such that you'd care at all about what some schlub on the internet has to say about the nuts and bolts of legislation?
Conceptually, I favor registration because it will encourage documented transactions and documented dispositions of firearms. Roamer has bragged about buying his guns off the back of a truck. Sorry, but think the community deserves better. Gunowners should be responsible for the dangerous implements they choose to own, and to do that there has to be a means of assigning firearms to their responsible owners. If a registered gun is stolen, the owner will have every incentive to report it to the police. Not so much when he's bought the thing off the back of a truck.
The specifics of the liability to which gunowners should reasonably be subject is a complex subject. It would an effort for me to do justice to it, and I don't think anyone really gives a damn, since no one apparently buys into the concept that gunowners should be responsible for their guns.
As I've explained elsewhere, the reasonableness and constitutionality of a regime of liability depends in part on the ability of the responsible party to AT REASONABLE COST insure himself against the risk. So in large part the details of the liability regime depend on the presence of an insurance regime. The 2A says the right cannot be infringed - if the gunowner is to be liable for mayhem caused by his guns, IMO it is an infringement on his basic right if he cannot reasonably insure himself against the risk. The design of a reasonable and affordable insurance regime is crucial.
Rather than rambling on for thousands of words, if you're truly interested in the design of a liability regime for firearms, then say so and ask the questions you like. I'll try my best to respond. But from what I can tell, the theme of poster after poster on this thread is that they don't care - they won't comply with registration, and they will defy any attempt to impose a regime of liability on gunowners, no matter how reasonable. Gun owners are special, you see, their ability to amass an arsenal in secret and buy and sell guns off the backs of trucks is sacrosanct; otherwise the tyrants will prevail. *****rollingeyes*****
When are you going to also favor registration of knives which kill four times as many people than guns?
Why not go for the greater gain?
If you say no, you do not favor that, then take all of your worthless arguments about guns and throw them away in the trash, cause that is all they are worth after all.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Ozi0qto.gif)
I really like the shiny pants.
-
The design of a reasonable and affordable insurance regime is crucial.
That's what they said about health insurance, too. How's that working out?
-
That's what they said about health insurance, too. How's that working out?
We just need to put some really smart experts in charge. Yugely smart. Only the best people.
-
Or maybe, perhaps, they just simply disagree with you
That's fine, but I've seen little explanation from anyone why they're so cocksure that Heller can't be overturned. All I here is ranting about how Republicans can't be trusted, Republicans are no different than Democrats, Republicans are bums who've betrayed conservatism, blah blah blah.
Heed my words or ignore them - if conservatives don't motivate themselves to unite to vote for Republicans for Congress and the Presidency, and the Dems take over both by 2020, then the Heller decision is toast and so are your gun rights. If you care about your gun rights, IMO there is nothing more crucial than CODIFYING Heller. Stevens - remember? the tread topic? - is the author of the dissenting opinion in Heller. Read it. Know well the consequences of conservatives bragging about abandoning the GOP.
-
That's what they said about health insurance, too. How's that working out?
It's working about as well as the Phillies bullpen did this afternoon. Congrats, PT, on your Braves getting a walk-off win against the worst example of two-bit amateur managing I've ever seen.
-
Well, that explains a lot. You're supposed to sip it. Slowly.
LOL! 888high58888
-
It's working about as well as the Phillies bullpen did this afternoon. Congrats, PT, on your Braves getting a walk-off win against the worst example of two-bit amateur managing I've ever seen.
Thank you!
:beer:
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Ozi0qto.gif)
I really like the shiny pants.
and I thought that was Michael Dukakis trying to hip-hop.
-
Thank you!
:beer:
Beer back atcha :beer: Markakis hit the snot out that pitch.
-
Beer back atcha :beer: Markakis hit the snot out that pitch.
He sure did. It was beautiful!
-
He sure did. It was beautiful!
D-backs opener is in about 15 minutes. It looks like we have almost the whole team back from last year, and I thought we did pretty well with it.
-
Highland Park 12 sounds like a bunch of Chicago ‘yutes’ on trial.
-
D-backs opener is in about 15 minutes. It looks like we have almost the whole team back from last year, and I thought we did pretty well with it.
D-Backs will win the West this year. A very good team.
-
Highland Park 12 sounds like a bunch of Chicago ‘yutes’ on trial.
Lightly peated Scotch whisky from the Orkney Islands. Honey in a glass.
-
Roamer has bragged about buying his guns off the back of a truck. Sorry, but think the community deserves better. Gunowners should be responsible for the dangerous implements they choose to own, and to do that there has to be a means of assigning firearms to their responsible owners. If a registered gun is stolen, the owner will have every incentive to report it to the police. Not so much when he's bought the thing off the back of a truck.
Well guess what... Ol Roamer is going to continue to buy his guns 'off the back of a truck'... I don't think I have had more than two or three guns registurd over the counter in my whole life. And I have a fair chunk more than two in my possession.
SO what now? Because near everyone I know is just like me.
-
Lightly peated Scotch whisky from the Orkney Islands. Honey in a glass.
Yeah, but Jazz has been huffing it instead of properly honoring a fine whiskey.
-
Lightly peated Scotch whisky from the Orkney Islands. Honey in a glass.
I prefer the unpeated Speyside types, like MacCallan. I'd be willing to try lightly peated. The full peat just tastes too much like a campfire in a glass for me.
-
I prefer the unpeated Speyside types, like MacCallan. I'd be willing to try lightly peated. The full peat just tastes too much like a campfire in a glass for me.
I agree with you. I open up a bottle of the smoky stuff, and it stays open for a year. I'm just rarely in the mood for it. Highland Park because of its subtlety is a highly effective peat injection - honeyed, not medical waste.
I tend to prefer Speysiders too, although for me the sine qua non is the Balvenie. MaCallan is great, but I prefer an unpeated whiskey aged in bourbon barrels rather than sherry casks. Well, at least some of the time. Mrs. Jazz bought me a bottle of MaCallan for my birthday, and by golly it is one tasty pour.
-
You guys are elitists
Happiness is a good, locally brewed, craft beer :tongue2:
-
You guys are elitists
Happiness is a good, locally brewed, craft beer :tongue2:
Well, there's no reason to be elitist. I'll just huff a Highland Park with a Yuengling chaser.
-
You guys are elitists
Happiness is a good, locally brewed, craft beer :tongue2:
No argument from me. Just had this last night and liked it.....
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/y7vJxlw4dn0MNsJ_1E70Aw--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD02MDA7dz0zNzI-/http://www.beersofeurope.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/pimages/SkaBrewingModusHoperandiIPA.jpg.cf.jpg)
-
@Jazzhead
Do you have a background in public policy such that you'd care at all about what some schlub on the internet has to say about the nuts and bolts of legislation?
I was interested because your view is really an outlier. I've seen the recent rise in folks wanting to change or abolish the 2nd, I've seen folks want registration but I've never seen anyone say they were a supporter of the second but want registration. I thought perhaps you had a unique perspective you'd thought through.
if you're truly interested in the design of a liability regime for firearms, then say so and ask the questions you like. I'll try my best to respond.
Well here, try these:
From my post #70 on this thread - "What is the purpose of registration if not to document ownership and location? Why would you want to help a tyranny take your rights? And even assuming you do, what do citizens get in return other than more tyranny?"
From my post #152 on this thread - "Besides the revenue possibilities, what is the utility to the state of registering and licensing cars and how would that utility be manifested by registering and licensing guns? "
From my post #319 on this thread - "Could you please take a moment to explain how the "license and registration" that you've talked about earlier leads to the owner being "legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own" on a physical, practical basis. I fill out a form, what's on it? Where does that info go, a govt database? You pull a projectile from a body, how do you trace it back to the purchaser? Is the purchaser the perp? How do you know? If the owner's not the perp, what's the liability? What protections are in the legislation that you admire that keep whatever data you collect from being used for confiscation or punitive taxation? "
You know, it takes a special kind of somethin' to ignore my posts and questions several times then turn around and and tell me that if I have questions just ask and you'll make an effort to answer them. Well, don't put yourself out. I'm unlikely to give anything you'd say any consideration. I've plenty of evidence now that it's easier and more accurate to just go with the conventional wisdom conception of you around here. As my sainted father used to say "I've seen ducks make bubbles in water before".
-
You know, it takes a special kind of somethin' to ignore my posts and questions several times then turn around and and tell me that if I have questions just ask and you'll make an effort to answer them.
@Meldrew he's a lawyer. They specialize in talking in circles like that.
-
@Meldrew, thanks for restating your questions. I disagree with you that I "ignored" them; to the contrary I've already addressed most of them. But this weekend when I have time I'll return and reply specifically to you.
I don't believe it is unusual at all for a 2A supporter to also see the wisdom in the reasonable, efficacious regulation of firearms. What may be the disconnect is that I support Constitutional protection of the individual right to defend one's person, family and property, while most of the others here see the right as a bulwark against "tyranny" - and not King George, but the American community that is concerned about gun violence and dares to take the position that gun owners have an obligation to act responsibly!
You apparently see the concerns of your fellow citizens as tyrannical, and you refuse to comply with their reasonable request that you account for and register your arms. You see registration as inevitably leading to confiscation, and I think - in the American context - that that's a slap in the face to our Constitutional Republic, the greatest experiment in representative self-government that has ever been devised.
What is your objection to the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of men? I simply do not understand the legitimacy of this claimed gun-owner's veto. Yes, an armed man can refuse to comply with the laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives, and shoot dead the peoples' representatives sent to enforce such laws. But I can think of few attitudes more fundamentally un-American.
-
@Meldrew I see he did it again. Ignored all your points and questions and simply restated his positions. You really did give it a good try, trying to push a piece of spaghetti through a keyhole.
-
@Meldrew, thanks for restating your questions. I disagree with you that I "ignored" them; to the contrary I've already addressed most of them. But this weekend when I have time I'll return and reply specifically to you.
I don't believe it is unusual at all for a 2A supporter to also see the wisdom in the reasonable, efficacious regulation of firearms. What may be the disconnect is that I support Constitutional protection of the individual right to defend one's person, family and property, while most of the others here see the right as a bulwark against "tyranny" - and not King George, but the American community that is concerned about gun violence and dares to take the position that gun owners have an obligation to act responsibly!
You apparently see the concerns of your fellow citizens as tyrannical, and you refuse to comply with their reasonable request that you account for and register your arms. You see registration as inevitably leading to confiscation, and I think - in the American context - that that's a slap in the face to our Constitutional Republic, the greatest experiment in representative self-government that has ever been devised.
What is your objection to the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of men? I simply do not understand the legitimacy of this claimed gun-owner's veto. Yes, an armed man can refuse to comply with the laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives, and shoot dead the peoples' representatives sent to enforce such laws. But I can think of few attitudes more fundamentally un-American.
Fundamental to your problems.
We were not a nation of laws but of men when those men decided by arming themselves to build this country.
Those men constructed laws to live under, but fundamentally, those laws serve the men, not the other way around. We do not exist to live under laws, but of our own freedoms.
Those men can take this country back by using arms to use against those who disobey those 'laws' for their own purposes when required.
Under your premise of laws being our king, we would still be under the yoke of others.
-
@Meldrew I see he did it again. Ignored all your points and questions and simply restated his positions. You really did give it a good try, trying to push a piece of spaghetti through a keyhole.
Give me a phuckin' break, CL. I said I would address his questions, when I have the time to do so this weekend. Do you have a job? Well, I do. I participate on this board in good faith and to the best of my ability. Stop it with your nanny act.
-
Give me a phuckin' break, CL. I said I would address his questions, when I have the time to do so this weekend. Do you have a job? Well, I do. I participate on this board in good faith and to the best of my ability. Stop it with your nanny act.
There really isn't any point in bothering, he's not going to buy it anyway. While everybody is scrolling up to reread posts, reread the last one he sent.
-
There really isn't any point in bothering, he's not going to buy it anyway.
You're probably right - that's what I was suggesting in my most recent post above: some of the folks here think any regulation by the community of the gun right, no matter how reasonable or efficacious, is an "infringement" on the right to rebel against "tyrannical" government. Even government constrained under the confines and protections of our Constitutional Republic!
Frankly, I think that's ridiculous.
But I don't participate on this board just to stir up trouble. I know my views are outliers here and I do try to engage as best I can with those who respond. But because I'm outnumbered, I sometimes can't respond to everyone and in the sort of detail folks demand. All I can do is my level best.
-
...
But I don't participate on this board just to stir up trouble. I know my views are outliers here and I do try to engage as best I can with those who respond. But because I'm outnumbered, I sometimes can't respond to everyone and in the sort of detail folks demand. All I can do is my level best.
That's an interesting point, Jazz, and an outlier is what? It's an aberration, a mis-measurement, an error, something that doesn't fit. Or - according to Wikipedia:
In statistics, an outlier is an observation point that is distant from other observations.[1][2] An outlier may be due to variability in the measurement or it may indicate experimental error; the latter are sometimes excluded from the data set.[3] An outlier can cause serious problems in statistical analyses.
-
That's an interesting point, Jazz, and an outlier is what? It's an aberration, a mis-measurement, an error, something that doesn't fit. Or - according to Wikipedia:
A dermatologist would say an outlier is something on the skin which needs removal.
As an economist, I would say it is a statistical anomaly, which should be rejected as not meaningful.
-
My views are an outlier on this board, but not among gun owners generally. A quick google search will lead you to polls that find that majorities of both gun owners and gun owners who are NRA members support universal background checks and the elimination of loopholes that permit gun sales off the back of trucks. And even a significant minority of gun owners (about a third if I recall) support the idea of a firearm registry.
Again, and I keep coming back to this: The federal government is not King George. Our leaders serve with the consent of the governed, and our judicial system protects the rights of minorities and the rights of all as protected by the Constitution. In such a setting, the chest-thumping here that folks "will not comply" with the community's decision to require gun owners to account for their firearms, and even to shoot peace officers dead who do their jobs to enforce such a requirement, strikes me as profoundly un-American.
-
We don't live in a Commune, sir. We live in a Republic. This is a way in which we differ considerably.
-
We don't live in a Commune, sir. We live in a Republic. This is a way in which we differ considerably.
I never suggested we live in a "Commune", sir. Why do you object to the word community? I mean, of course, the citizens of your State and of the United States generally, who vote for their elected representatives. Laws are not handed down from on high by tyrants, but by those elected representatives who can be turned from office at the next election. We are indeed a Constitutional Republic - so why do you insist on disrespecting it by declaring you "won't comply" its laws?
-
I never suggested we live in a "Commune", sir. Why do you object to the word community? I mean, of course, the citizens of your State and of the United States generally, who vote for their elected representatives. Laws are not handed down from on high by tyrants, but by those elected representatives who can be turned from office at the next election. We are indeed a Constitutional Republic - so why do you insist on disrespecting it by declaring you "won't comply" its laws?
I don't object to the word, I object to the way it is used to infer that my rights are inferior. We are a Republic to prevent mob rule, where the majority in the "community" can run roughshod over the rights of a minority.
-
My views are an outlier on this board, but not among gun owners generally. A quick google search will lead you to polls that find that majorities of both gun owners and gun owners who are NRA members support universal background checks and the elimination of loopholes that permit gun sales off the back of trucks. And even a significant minority of gun owners (about a third if I recall) support the idea of a firearm registry.
And, this is why the Founding Fathers rejected the idea of a democracy in favor of a Republic. The whims of the public do not determine our laws.
Again, and I keep coming back to this: The federal government is not King George. Our leaders serve with the consent of the governed, and our judicial system protects the rights of minorities and the rights of all as protected by the Constitution.
See my point 1, above.
In such a setting, the chest-thumping here that folks "will not comply" with the community's decision to require gun owners to account for their firearms, and even to shoot peace officers dead who do their jobs to enforce such a requirement, strikes me as profoundly un-American.
Interesting, you want to protect the rights of minorities, but do so by popular opinion. Do you see the contradiction?
You seem genuinely disturbed by the idea of individual sovereignty and limited government.
-
no matter how reasonable or efficacious,
Jazz I have been asking you to tell us all what's reasonable about your proposed registration and what about any of its details make it reasonable. You have been wholly unable to do it either because you don't know how or because you don't really want to. Merely saying it's reasonable and efficacious doesn't make it so. I've asked you to explain how your proposal is different from the other thousands of laws regulating the Second Amendment but you got nothing just like the other gun control advocates whose objective is surreptitiously confiscation.
I came to you with questions in good faith. I didn't use snark or invective. You didn't reciprocate that good faith so, as @Cyber Liberty said, I no longer have interest in anything you might have to say. Ducks and bubbles...
-
Jazz I have been asking you to tell us all what's reasonable about your proposed registration and what about any of its details make it reasonable. You have been wholly unable to do it either because you don't know how or because you don't really want to. Merely saying it's reasonable and efficacious doesn't make it so. I've asked you to explain how your proposal is different from the other thousands of laws regulating the Second Amendment but you got nothing just like the other gun control advocates whose objective is surreptitiously confiscation.
I came to you with questions in good faith. I didn't use snark or invective. You didn't reciprocate that good faith so, as @Cyber Liberty said, I no longer have interest in anything you might have to say. Ducks and bubbles...
Fine, suit yourself,@Meldrew. I was really going to take the time this weekend to respond seriously to your questions. I thought your were a decent guy, and I felt bad about overlooking your posts. Substantive analysis regarding the nuts and bolts of a reasonable and workable liability and insurance regime for firearms can't be dashed off while I'm here at work.
Thanks for letting me know in advance you don't give a damn anyway.
-
Give me a phuckin' break, CL. I said I would address his questions, when I have the time to do so this weekend. Do you have a job? Well, I do. I participate on this board in good faith and to the best of my ability. Stop it with your nanny act.
888high58888
And then they don't have manners to 'ping' you when they're dissing you.
@Cyber Liberty
@txradioguy
@Meldrew ....a special shout-out for your quality posts/points/argument(s) :patriot:
-
Fine, suit yourself,@Meldrew. I was really going to take the time this weekend to respond seriously to your questions. I thought your were a decent guy, and I felt bad about overlooking your posts. Substantive discussions regarding the nuts and bolts of reasonable and workable liability and insurance regimes can't be dashed off while I'm here at work.
Thanks for letting me know in advance you don't give a damn anyway.
*****rollingeyes*****
He did until you started BS'ing him.
-
888high58888
And then they don't have manners to 'ping' you when they're dissing you.
@Cyber Liberty
@txradioguy
@Meldrew ....a special shout-out for your quality posts/points/argument(s) :patriot:
888high58888
(I think) :patriot: :beer:
Happy Good Friday! (Thought it sounds odd to celebrate the day Jesus was nailed to a cross.)
-
*****rollingeyes*****
He did until you started BS'ing him.
I didn't BS him. I told him I'd respond to his questions this weekend when I had the time. I intended to do so. But it turns out he's just another pr*ck. *****rollingeyes*****
-
888high58888
(I think) :patriot: :beer:
Happy Good Friday! (Thought it sounds odd to celebrate the day Jesus was nailed to a cross.)
Why?? Hadn't you heard? The Pope just decided "ex cathedra" (from the chair) that there is NO Hell!! :laugh:
-
Happy Good Friday! (Thought it sounds odd to celebrate the day Jesus was nailed to a cross.)
If He hadn't been nailed to a cross, He wouldn't have fulfilled His destiny to die for the sins of humanity.
Happy Good Friday and Easter to all!
-
Why?? Hadn't you heard? The Pope just decided "ex cathedra" (from the chair) that there is NO Hell!! :laugh:
:laugh:
Yeah, I've read that (except not the "ex cathedra" part. I'll have to ask the Missus). I'd think having body parts nailed to something would feel like Heck.
-
I didn't BS him. I told him I'd respond to his questions this weekend when I had the time. I intended to do so. But it turns out he's just another bleep. *****rollingeyes*****
I beg your pardon?? Seems the leftist circle is now complete. Let me get this straight, I ask a question - no response, I ask another question - no response, I ask several more questions, response asking what my questions are but no actual answers. Lot's of vague innuendo about how I and others are rabid right wing gun nuts who don't respect "the community" but nothing substantive. Then when told nevermind it's suddenly me who "doesn't give a damn" and is now a "bleep". (Please note that I have yet to call anyone names but it's difficult).
So I tell you what Jazzhead, I still do have an intellectual interest in your line of reasoning so please, for my edification and the good of us all, PLEASE DO WRITE OUT DETAILED ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS over the weekend as you said you'd do. I would only ask that you make it understandable to a portly suburbanite - no legalese please. I'll check back Sunday to see how you're getting along. I encourage all participants in the thread to do the same.
And for @DCPatriot who informs me that you need to tag folks you're talking to even though you've been posting to them for a couple pages, @Jazzhead.
Happy and blessed Easter everyone!
-
I beg your pardon?? Seems the leftist circle is now complete. Let me get this straight, I ask a question - no response, I ask another question - no response, I ask several more questions, response asking what my questions are but no actual answers. Lot's of vague innuendo about how I and others are rabid right wing gun nuts who don't respect "the community" but nothing substantive. Then when told nevermind it's suddenly me who "doesn't give a damn" and is now a "bleep". (Please note that I have yet to call anyone names but it's difficult).
So I tell you what Jazzhead, I still do have an intellectual interest in your line of reasoning so please, for my edification and the good of us all, PLEASE DO WRITE OUT DETAILED ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS over the weekend as you said you'd do. I would only ask that you make it understandable to a portly suburbanite - no legalese please. I'll check back Sunday to see how you're getting along. I encourage all participants in the thread to do the same.
And for @DCPatriot who informs me that you need to tag folks you're talking to even though you've been posting to them for a couple pages, @Jazzhead.
Happy and blessed Easter everyone!
Thanks, @Meldrew. @Jazzhead, would you include me in your response also? I'm very interested in what you have to say in response to Meldrew's and my questions.
-
My views are an outlier on this board, but not among gun owners generally. A quick google search will lead you to polls that find that majorities of both gun owners
You have no idea who the gun owners are... Not even a pittance of them.
Again, and I keep coming back to this: The federal government is not King George.
Oh hell yes, it is.
Our leaders serve with the consent of the governed, and our judicial system protects the rights of minorities and the rights of all as protected by the Constitution.
No they don't. They work to abrogate those very rights and spend us into oblivion.
In such a setting, the chest-thumping here that folks "will not comply" with the community's decision to require gun owners to account for their firearms, and even to shoot peace officers dead who do their jobs to enforce such a requirement, strikes me as profoundly un-American.
You do not represent 'the community'.
Whole STATES will not comply, to include my own. And righteous rebellion is as American as apple pie.
-
@Jazzhead
@roamer_1
@INVAR
@Sanguine
Again, and I keep coming back to this: The federal government is not King George.
Actually, it is worse than King George. I have been watching the deterioration of the U.S. government into monumental corruption since JFK's murder in 1963, but I'm afraid that too many things are flying well below your radar, Jazzhead.
The American Republic is surely one of the finest nations, if not the very finest nation of all in world history; however our U.S. government has (paradoxically?) become one of the most corrupt in the world. The reason why you haven't noticed this is that our Constitutional form is being used by sophisticated conspirators in both major parties to keep most of their malicious corruption under your radar while they walk us off a cliff into a Global Socialist disaster.
The necessary last step in their increasingly more desperate plan is war on American soil.
I think that a lot of TBR folks have begun to realize this--which would explain their impassioned responses against what I confess are your seemingly reasonable posts. I would suggest that we quit bickering on this thread and see what happens this year--probably ramping up soon.
-
@Jazzhead
@roamer_1
@INVAR
@Sanguine
Actually, it is worse than King George. I have been watching the deterioration of the U.S. government into monumental corruption since JFK's murder in 1963, but I'm afraid that too many things are flying well below your radar, Jazzhead.
The American Republic is surely one of the finest nations, if not the very finest nation of all in world history; however our U.S. government has (paradoxically?) become one of the most corrupt in the world. The reason why you haven't noticed this is that our Constitutional form is being used by sophisticated conspirators in both major parties to keep most of their malicious corruption under your radar while they walk us off a cliff into a Global Socialist disaster.
The necessary last step in their increasingly more desperate plan is war on American soil.
I think that a lot of TBR folks have begun to realize this--which would explain their impassioned responses against what I confess are your seemingly reasonable posts. I would suggest that we quit bickering on this thread and see what happens this year--probably ramping up soon.
@the_doc, regarding the level of passion on this subject, you are correct. Most of us recognize the real and significant dangers we are facing from an extra-Constitutional and corrupt government. And, we don't take it lightly when someone here pooh-poohs the dangers and tells us we are just imagining things.
-
@the_doc, regarding the level of passion on this subject, you are correct. Most of us recognize the real and significant dangers we are facing from an extra-Constitutional and corrupt government. And, we don't take it lightly when someone here pooh-poohs the dangers and tells us we are just imagining things.
Uh, yeah. That's pretty much it. Sets my teeth on edge when somebody lectures me that I can must trust the government and the courts to keep my liberties safe. I happen to take my liberty very seriously, hence the name.
-
I think that a lot of TBR folks have begun to realize this--which would explain their impassioned responses against what I confess are your seemingly reasonable posts. I would suggest that we quit bickering on this thread and see what happens this year--probably ramping up soon.
@the_doc
Yes to your whole post, but not really even all that...
This whole thing goes right to the root of Conservative views on government: 'A government that fears it's people' is the very root of Conservative civil-libertarianism.
We are a very far cry from Reagan's scariest words in the world: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'...
That a national registration is even discussed here is a travesty.
-
Yes. According to you... Wanna bet registration requires particular storage (safes and trigger locks, with ammo stored separately) to exclude liability?
So If I don't register them I don't need all that crap, right?
-
So If I don't register them I don't need all that crap, right?
It would be difficult to inspect your weapons if they don't know you have them....
-
So If I don't register them I don't need all that crap, right?
That's how it reads from over here :shrug: :whistle:
:beer:
-
@the_doc, regarding the level of passion on this subject, you are correct. Most of us recognize the real and significant dangers we are facing from an extra-Constitutional and corrupt government. And, we don't take it lightly when someone here pooh-poohs the dangers and tells us we are just imagining things.
You're missing the forest for the trees. OK so you think the American government is as tyrannical as King George. And yes, I may think that's paranoid and disrespectful of the beautiful design the Founders constructed for the preservation of "government by the consent of the governed".
But I understand your concern. I concede; you're not "just imagining things".
But I'm not just imagining things either. The threat isn't to your ability to keep guns to shoot peace officers, it's to your ability to keep guns for your personal self defense and recreation. The Second Amendment only guarantees you that right by dint of a court opinion, one that was decided by a 5-4 majority and one of which the subject of the topic thread is the author of the dissenting opinion.
I think the weekend assignment for every person on this board should be to read Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller. Read it and understand how the individual RKBA hangs by a thread. How it is probably, at this point in time, more fragile and vulnerable to being overturned than the right to abortion.
I may be the perceived enemy of most on this board, but sometimes it is wise to listen to some cautionary advice. Heller needs to be codified. That should be the focused priority of gun owners, not resistance to concerns of the citizenry that it may be sound policy to require gun owners to account for their firearms.
I have a weekend assignment, it appears, to answer some questions about gun registration from a member who has already said that, whatever form that registration may take, he will not comply. Should I waste my time? Is there anything I can say that would persuade anyone here that registration is not the prelude to confiscation?
I doubt it. And that's because folks are "not just imagining things" with respect to the tyranny of our Constitutional Republic.
The only thing, I think, that could temper the paranoia is the knowledge that we have a Second Amendment that protects our individual right to protect ourselves. And the Second Amendment does not do that. Heller does. And Heller can be gone with the political winds.
The worry is not that a reasonable regime of registration may be legal under the Second Amendment, but that the Second Amendment doesn't protect the individual RKBA at all. And if the 2A affords no such protection, then the regime of registration need not be reasonable, but can be unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory.
I support a system of registration and insurance that would ensure that Americans may own and use guns for whatever reason they want, so long as they take responsibility for them and effect transfers and dispositions by documented means. But there's nothing I will be able to say that will counter the objection that such a reasonable regime could not be corrupted into arbitrary confiscation. And you are correct, because the Second Amendment is defective and does not protect the natural right. Stevens says so, explicitly.
Only by first codifying Heller can gun owners be assured that registration and other gun control measures won't lead to confiscation.
@Sanguine
@Meldrew
-
You're missing the forest for the trees.
Only by first codifying Heller can gun owners be assured that registration and other gun control measures won't lead to confiscation.
@Sanguine
@Meldrew
So the reverse logic must apply, ie - no Heller change needed if no gun registration.
Finally I have agreement with you.
When will you be able to get around to my question on why you are not recommending to register knives which cause more deaths than guns?
-
You're missing the forest for the trees. OK so you think the American government is as tyrannical as King
Speaking of forests and trees...if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If a right exists undecided upon by a court, does it exist? According to your logic, it does not. Since no court has ever issued a decision on my right to play Tiddly Winks on the sidewalk in front of my house, then playing Tiddly Winks on that sidewalk is prohibited. I think that's ass-backwards, and I think the Founders who said all rights not reserved by the government are reserved by the people would agree.
I find it amusing that in replying to @Sanguine's expression of concern about the genuine fears of infringement being pooh-pooh'ed by you, you pooh-pooh'ed her remark.
-
Again, and I keep coming back to this: The federal government is not King George. Our leaders serve with the consent of the governed, and our judicial system protects the rights of minorities and the rights of all as protected by the Constitution.
This the kind of crap that people rebel at, and why this country will always be a country of men, not laws. You can take all that eloquence about respecting laws instead of freedom and flush it.
Federal judge rules that government has a right to make a couple sick
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,310223.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,310223.0.html)
-
I think it boils down to different world views. Are people good by nature, or bad? Is our government malevolent or benevolent? I think I might be cynical because I think people are bad, and the government reflects the nature of its people.
-
I think it boils down to different world views. Are people good by nature, or bad? Is our government malevolent or benevolent? I think I might be cynical because I think people are bad, and the government reflects the nature of its people.
Since it is many times mentioned in the Bible, this is not a worldview, but a Spiritual one.
-
OK so you think the American government is as tyrannical as King George. And yes, I may think that's paranoid and disrespectful of the beautiful design the Founders constructed for the preservation of "government by the consent of the governed".
The amount of sheer colossal idiotic ignorance or deliberate outrageous bullshit in that statement alone is beyond astounding.
It illustrates the foundational reason WHY you sir, are not a Conservative, but rather the full display of a mind wholly devoted to Collectivism/Statism/Communism.
The Constitution was not written and ratified as a beautiful design for the preservation of government by those who consented to it's authority.
It was written and ratified because it covenanted the promise that LIBERTY WOULD BE PRESERVED, NOT GOVERNMENT - LIBERTY! The covenant agreed to was that in order to ensure the preservation of liberty be upheld - government was to be restricted and limited to very narrow specific confines in which it was permitted to operate so as not to infringe upon or limit the liberty of the people by which they were granted by Nature's God.
'Preservation of government' my ass!
The threat isn't to your ability to keep guns to shoot peace officers, it's to your ability to keep guns for your personal self defense and recreation.
No, wrong. My right to keep guns is in defense of liberty from people like you who will use government to infringe upon and stomp upon the liberty of the people so you can have the illusion of peace and safety. Unlike you, we don't trust government. We have learned to distrust it in total.
The Second Amendment only guarantees you that right by dint of a court opinion, one that was decided by a 5-4 majority and one of which the subject of the topic thread is the author of the dissenting opinion.
Wrong again. My Right is guaranteed by God Whom granted it - not from some court opinion. My right to keep and bear arms does not come from the Amendment or the Constitution. The Constitution and the BOR existed to keep government and people like you from infringing upon and touching rights that you do not trust anyone else to have except government-approved persons allowed the privilege to exercise.
I think the weekend assignment for every person on this board should be to read Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller. Read it and understand how the individual RKBA hangs by a thread.
I don't care what some lawyer in a black robe has to say about my 'rights' pal. Our 'rights' do not hang by a thread except by the insistence of meddlesome tyrants who seek to turn rights into government-granted privilege.
I may be the perceived enemy of most on this board,
You illustrate yourself as such. Daily.
but sometimes it is wise to listen to some cautionary advice. Heller needs to be codified.
Why in the hell would any sane person listen to an enemy of our rights and principles about what we should do to keep them 'safe' from meddlesome tyrants like yourself?
You live your life and whole being around the whim of the courts which is apparently your god that you worship as infallible and sacrosanct once it 'rules' The rest of us do not hold as 'holy' the words some blacked-robed tyrants have rendered in opinion about what they think 'the Constitution' really means.
That should be the focused priority of gun owners,
No. People like YOU are the focused priority of gun owners at the moment given your advocacies of tyranny. All you need to know is, that we will not comply with the kinds of tyranny you are suggesting become a government policy.
not resistance to concerns of the citizenry that it may be sound policy to require gun owners to account for their firearms.
Well, expect resistance, because that is ALL Leftist snowflakes deserve and that is all they are going to get.
Is there anything I can say that would persuade anyone here that registration is not the prelude to confiscation?
No. Not unless you want to illustrate your colossal ignorance of history and human nature and reveal the depths of enmity towards our rights the you possess and seek to eradicate.
The only thing, I think, that could temper the paranoia is the knowledge that we have a Second Amendment that protects our individual right to protect ourselves. And the Second Amendment does not do that. Heller does. And Heller can be gone with the political winds.
But our right to arms does not. Our rights do not come from men or constructs of men - and the 2nd Amendment codifies the promise that the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed. We do not require some ruling by a court to 'preserve' our Rights. Those Rights are inviolable and immutable. The moment the government attempts infringement upon our right with harebrained tyranny of the kind you have suggested, it has violated the covenant our forbears agreed to and our allegiance and obedience to such a government is no longer an obligation we will observe as we will no longer consent to their governance.
And if the 2A affords no such protection, then the regime of registration need not be reasonable, but can be unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory.
Which is what you and your Statist pals really think and really want. We have given you fair warning of what the consequences will be when your assertion of the legality of imposing such tyranny is attempted.
It will be time to water the tree of liberty.
You are welcome to test our resolve.
-
Everybody hates memes, so I'm going to post one anyway...
(https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png)
-
Everybody hates memes, so I'm going to post one anyway...
The flaw in the meme is that you believe you had the cake in the first place.
Heller needs to be codified.
-
From my post #70 on this thread - "What is the purpose of registration if not to document ownership and location? Why would you want to help a tyranny take your rights? And even assuming you do, what do citizens get in return other than more tyranny?"
From my post #152 on this thread - "Besides the revenue possibilities, what is the utility to the state of registering and licensing cars and how would that utility be manifested by registering and licensing guns? "
From my post #319 on this thread - "Could you please take a moment to explain how the "license and registration" that you've talked about earlier leads to the owner being "legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own" on a physical, practical basis. I fill out a form, what's on it? Where does that info go, a govt database? You pull a projectile from a body, how do you trace it back to the purchaser? Is the purchaser the perp? How do you know? If the owner's not the perp, what's the liability? What protections are in the legislation that you admire that keep whatever data you collect from being used for confiscation or punitive taxation? "
The purpose of registration is to link each firearm to the owner who is legally responsible for it. With that linkage, the incentive exists for transfers and dispositions to be documented, and stolen firearms to be reported to the police. No one will report as stolen a firearm that's been bought off the back of a truck.
While I reject your premise that registration is a prelude to confiscation, I acknowledge your concern given that the 2A doesn't protect your right, but only a court decision that was decided by a bare 5-4 majority. The court decision may soon be gone with the political winds.
So there we are - my desire for reasonable regulation vs. your worry that no regulation can be reasonable because it will lead to confiscation. I see no middle ground - unless we can first agree to codify Heller.
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that the law provides for the individual RKBA as a permanent, protected condition. With that crucial protection, a regime of registration cannot Constitutionally be a prelude to confiscation. How would such a lawful registration regime work?
First, the purpose of registration must be limited to assigning a firearm to the person responsiible for its custody and care. It must not be a tool by which government can limit or restrict the number and quality firearms one can own. So long as you're willing to register and be legally responsible for the firearms you own, then you should be able own whatever your heart and means desire.
Second, the concept of legal responsibility must be narrowly defined. The cost of such legal responsibility cannot be so onerous as to make it practically impossible to own a firearm for personal protection. Putting aside the separate matter of criminal responsibility, I would define legal responsibility to narrowly consist of responsibility for the medical bills and lost earnings of those persons harmed by a firearm within the legal owner's responsibility. That's it. Nothing more. That is similar in some respects to PIP protection mandated by many states' motor vehicle registration/insurance regimes.
Third, the conditions must be created for the establishment of an insurance market that gunowners can access to protect themselves from legal liability at reasonable cost. I would not mandate the purchase of such insurance, but it is unConstitutional to impose potentially ruinous financial responsibility on the exercise of the gun right. That is why legal responsibility must be both limited and insurable. As is the case with employers who establish employee benefit plans under the federal law known as ERISA, a victim of gun violence should be strictly prohibited from being able to recover punitive damages and other extraordinary damages such as compensation for pain and suffering. Just documented medical bills and lost earnings. Maybe a simple no fault system will work. It is crucial to create a liability regime that is not a feast for lawyers.
Because the owner's legal responsibility is both limited and insurable, the question of how to assign liability when the owner is not the perp can be addressed. IMO, the owner should be strictly liable for the LIMITED, INSURABLE damages described above for any harm caused by a firearm for which he is responsible, until the first to occur of the date that registration of the firearm is transferred to another in a documented sale or exchange, the date the owner otherwise reliquishes ownership in a documented manner, or the date the firearm is reported as stolen to the authorities.
Pings as requested: @Meldrew @Sanguine
-
Come on, everybody, this horse is beyond dead. 11513 Restating the same argument over and over is, well, repetitious.
-
Come on, everybody, this horse is beyond dead. 11513 Restating the same argument over and over is, well, repetitious.
:amen: :amen: and :amen:
And arguing with a guy who argues in circles is beyond boring!
-
Heller needs to be codified.
Does this mean that a Federal Law needs to be written in order to "Codify" the "Heller Decision"?
Or are you saying that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" , The right that is Not to be Infringed, is to be Codified into Federal Law?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Bb6OwV5h.jpg)
-
Does this mean that a Federal Law needs to be written in order to "Codify" the "Heller Decision"?
Or are you saying that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" , The right that is Not to be Infringed, is to be Codified into Federal Law?
The right (to individual self defense) is a natural right; the issue is whether the Constitution protects that right vis a vis the federal government.
The Second Amendment's predicate clause has long called into question whether it protects an individual RKBA outside the context of a militia. Stevens says flatly that it does not. Scalia and a narrow court majority held that it does. My point is that the text of the 2A is defective if it only protects the individual RKBA because a 5-4 decision says it does. A decision that the left seeks to overturn just as surely as the right seeks to overturn Roe v Wade.
The composition of the Supreme Court has been a political football the last 40 years. I don't think that's a good thing. Should your right to keep a gun to protect your family be dependent on whether the Dems win the White House in 2020?
But that is a very likely reality. Ideally, the text of the Second Amendment itself should be modified. Less ideally, but still better than doing nothing, is the passage of a federal law that statutorially recognizes ("codifies") the right to keep arms for self-defense of person and property, and the level of scrutiny to be applied to laws that regulate that right.
Such a law can and should be passed by a Republican Congress while there is still time.
-
My point is that the text of the 2A is defective if it only protects the individual RKBA because a 5-4 decision says it does.
You may believe "your point", but from the replies I have read, it does not appear that a single person agrees with your point.
I am not convinced that your point is valid.
-
The flaw in the meme is that you believe you had the cake in the first place.
Heller needs to be codified.
Can't. I'm busy codifying the right to play Tiddly Winks wherever I want.
The thing about the cake is exactly what cake thieves say anyway. "Just bake the damned cake," is my reply.
Today is not a day of circle-arguments for me, so I won't be around much.
-
Come on, everybody, this horse is beyond dead. 11513 Restating the same argument over and over is, well, repetitious.
As my old boss used to say, "A dog will sniff a tree."
-
Come on, everybody, this horse is beyond dead. Restating the same argument over and over is, well, repetitious.
:amen: :amen: and :amen:
And arguing with a guy who argues in circles is beyond boring!
Arguing in circles is what tyrannical policy wonks and the priesthood of lawyers do to justify the tyranny they intend to shove down our throats by any means they can conjure. There is no reasoning with such people. They have an agenda to push - and they will argue their viewpoint until we tire of arguing with them, and then they take the field.
Sadly, this horse of Gun Rights is NOT dead. Ignoring the insidious ideas being offered as *reasonable* and *necessary* by our resident Leftist and tyrants like him because they are regarded as 'boring' and 'repetitious', surrenders the battlefield of liberty to them, and then their tyrannical ideas become "law" and policy because they keep pushing the populace and then the legislatures or the courts to accept their arguments.
They need to be confronted, and their ideas shredded into the excrement they are, so that when they make their way to some idiotic representative in a legislature or some lawyer arguing to a court - you and I have the ability to articulate a defense and argument against them, BEFORE it becomes necessary to water the tree of liberty.
But I am becoming increasingly convinced that watering that tree is inevitable now in the very near future. People like our resident antagonist and the morons like him in government are going to make that last mistake, and then we either water the tree of liberty, or we and our posterity will have been subjugated into tyranny without so much as a whimper.
-
@Jazzhead
Thank you for taking the time to compose this response. Good of you to do this especially on a holiday weekend. Just a couple quick points:
Your ultimate position is rather circular. We need a law, and possibly a rewrite of the Second Amendment to ensure that the courts won't ignore the law like they did the last one.
The new law just assigns ownership and responsibility. Though we pretend we don't have a defacto registration now, law enforcement seems to have little trouble figuring out who bought what gun where and often leaks it to the media within hours. And it does technically have yet to be demonstrated that law abiding gun owners are shirking responsibility to the level that requires them to be mandated to be responsible. Most folks pay for the damage caused by their negligent discharges I should think.
Your call for insurance "that gunowners can access to protect themselves from legal liability at reasonable cost " already exists in a small way - e.g. NRA Carry Guard and USCCA. That program just started last year but is already being described by the left as "murder insurance". It's not clear to me that even if that insurance became more readily available that the left would let us keep it (kinda like the way they tangentially infringe the First Amendment).
I see no middle ground - unless we can first agree to codify Heller.
And there's the rub. As @INVAR 's epic post #422 points out as well as posts by @Cyber Liberty , @txradioguy @Sanguine make pretty clear this is the issue that needs to be ameliorated. I don't believe in the law as the final backstop against tyranny and I don't think the founders did either. The efforts by you and others in your profession to strengthen those laws are likely necessary and certainly appreciated but they are not the definitive end to the "struggle" for our 2A rights. That probably ain't happenin' on this thread.
Happy Easter!
-
...
Today is not a day of circle-arguments for me, so I won't be around much.
Ditto. Just not in the mood.
Added: Excellent post, @Meldrew, and happy Easter to you and @Jazzhead.
-
Happy Easter!
Thank you for the awesome post, @Meldrew! You are a Gentleman and a Scholar, with the patience of a Saint. I wish you and yours a Happy Passover and a blessed Easter!
-
@Jazzhead
Happy Easter!
And a joyous Easter to you too, @Meldrew !
-
The right (to individual self defense) is a natural right; the issue is whether the Constitution protects that right vis a vis the federal government.
Evidence enough to prove that the words 'Shall not be infringed" do not mean what they say in the minds of people like you who are intent on redefining those words to mean *Can be infringed as long as we say it is reasonable*.
If government will not protect our rights because clever tyrants argue successfully that rights are merely government-granted privileges, you will have successfully argued that the covenant whereby we consent to be governed is null and void.
At which point, we are no longer obligated to obey ANYTHING that the federal government demands, because all it will have is guns their agents will put to our heads to force compliance - and it will have to be empowered to kill those who refuse to surrender to being subjugated to it's authority.
At which point, it's game on - to water and fertilize the Tree you people are attempting to uproot.
-
@Jazzhead ***wine
-
One more strong justification for licensing and registering knives.
When will we hear calls to do that from those who wish to do the same with guns? Knives kill far more people.
Danger in London: Shock report finds city's murder rate topped NYC's as killers turn to knives
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/01/london-murder-rate-beats-new-york-for-month-as-stabbings-surge.html (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/01/london-murder-rate-beats-new-york-for-month-as-stabbings-surge.html)
-
The only people that think Heller needs to be "codified" and that the 2A is flawed are Liberals.
And once again they are the extreme minority opinion in the U.S. trying to use the courts to force their Marxist views on the majority of the country.
The yearly increase in NICS background checks over the previous year for like almost 8 years shows just how in the minority views like the anti 2A one continually expressed here really is.
Hence the reason they want to turn to the courts to bypass the Constitution yet again.
-
The only people that think Heller needs to be "codified" and that the 2A is flawed are Liberals.
And once again they are the extreme minority opinion in the U.S. trying to use the courts to force their Marxist views on the majority of the country.
The yearly increase in NICS background checks over the previous year for like almost 8 years shows just how in the minority views like the anti 2A one continually expressed here really is.
Hence the reason they want to turn to the courts to bypass the Constitution yet again.
A case of willful blindness here. The same Court that confirmed the 2A's protection of your individual right can take it away come 2020 by adopting Stevens' dissenting opinion that the protected right pertains only to militia-type activities. Stevens declares FLATLY that no individual RKBA is protected by the 2A.
And when he wrote that, he got three of his colleagues to agree with him.
It is far better to recognize squarely the flaw in the 2A and the fragility of the Heller ruling by acting now, while we still can, to codify it. The peoples' elected representative must confirm the Heller ruling and determine the appropriate level of scrutiny. Doing so is the best way to prevent disaster.
-
A case of willful blindness here. The same Court that confirmed the 2A's protection of your individual right can take it away
The ONLY willful blindness here is from your anti-Gun Marxist/Statist pals and tyranny advocates like you. NO court, no legislature or no ruler can infringe upon our inalienable rights. They cannot take any of our 'Rights' away. Our Rights do not come from the confirmation of some judge in a black robe. Nor can they be denied or rescinded by the same. Neither can the whole people decide that they want them done away with. They remain, inviolable, immutable and exist whether you like them or not.
You can try by arming your agents to put guns to our heads to force compliance with your tyrannical schemes of registration and insurance requirements. All you will have done is to render a Right into a government-granted privilege, which makes your government illegitimate. The moment that happens - we will refuse and resist you and you will have declared war on this people and it will be time to water the tree of liberty.
-
@Wingnut
@aligncare
@Jazzhead
The language is not flawed. People these days just don't understand the language.
You nailed it, Wingnut.
-
@Wingnut
@aligncare
@Jazzhead
You nailed it, Wingnut.
I think they understand the language just fine. Not to rap on all the lawyers, but their specialty is teasing whatever meaning they want from a set of words, no matter how badly the meanings must be twisted to do so.
-
The ONLY willful blindness here is from your anti-Gun Marxist/Statist pals and tyranny advocates like you. NO court, no legislature or no ruler can infringe upon our inalienable rights. They cannot take any of our 'Rights' away. Our Rights do not come from the confirmation of some judge in a black robe. Nor can they be denied or rescinded by the same. Neither can the whole people decide that they want them done away with. They remain, inviolable, immutable and exist whether you like them or not.
You can try by arming your agents to put guns to our heads to force compliance with your tyrannical schemes of registration and insurance requirements. All you will have done is to render a Right into a government-granted privilege, which makes your government illegitimate. The moment that happens - we will refuse and resist you and you will have declared war on this people and it will be time to water the tree of liberty.
Oh... but haven't you heard? The minute we stand armed in opposition of any fascist attempt to disarm us.... they plan to send in the UN to control and/or eliminate us. (per Alex Jones)
-
NO court, no legislature or no ruler can infringe upon our inalienable rights.
They sure as hell can. Don't be a fool.
-
Oh... but haven't you heard? The minute we stand armed in opposition of any fascist attempt to disarm us.... they plan to send in the UN to control and/or eliminate us. (per Alex Jones)
This is idiotic. *****rollingeyes*****
-
The predicate clause makes the right unclear in the context of the individual right to ordinary self defense. It took 200 years for the SCOTUS to find such an individual right. It is not merely a question of misinterpretation - the language itself has always been flawed.
It's not the predicate clause. That's 100% perfectly clear. The only error is the second, ungrammatical, comma.
-
Oh... but haven't you heard? The minute we stand armed in opposition of any fascist attempt to disarm us.... they plan to send in the UN to control and/or eliminate us. (per Alex Jones)
I don't listen to the king of tinfoil or pay him any regard.
But the fact is, any attempt to do what our resident Leftist has suggested will result in overt refusal to comply with any of it should morons in power take him up on it. And then of course resistance to any efforts made to enforce it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the lessons of history to know that advocates of tyranny and a state that imposes it under the guise of public safety and security - will use whatever force it can muster to eradicate those whom they have decided are a threat to the security of the state.
At which point this government will have made itself an enemy of liberty and the people who refuse to surrender it. Thus the only way to maintain control over us and our wealth, property and being - is to kill by extreme prejudice those whom are declared an enemy of the state. Then it is game on and this nation will look just like Venezuela or parts of Mexico.
-
I don't listen to the king of tinfoil or pay him any regard.
But the fact is, any attempt to do what our resident Leftist has suggested will result in overt refusal to comply with any of it should morons in power take him up on it. And then of course resistance to any efforts made to enforce it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the lessons of history to know that advocates of tyranny and a state that imposes it under the guise of public safety and security - will use whatever force it can muster to eradicate those whom they have decided are a threat to the security of the state.
At which point this government will have made itself an enemy of liberty and the people who refuse to surrender it. Thus the only way to maintain control over us and our wealth, property and being - is to kill by extreme prejudice those whom are declared an enemy of the state. Then it is game on and this nation will look just like Venezuela or parts of Mexico.
Venezuela would be a perfect example of gov-gone-crazy with power over the unarmed populace. Arresting and/or shooting people that are desperate for food and willing to risk death to feed their families. And the lawless or rather, anti-law leftist anarchists, will be right there pushing for the elimination of all of those pesky gun-owners. Hell, the Bill Ayers crowd was planning for it way back in the 60's. They may yet get their moist-dream come true. But... it won't turn out like they planned.
-
They sure as hell can. Don't be a fool.
Not in practice. They will get widespread non-compliance. This is something Judges and Lawyers can't seem to get their minds around, and refuse to believe: People will simply refuse to comply with laws they think are unjust. Passing a law or ordering something from a bench is one thing, forcing compliance is quite another.
I really don't expect to convince you of the truth of my words, so I'm just going to leave it at that.
-
It's not the predicate clause. That's 100% perfectly clear. The only error is the second, ungrammatical, comma.
Ungrammatical by 21st century rules. It's like the Oxford Comma, they're still fighting a war over that.
-
They sure as hell can. Don't be a fool.
No they cannot.
Not without a bloodbath that you will have helped make possible.
You just have to ask yourself how many thousands or millions of Americans you are willing to kill using armed divisions and militarized agents to enforce your ideas upon us.
Neither you or the government have the power to infringe upon a right and turn it into a government-granted privilege you deem *reasonable*. Not without putting guns to our heads to make it so.
At which point - you and the government you empower to do as you advocate, will have declared yourselves a tyrannical enemy that will require armed resistance, as the Founders anticipated would be necessary given human nature and history.
Which is why we have the inalienable, immutable and un-infringable right to keep and bear arms in the first place.
-
This is idiotic. *****rollingeyes*****
Well.... pretty much everything you spew here is not just idiotic, but asinine leftist BS. But who's counting?
-
They sure as hell can. Don't be a fool.
No, in fact, they cannot. The right is immutable. The government's legitimate job is to preserve and uphold the right.
To do otherwise is force under the color of law, abrogating their own authority.
CAN they? They can try.
-
I don't listen to the king of tinfoil or pay him any regard.
I don't listen to him either, but since I put absolutely NOTHING past the radical leftists in this country.... I wouldn't doubt that it might be one of their backup plans. Slightly off topic... my friend in Houston hasn't seen any UN trucks or vehicles since Trump became president. Before that, he saw them a lot. Wonder why? :whistle:
But the fact is, any attempt to do what our resident Leftist has suggested will result in overt refusal to comply with any of it should morons in power take him up on it. And then of course resistance to any efforts made to enforce it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the lessons of history to know that advocates of tyranny and a state that imposes it under the guise of public safety and security - will use whatever force it can muster to eradicate those whom they have decided are a threat to the security of the state.
I concur. All of my friends, family and associates concur, as well (I can speak for them on this since we have discussed it many times).
At which point this government will have made itself an enemy of liberty and the people who refuse to surrender it. Thus the only way to maintain control over us and our wealth, property and being - is to kill by extreme prejudice those whom are declared an enemy of the state. Then it is game on and this nation will look just like Venezuela or parts of Mexico.
And make no mistake.... the radical leftists like Obama, (Soros & Co.), and pretty much every Democrat I can think of, would make that move when they regain power in the White House and Congress. They're getting very impatient... and they won't want to take a chance that another "Trump" may get in the WH again, foiling their agenda.
-
I think they understand the language just fine. Not to rap on all the lawyers, but their specialty is teasing whatever meaning they want from a set of words, no matter how badly the meanings must be twisted to do so.
Yeah, as I have said before, there are some good guys in the legal profession, but the 99% are giving the 1% a bad reputation.
The stunning thing about this controversy is that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear if you consider the historical context.
***
There is an important axiom of hermeneutics: Context determines meaning. Unfortunately, the liberals use this axiom in a dishonestly, disrespectfully stupid way. They say that the final clause of the Amendment is interpreted in the light of the introductory clause, and they point out [correctly] that the first clause is emphasizing a collective right. That's fine. But the liberals go on to claim that this near context of the final clause narrows the final clause so as to render it as NOT affirming in any legally useful way an UNALIENABLE INDIVIDUAL right.
This supposedly gives THEM the RIGHT to take away our guns if they want to do so. (Well, how's that for an unalienable right?) They are delighted to mock the idea of a modern-day militia and to use this mockery to take away our unalienable rights to self defense. But the truth is, they are performing this legal sleight-of-hand precisely because they are afraid of a modern counterpart of a militia being able to block their murderous Marxist revolution--which is the anti-democratic end game of a Marxist takeover.
Make no mistake about it, the Marxists want guys like us dead. A "progressive" college professor actually informed me that he and his ilk were surely going to kill me. When we grasp this, we need to notice that the Marxists are overruling the entire 2nd Amendment--overruling BOTH clauses. That, in turn, proves that their hermeneutic is phony. Their position is diametrically opposed to the most important context of all--the historical context of the 2nd Amendment.
See Eugene Volokh's research on the legal documents of the period. The Framers were following the rhetorical tradition of their own day. They were introducing their Constitutional affirmation of an individual right to self defense by citing one of perhaps many corollary benefits of that legal doctrine of self defense presented in the dramatic final clause. In other words, the entire Amendment is definitely, even fiercely upholding the individual right.
We must not budge an inch. We must not make unnecessary and therefore counterproductive concessions to liberals, including even "Republicans" like that reprobate John Paul Stevens. We must stop the ongoing and worsening infringements--no matter what form they take. Our arguments must openly defy those who say we need to "clarify" a Constitutional right to bear arms. The SCOTUS has already "clarified" it--by simply noticing and proclaiming that the individual right is integral to the 2nd Amendment.
The more I have mused over the 2nd Amendment, the more I am inclined to say it is perhaps the most important Amendment in the entire Bill of Rights. The more the political war rages, the more prepared we have to be for its escalation.
-
No they cannot.
Not without a bloodbath that you will have helped make possible.
You just have to ask yourself how many thousands or millions of Americans you are willing to kill using armed divisions and militarized agents to enforce your ideas upon us.
Neither you or the government have the power to infringe upon a right and turn it into a government-granted privilege you deem *reasonable*. Not without putting guns to our heads to make it so.
At which point - you and the government you empower to do as you advocate, will have declared yourselves a tyrannical enemy that will require armed resistance, as the Founders anticipated would be necessary given human nature and history.
Which is why we have the inalienable, immutable and un-infringable right to keep and bear arms in the first place.
This, too, is idiotic. What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility. For that you advocate a bloodbath?
-
Yeah, as I have said before, there are some good guys in the legal profession, but the 99% are giving the 1% a bad reputation.
The stunning thing about this controversy is that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear if you consider the historical context.
***
There is an important axiom of hermeneutics: Context determines meaning. Unfortunately, the liberals use this axiom in a dishonestly, disrespectfully stupid way. They say that the final clause of the Amendment is interpreted in the light of the introductory clause, and they point out [correctly] that the first clause is emphasizing a collective right. That's fine. But the liberals go on to claim that this near context of the final clause narrows the final clause so as to render it as NOT affirming in any legally useful way an UNALIENABLE INDIVIDUAL right.
This supposedly gives THEM the RIGHT to take away our guns if they want to do so. (Well, how's that for an unalienable right?) They are delighted to mock the idea of a modern-day militia and to use this mockery to take away our unalienable rights to self defense. But the truth is, they are performing this legal sleight-of-hand precisely because they are afraid of a modern counterpart of a militia being able to block their murderous Marxist revolution--which is the anti-democratic end game of a Marxist takeover.
Make no mistake about it, the Marxists want guys like us dead. A "progressive" college professor actually informed me that he and his ilk were surely going to kill me. When we grasp this, we need to notice that the Marxists are overruling the entire 2nd Amendment--overruling BOTH clauses. That, in turn, proves that their hermeneutic is phony. Their position is diametrically opposed to the most important context of all--the historical context of the 2nd Amendment.
See Eugene Volokh's research on the legal documents of the period. The Framers were following the rhetorical tradition of their own day. They were introducing their Constitutional affirmation of an individual right to self defense by citing one of perhaps many corollary benefits of that legal doctrine of self defense presented in the dramatic final clause. In other words, the entire Amendment is definitely, even fiercely upholding the individual right.
We must not budge an inch. We must not make unnecessary and therefore counterproductive concessions to liberals, including even "Republicans" like that reprobate John Paul Stevens. We must stop the ongoing and worsening infringements--no matter what form they take. Our arguments must openly defy those who say we need to "clarify" a Constitutional right to bear arms. The SCOTUS has already "clarified" it--by simply noticing and proclaiming that the individual right is integral to the 2nd Amendment.
The more I have mused over the 2nd Amendment, the more I am inclined to say it is perhaps the most important Amendment in the entire Bill of Rights. The more the political war rages, the more prepared we have to be for its escalation.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
This, too, is idiotic. What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility. For that you advocate a bloodbath?
Reading comprehension challenged, as usual? Or ... just the usual leftist twisting of someone else's words.
Ya know... you are constantly telling posters you disagree with "don't be foolish, don't be a
fool, do you realize how idiotic/foolish you sound", etc..... you are essentially .... in a reach-around manner...calling us fools.
The reality is...
since you are, in reality, constantly calling us fools....
you're the biggest fool on the forum. We've got your number... good & plenty.
Congrats.
-
This, too, is idiotic. What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility. For that you advocate a bloodbath?
That's not the limit of what you've been suggesting since we first broached this subject, many moons ago. You want all guns registered, and you want people to pay some unspecified amount for insurance. All the while you insist that "registration does not equal confiscation," that your demands are "reasonable," and the insurance will not price the weapons out of the hands of poor people.
Jazz, we just don't trust government as much as you seem to. Simple as that. Because I don't believe the assurances given by people who have killed citizens like Randy Weaver and Lavoy Finicum, I will not comply.
-
Jazz, we just don't trust government as much as you seem to. Simple as that. Because I don't believe the assurances given by people who have killed citizens like Randy Weaver and Lavoy Finicum, I will not comply.
I am afraid my friend @Jazzhead is in for a great big shock. We have one of the most corrupt governments in the entire world. I think he will eventually see that--hopefully starting before the year is out.
Here's one example: What was Fast and Furious all about?
-
This, too, is idiotic. What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility. For that you advocate a bloodbath?
That infers first that we are not being responsible, which is a falsity.
-
That's not the limit of what you've been suggesting since we first broached this subject, many moons ago. You want all guns registered, and you want people to pay some unspecified amount for insurance. All the while you insist that "registration does not equal confiscation," that your demands are "reasonable," and the insurance will not price the weapons out of the hands of poor people.
Jazz, we just don't trust government as much as you seem to. Simple as that. Because I don't believe the assurances given by people who have killed citizens like Randy Weaver and Lavoy Finicum, I will not comply.
Minor correction: It was actually Randy Weaver's wife and son who were killed at Ruby Ridge. It was a cold-blooded murder of an innocent, non-threatening civilian woman. The federal sniper didn't actually shoot her. He had a clear shot and took it because he could.
This happened under Bush 41.
The Waco debacle was even worse. More than 80 men, women, and children were deliberately murdered in a show of federal might. President Clinton laughed about it.
BTW, both of these scenarios of murder were about firearms. Crooked feds have been telegraphing their intentions to kill "rednecks" and "kooks."
-
Minor correction: It was actually Randy Weaver's wife and son who were killed at Ruby Ridge. It was a cold-blooded murder of an innocent, non-threatening civilian woman. The federal sniper didn't actually shoot her. He had a clear shot and took it because he could.
This happened under Bush 41.
The Waco debacle was even worse. More than 80 men, women, and children were deliberately murdered in a show of federal might. President Clinton laughed about it.
BTW, both of these scenarios of murder were about firearms. Crooked feds have been telegraphing their intentions to kill "rednecks" and "kooks."
You are correct, I was typing fast. I didn't want to bring up Waco because some folks had dismissed them all as religious nuts who got what they deserved.
-
This, too, is idiotic. What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility. For that you advocate a bloodbath?
It is your harebrained ideas of rendering an inalienable right into a government-granted permission and privilege that is IDIOTIC.
I suggest you take responsibility for your own advocacy of tyranny, because your stupid ideas, if ever adopted and attempted be imposed, will be responsible for initiating that bloodbath.
Test us if you think we're just going to roll over and go along with your bullshit schemes.
-
Slightly off topic... my friend in Houston hasn't seen any UN trucks or vehicles since Trump became president. Before that, he saw them a lot. Wonder why? :whistle:
The US had contracts to manufacture UN vehicles, and were doing so until a few years ago, driving them on US roads for delivery. Are you saying we've lost the contracts under Trump?
-
A Structural Interpretation of the Second Amendment: Why Heller is (Probably) Wrong on Originalist Grounds
Richard A. Epstein
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/4116/ (https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/4116/)
-
Slightly off topic... my friend in Houston hasn't seen any UN trucks or vehicles since Trump became president. Before that, he saw them a lot. Wonder why? :whistle:
(http://prepforshtf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Jade-Helm-15.jpg)
-
This, too, is idiotic. What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility. For that you advocate a bloodbath?
We already take personal responsibility for the firearms we own and use. Nothing more needs to be put on the law abiding citizen where the 2A is concerned.
You're advocating for government over reach and an abridgement of a basic right granted to us in the Constitution.
We fought a war with England over a .02 cent increase in a tax.
Why is something like the natural right of self defense and our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms not worthy of fighting for as well if that right is violated and taken from us?
-
The US had contracts to manufacture UN vehicles, and were doing so until a few years ago, driving them on US roads for delivery. Are you saying we've lost the contracts under Trump?
I'm saying he hasn't seen them (UN vehicles) anywhere for the past year... and he has a mobile repair service, so he gets around A LOT.
-
You're advocating for government over reach and an abridgement of a basic right granted to us in the Constitution.
ERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!! WRONG my friend!
The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT US OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
The Constitution PROHIBITS government from infringing upon our Right to Keep and Bear arms. Infringements like the harebrained tyranny our resident Leftist is pushing we embrace.
A citizenry of able-bodied males, well-equipped and trained in the use of their own weapons being necessary for the security of a free and sovereign people, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear those arms may not be infringed.
Our Right comes from God, not the parchment.
-
ERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!! WRONG my friend!
The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT US OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
The Constitution PROHIBITS government from infringing upon our Right to Keep and Bear arms. Infringements like the harebrained tyranny our resident Leftist is pushing we embrace.
A citizenry of able-bodied males, well-equipped and trained in the use of their own weapons being necessary for the security of a free and sovereign people, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear those arms may not be infringed.
Our Right comes from God, not the parchment.
But you get my point right?
I mean we're talking about a Constitutional Amendment that was so important to the ratification of the Constitution that several states...including New York refused to ratify the Constitution unless the 2nd Amendment was included in the original Bill of Rights.
If it was that important back then...it shouldn't be any less important to ALL Americans today. And we should resist any and all attempts to take away our RKBA.
Does that mean armed rebellion against the Government...no there are other ways before it gets that far despite what our resident leftist Liberal lawyer tries to claim we want.
-
ERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!! WRONG my friend!
The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT US OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
The Constitution PROHIBITS government from infringing upon our Right to Keep and Bear arms. Infringements like the harebrained tyranny our resident Leftist is pushing we embrace.
A citizenry of able-bodied males, well-equipped and trained in the use of their own weapons being necessary for the security of a free and sovereign people, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear those arms may not be infringed.
Our Right comes from God, not the parchment.
This would be a good place to mention what the Framers themselves thought about the Bill of Rights. As a group, they didn't like the notion at all, or they would have written them into the body of the Constitution itself. Madison and others were compelled to draft the first ten Amendments in order to get the Constitution ratified. The States wanted them written in. Here's a reference I found in Wiki Answers, which is an admittedly poor source, but sufficient to make my point.
The anti-Federalists did not approve of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution since there was no Bill of Rights. James Madison himself did not like the Bill of Rights for 2 reasons. One, he thought they were unnecessary because the Constitution had not granted the Federal government the powers that the Bill of Rights would guard against. Second, he thought they were dangerous because any rights not listed might be thought to be unprotected. In the end, the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791 just three years after the ratification of the Constitution itself.
Considering the tortuous interpretations being given the words of the Second Amendment in service of infringing the right to keep and bear arms, and the twisting away from plain language, I'd say they should have listened to Madison and the rest of the Framers. The argument being made here is the right does not exist at all but for one SCOTUS decision. Additionally, we are told a word, a predicate, renders the individual right, IOW the right of the people, null and void.
Then there is the issue of practicality. The people simply will not permit it, they will resist. Blood will be spilled. We have a very long history in this country of resisting disarmament, back to before the Revolutionary War. The first battles in that war were over this very subject, not collection of taxes. I am not the only person who will not comply.
-
But you get my point right?
I mean we're talking about a Constitutional Amendment that was so important to the ratification of the Constitution that several states...including New York refused to ratify the Constitution unless the 2nd Amendment was included in the original Bill of Rights.
If it was that important back then...it shouldn't be any less important to ALL Americans today. And we should resist any and all attempts to take away our RKBA.
Does that mean armed rebellion against the Government...no there are other ways before it gets that far despite what our resident leftist Liberal lawyer tries to claim we want.
I'm not sure that this is a point that @INVAR is making, but, the right to self-protection, being a natural, God-given right, I don't think this amendment could be repealed. It is merely a statement of fact, not a right given to us by the government.
-
I'm not sure that this is a point that @INVAR is making, but, the right to self-protection, being a natural, God-given right, I don't think this amendment could be repealed. It is merely a statement of fact, not a right given to us by the government.
That right was not "given by the government." It's a natural right, given to us by the Almighty, and can't be taken away by anybody else. Another point lost on lawyers attempting to argue the right out of existence. In a sense, it requires a denial of the existence of an Almighty to think men can take it away.
-
But you get my point right?
I get your point, but we have to be insistent in the accuracy of informing tyranny advocates that the rights they think can be *reasonably regulated* under the color of 'law', do not come from the parchment they say grants us our rights. Neither is their argument that a court can infringe upon them *reasonably* under the guise of public safety and security.
Our Rights are above the institutions of men to mess around with. When they do step into doing as is being suggested by our resident advocate of tyranny - then such government is no longer a Protector of Rights, but Destructive of those Rights. At such time, we have an obligation to alter and abolish the forms to which we have become accustomed and create new guards for our future security. They have NO legal or moral authority to touch or limit our Rights.
Because when they do - we should no longer consent to be governed by such people or institutions so corrupted into evil that they evince a plan rendering us under absolute despotism.
If it was that important back then...it shouldn't be any less important to ALL Americans today.
But it is not. That is the reality as we see JH prove daily. As with all Leftists and Tyrants desiring power and control, the entire Constitution and especially our Rights are an obstacle they seek to regulate, neuter or abolish for the population they hate and fear and want to subjugate.
And we should resist any and all attempts to take away our RKBA.
Yes. But the only way they 'take it away' is if we let them, or we submit to the abolition under the color of 'law' - which is illegal in itself.
Does that mean armed rebellion against the Government...no there are other ways before it gets that far despite what our resident leftist Liberal lawyer tries to claim we want.
We are past the point of reasoning with such people and they have no intention whatsoever to back off their demand that our right to arms is rendered into a privilege that is regulated by the permission of government to grant or take away at their discretion.
At this point - they simply need to be reminded what it is going to cost them by continuing down the path they are on.
It may be the only thing to give them pause.
And if not - then the tree of liberty needs watering.
-
At this point - they simply need to be reminded what it is going to cost them by continuing down the path they are on.
It may be the only thing to give them pause.
And if not - then the tree of liberty needs watering.
^^^^^^This. I've argued the point I made a few posts up from this one of yours until I'm blue (sometimes red) in the face with people insistent upon putting "reasonable" restrictions on my God-given right to protect myself from society's predators.
Having given up, I have simply punted the ball, and informed them I simply will not comply. End of discussion.
-
^^^^^^This. I've argued the point I made a few posts up from this one of yours until I'm blue (sometimes red) in the face with people insistent upon putting "reasonable" restrictions on my God-given right to protect myself from society's predators.
Having given up, I have simply punted the ball, and informed them I simply will not comply. End of discussion.
Yep.
-
Ungrammatical by 21st century rules. It's like the Oxford Comma, they're still fighting a war over that.
@Cyber Liberty
I believe the Oxford Comma should be used throughout the United States and its territories, Canada and Mexico.
-
ERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!! WRONG my friend!
The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT US OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
The Constitution PROHIBITS government from infringing upon our Right to Keep and Bear arms. Infringements like the harebrained tyranny our resident Leftist is pushing we embrace.
A citizenry of able-bodied males, well-equipped and trained in the use of their own weapons being necessary for the security of a free and sovereign people, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear those arms may not be infringed.
Our Right comes from God, not the parchment.
Show me in the Bible where there's a God-given right to keep and bear weapons that kill.
I believe the Ten Commandments explicitly says otherwise.
-
Show me in the Bible where there's a God-given right to keep and bear weapons that kill.
I believe the Ten Commandments explicitly says otherwise.
It says thou shalt not kill. It does NOT say thou shalt not save your own life by taking another. If that were true, it would make lemmings and victims of all Christians.... faith-bound to just roll over and be killed by God-less heathens. Defending your own life is not forbidden by God.
So...
surely you can see the difference. Or maybe not.
-
If angels can carry flaming swords, I’m comfortable packing my Kimber.
-
It says thou shalt not kill.
The literal translation is, "Thou Shalt Not Murder."
-
It says thou shalt not kill. It does NOT say thou shalt not save your own life by taking another. If that were true, it would make lemmings and victims of all Christians.... faith-bound to just roll over and be killed by God-less heathens. Defending your own life is not forbidden by God.
So...
surely you can see the difference. Or maybe not.
Actually, it says 'Thou shall not murder'.
-
I believe the Ten Commandments explicitly says otherwise.
No, that is not true.
-
The literal translation is, "Thou Shalt Not Murder."
Right. But there are certain factions out there that would translate that to mean that even killing another in defense of your own life is against the 6th commandment. Not so.
-
This, too, is idiotic. What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility. For that you advocate a bloodbath?
When will you answer the question on the licensing and registration of knives @Jazzhead ?
More people die due to knives than guns, so why not go after the greater gain?
All your posturing on accepting responsibility and covering by insurance should be for the weapon of choice used in a lot more killings than guns.
-
Show me in the Bible where there's a God-given right to keep and bear weapons that kill.
I believe the Ten Commandments explicitly says otherwise.
Your understanding of scripture and mine is decidedly different. The word is murder - not kill, which often God ordered His entire nation to do to other nations who came against Israel, down to every last man, woman and child, not to mention their flocks and herds.
I can find no scripture that says a Believer may not bear a sword or bow or slingshot or any other weapon. I also can find no scripture that says we may not defend ourselves by use of deadly force when attacked or oppressed.
But let's say for sake of argument that your understanding is correct - and that bible believers are expressly forbidden of God to keep and bear weapons of any kind.
Why then, did God bless a people who shot and killed the agents of the lawful, legal authority of the Crown of England and rebel via warfare to refuse them their object to disarm them at Lexington Green and Concord Hill? How did He bless this nation to become the most powerful in all the world's history - if at it's inception, His Followers sinned by using weapons God commanded they not keep or bear? To believe that the Commandment forbids a person to keep or bear arms means that God rewarded sin with a blessing unlike any in world history.
-
@Cyber Liberty
I believe the Oxford Comma should be used throughout the United States and its territories, Canada and Mexico.
I hearby challenge you to a duel.
(http://john.foliot.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/gauntlet.jpg)
Shall we say, pistols at dawn?
-
Show me in the Bible where there's a God-given right to keep and bear weapons that kill.
I believe the Ten Commandments explicitly says otherwise.
http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/ (http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/)
The Biblical View of Self-Defense
Introduction
This study examines the Biblical view of self-defense. We're looking at questions such as, Is it right to employ lethal force to protect the life of yourself and others? Is it right to take measures that might kill an attacker who is wrongfully threatening your life or the life of another?
Self-defense here is defined as "protecting oneself from injury at the hand of others." Self-defense is not about taking vengeance. Self-defense is not about punishing criminals. Self-defense involves preserving one's own health and life when it is threatened by the actions of others. When we speak about using potentially lethal force in self-defense, we're talking about using weapons to protect ourselves and others, even if the weapons used could kill the attacker.
Now why in the world would we take time to look at this subject? First, as Christians, we want to know how to apply the Bible to current issues in society. We live in a country with approximately 250 million guns and approximately 300 million people. Furthermore, in our country, it is estimated that law abiding citizens defend themselves using guns approximately one million to two million times a year. Almost 200,000 people in this state alone have a legal permit to carry a concealed handgun. What does the Bible have to say about that many guns actively being used for self-protection?
We live in a time where the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, current possibilities of economic and societal collapse, and crime have people buying guns and ammunition in large quantities for self protection. What does the Bible say about that? What does the Bible say about so-called "assault weapons"?
As always, we want our hearts and minds to be ruled and informed by Scripture--not by our emotions, not by our experiences, and certainly not by the World. And because the Scriptures have much to say about this topic, it is relevant and worth examining in the Church.
The focus of this study is specific. I am not dealing with whether lethal force can legitimately be used in wartime. I am not dealing with capital punishment. I am not dealing with Biblical principles involved in the American Revolution or the War Between the States.
This study is organized in five sections. First, we will look at the Biblical obligation to preserve life. Secondly, we will look at the Biblical view of bloodshed. Thirdly, we will look at passages dealing with the application of lethal force in self-defense. Fourth, we will look at what the Bible says about possession of weapons and skill in using weapons. Finally, we look at limitations and warnings about self-defense.
-
I hearby challenge you to a duel.
(http://john.foliot.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/gauntlet.jpg)
Shall we say, pistols at dawn?
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlZcmrAJG3g#)
-
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlZcmrAJG3g#)
888high58888
-
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlZcmrAJG3g#)
LOL!!!
-
I don't normally recommend Wikipedia unless caution is exercised, but this part was pretty good, for those of us who need a refresher:
Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be universal,[1] existing independently of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large.
Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind. The concept of natural law was first documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,[2] and was referred to in Roman philosophy by Cicero. It was then alluded to in the Bible, from which it was subsequently developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas. In the Renaissance, notably the School of Salamanca further contributed. During the Age of Enlightenment, modern era natural law theories were further developed, combining inspiration from Roman law, and alongside philosophies like social contract theory. It featured greatly in the works of Alberico Gentili, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, Matthew Hale, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, Emmerich de Vattel, Cesare Beccaria and Francesco Mario Pagano. It was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government—and thus legal rights—in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.
Contemporarily, the concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. Indeed, many philosophers, jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural rights (Latin: ius naturale), or natural justice.[3] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]
-
A Structural Interpretation of the Second Amendment: Why Heller is (Probably) Wrong on Originalist Grounds
Richard A. Epstein
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/4116/ (https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/4116/)
Thanks for finding this most interesting article. Well worth a read, folks. Prof. Epstein sees the 2A as protecting the sovereign right of the states to maintain their militias. The prohibition against "infringement" is directed toward the federal government vis a vis the states. What the 2A does NOT do, however, is protect the natural right of individual self-defense.
-
Our Right comes from God, not the parchment.
That's right. And so do the natural rights of privacy and self determination.
The issue isn't the source of the right. The issue is whether the Federal Constitution recognizes and protects that right. It took the Heller decision to extend the 2A's protection to the individual RKBA, just as it took decisions of the SCOTUS to recognize the Constitution's protection of the right of privacy. Just as social conservatives agitate to change the composition of the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, so do leftists now see the way forward to eliminating the Constitution's protection of the individual RKBA.
The right isn't protected by God. Nor is it protected by your guns. It will only be protected by action taken by the peoples' elected representatives to codify Heller or otherwise to modify the 2A to fix its flaw.
-
Show me in the Bible where there's a God-given right to keep and bear weapons that kill.
I believe the Ten Commandments explicitly says otherwise.
Accurate translation of the old testament show the commandment is not to Murder. It did not say, thou shall not kill. Clearly in ~100 places of the Bible, God instructed people to explicitly kill.
“Perhaps you would give a couple of paragraphs to the misconception (and the mistranslation) of the Sixth Commandment [in Exodus 20:13], ‘You shall not murder,’ as ‘You shall not kill.’ The original Hebrew, lo tirtsah., is very clear, since the verb ratsah. means ‘murder,’ not ‘kill.’ If the commandment proscribed killing as such, it would position Judaism against capital punishment and make it pacifist even in wartime. These may be defensible or admirable views, but they’re certainly not biblical.â€
https://forward.com/articles/6091/on-language/#ixzz3UVUsv589
-
More people die due to knives than guns, so why not go after the greater gain?
I believe you are mixing up the claim that knives kill more than rifles, not guns. Even that claim is difficult due to the number of death by Firearms not identified.
(http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Screen-Shot-2018-02-19-at-12.04.28-PM.png)
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/knives-gun-control-fbi-statistics/ (http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/knives-gun-control-fbi-statistics/)
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12)
-
The flaw in the meme is that you believe you had the cake in the first place.
Heller needs to be codified.
The only codification necessary is a sound interpretation of the individual right that needs the unconstitutional infringements removed.
The very idea that the right to not only self-defense, but to possess the means to conduct that defense needs to be written in a law somewhere is ridiculous, and that is why the Founders didn't spell it out.
SOme things were just understood, such as unalienable rights. But all the codification needed is found in another Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(9th Amendment).
Recall, if you will, the Constitution is not a document granting rights and powers owned by the Government to the People, It is instead a document delegating certain specific and limited powers and duties to the Federal Government, BY THE PEOPLE, who retain all not specifically ceded.
For some reason, that seminal concept seems lost.
-
The only codification necessary is a sound interpretation of the individual right that needs the unconstitutional infringements removed.
The very idea that the right to not only self-defense, but to possess the means to conduct that defense needs to be written in a law somewhere is ridiculous, and that is why the Founders didn't spell it out.
SOme things were just understood, such as unalienable rights.
Actually, the concept of the Court acknowledging unalienable natural rights not explicitly found in the Constitution itself is of rather recent vintage. You know, that "living Constitution" thing you tend to disparage. The right of privacy was first acknowledged as protected by the Federal Constitution in a case from the fifties or sixties, I believe (it may have been Griswold), to invalidate a Connecticut law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives. Later, that natural right (and its corollary, the natural right of self-determination) was held to invalidate state laws that banned abortion.
And so it is with the natural right to self-defense, unconnected with the militia. State laws that would deny that right are now subject to invalidation on the basis of Heller's holding that the 2A protects the natural right as well as the states' rights to provide for service in the militias.
That, sir, is the product of a "living Constitution" that is more expansive in its protection than the words of the document explicitly provide. The problem, of course, is that the gun right is subject to intense political debate, and a significant minority of the Court believes that the Heller decision was wrongly decided. Unless codified, it risks being gone with the political winds.
-
@Jazzhead
You were the <Nope> who got locked in your locker in high school weren’t you?
That’s the only explanation for why you are so deliberately obtuse. The shitshow you are selling here ISNT SELLING. We will NOT comply!
And as I said earlier...make sure YOU are volunteering to be at the front of those raids to confiscate all those guns...otherwise you’re still just a <nope>...and another in a long line of wanna be despots.
-
That, sir, is the product of a "living Constitution"
No it's not. You're wrong yet again.
-
No it's not. You're wrong yet again.
He's actually got a few things correct in that last statement, but I don't have time right now to tease them out of the incorrect stuff.
-
The right isn't protected by God. Nor is it protected by your guns.
Test us and see if our guns don't protect our rights, tyrant.
Go ahead, I dare you.
-
He's actually got a few things correct in that last statement, but I don't have time right now to tease them out of the incorrect stuff.
What I have issue with is his false assertion that the natural right of self defense is the result of a "living Constitution". The only ones that believe in that are Liberals...the Constitution was never intended to be a living document subject to changes at the whims of politicians who don't like the fact it limits their power. Obama used to referred to what he thought was a "flawed document" as a list of "negative Liberties".
Our resident Liberal seems to share the same belief.
-
@Jazzhead
You were the <Nope> who got locked in your locker in high school weren’t you?
That’s the only explanation for why you are so deliberately obtuse. The shitshow you are selling here ISNT SELLING. We will NOT comply!
And as I said earlier...make sure YOU are volunteering to be at the front of those raids to confiscate all those guns...otherwise you’re still just a <nope>...and another in a long line of wanna be despots.
No one is confiscating your guns. What is proposed is registration, so that a gun can be linked with the owner who is responsible for its custody and care.
For that, you and others here threaten a bloodbath? Are you nucking futs?
You may have a "God-given" right to defend your person and property, but you don't have a right to keep a secret arsenal. If the peoples' elected representatives of the nation of which you are a citizen decides that gun owners like yourself need to be responsible for the guns they own, you may indeed decide to shoot peace officers dead, but don't give me this crap that you have a "God-given" right to do so. You will simply be a common murderer. For that, as @jmyrlefuller points out, check the Ten Commandments.
-
What I have issue with is his false assertion that the natural right of self defense is the result of a "living Constitution". The only ones that believe in that are Liberals...the Constitution was never intended to be a living document subject to changes at the whims of politicians who don't like the fact it limits their power. Obama used to referred to what he thought was a "flawed document" as a list of "negative Liberties".
Our resident Liberal seems to share the same belief.
I trust that you're not surprised re: that. He has been showing his true colors for quite some time now.
-
No one is confiscating your guns. What is proposed is registration, so that a gun can be linked with the owner who is responsible for its custody and care.
And yet again you make a proposal that every single times it's been enacted has led to gun confiscation. And you either can't...or won't...list an instance in history where registration has NOT led to confiscation down the road.
You keep dodging the question related to this...I wonder why?
WE...the legal gun owners in America are already responsible for our weapons. You continue to advocate for laying the groundwork for tyranny.
-
I trust that you're not surprised re: that. He has been showing his true colors for quite some time now.
@XenaLee nope not surprised in the least. I had him figured out shortly after he arrived.
-
No one is confiscating your guns. What is proposed is registration, so that a gun can be linked with the owner who is responsible for its custody and care.
For that, you and others here threaten a bloodbath? Are you nucking futs?
You may have a "God-given" right to defend your person and property, but you don't have a right to keep a secret arsenal. If the peoples' elected representatives of the nation of which you are a citizen decides that gun owners like yourself need to be responsible for the guns they own, you may indeed decide to shoot peace officers dead, but don't give me this crap that you have a "God-given" right to do so. You will simply be a common murderer. For that, as @jmyrlefuller points out, check the Ten Commandments.
No one here is "threatening a bloodbath". Quit hyperventilating and read what they are saying.
-
You may have a "God-given" right to defend your person and property, but you don't have a right to keep a secret arsenal.
While you can have that opinion, the framers of the Constitution, the people that rose up and fired upon the lawful government when they came to take their guns, have a different opinion. As do I.
The second amendment wasn't written solely for hunting, or for defense of the home. It was the reason the predicate clause was included. It was to be a check in the power of the federal government, as was the rest of the Bill of Rights.
-
No one is confiscating your guns. What is proposed is registration, so that a gun can be linked with the owner who is responsible for its custody and care.
For that, you and others here threaten a bloodbath? Are you nucking futs?
You may have a "God-given" right to defend your person and property, but you don't have a right to keep a secret arsenal. If the peoples' elected representatives of the nation of which you are a citizen decides that gun owners like yourself need to be responsible for the guns they own, you may indeed decide to shoot peace officers dead, but don't give me this crap that you have a "God-given" right to do so. You will simply be a common murderer. For that, as @jmyrlefuller points out, check the Ten Commandments.
You must have missed the slew of times you were told we don't trust the government that killed Lavoy Finicum, Randy Weaver's wife and son, and all those children at Waco.
Now you think you have a brand new pop cycle with somebody's mistranslation on the Bible. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Actually, the concept of the Court acknowledging unalienable natural rights not explicitly found in the Constitution itself is of rather recent vintage.
Screw your willfully blind and corrupt Courts filled with despots who have no business sitting on a bench to arbitrate justice, and NO - IT'S NOT a recent vintage:
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
“[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.†- George Mason
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.†- Samuel Adams
No one is confiscating your guns.
Your despotic harebrained advocacy of registration and insurance is the precursor to confiscation, no matter what stupid assurances to the contrary you make. We will treat it the same way as we would those imbeciles sent by power-mad morons to take them by force. We will not comply. We will resist.
What is proposed is registration, so that a gun can be linked with the owner who is responsible for its custody and care.
EFF your proposal. It is a declaration of war.
For that, you and others here threaten a bloodbath? Are you nucking futs?
Call it whatever you like. You have been warned. We will not comply with your 'proposal' and you will have to empower government to impose it by force - and then, you will have a bloodbath on your hands.
You may have a "God-given" right to defend your person and property, but you don't have a right to keep a secret arsenal.
Yes we do. Funny how tyrants like you can assert a person has a right to keep secret his sexual practices and a woman her right to slaughter her unborn baby, but a person has no right to keep secret what kinds of tools of defense he possesses.
If the peoples' elected representatives of the nation of which you are a citizen decides that gun owners like yourself need to be responsible for the guns they own, you may indeed decide to shoot peace officers dead, but don't give me this crap that you have a "God-given" right to do so.
The Colonists thought they did - and God granted them the victory over the lawful, legal authority of the Crown that was sent to secure their weapons. The Colonists KILLED the 'peace officers' of the King sent to secure their 'arsenals' by shooting them dead.
You will simply be a common murderer.
And the Colonists were rebels, traitors, rabble, murderers and criminals according to the Crown. So, we will let history decide what to call us upon the moment idiots like you make that last mistake and try to impose your 'proposal'.
-
No one here is "threatening a bloodbath". Quit hyperventilating and read what they are saying.
I am reading what they are saying. <NOPE> Not the will of King George. The will of the People.
Registration is not confiscation. It is what it is, and nothing more - registration, just like we all do with our cars. Cars and guns are both dangerous. What is wrong with a requirement that a firearm be linked with its responsible owner.
@Jazzhead, do not accuse other posters of threatening to shoot anyone. You have been warned about this before. Consider this a warning.
MOD3
-
Actually, the concept of the Court acknowledging unalienable natural rights not explicitly found in the Constitution itself is of rather recent vintage. You know, that "living Constitution" thing you tend to disparage. The right of privacy was first acknowledged as protected by the Federal Constitution in a case from the fifties or sixties, I believe (it may have been Griswold), to invalidate a Connecticut law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives. Later, that natural right (and its corollary, the natural right of self-determination) was held to invalidate state laws that banned abortion.
And so it is with the natural right to self-defense, unconnected with the militia. State laws that would deny that right are now subject to invalidation on the basis of Heller's holding that the 2A protects the natural right as well as the states' rights to provide for service in the militias.
That, sir, is the product of a "living Constitution" that is more expansive in its protection than the words of the document explicitly provide. The problem, of course, is that the gun right is subject to intense political debate, and a significant minority of the Court believes that the Heller decision was wrongly decided. Unless codified, it risks being gone with the political winds.
Actually, these aren't rights found by any court but which were rights so obvious they did not need adjudication. The right to self defense is not based on any court finding, and Heller is not an affirmation of some heretofore nonexistent Right, but an admonition to the Government in the Federal District to not infringe on that Right. So no new Right has been found, the government has been slapped back into line.
As for Abortion, living constitution, etc. there is no right to murder the helpless, (see the Ten Commandments, esp the part about Thou Shalt not Murder), so I'd say the court is exhibiting stellar governmental overreach to assert that anyone has a right to murder their own Child, unborn or fully gestated and produced, especially not an unalienable (God-given) Right to do so.
The Government does not grant unalienable Rights, by definition (of unalienable)--it can't. Nor can it remove them. It can only be responsible for actions which have led to the murder of over 50 million human beings and for infringements on existing Rights. In Heller, the court found (as it should have) against the infringement of a Right. It did not 'discover' that pre-existing Right, it did not create that Right, it only found that the Government was infringing on a Right the People already had.
-
The second amendment wasn't written solely for hunting, or for defense of the home. It was the reason the predicate clause was included. It was to be a check in the power of the federal government, as was the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Until Heller, the 2A addressed only the states' authority to maintain and regulate their militias. Until Heller, the 2A offered no protection of the right to individual self-defense.
I urge you to read Prof. Epstein's piece regarding the 2A, linked nearby. It makes sense to me. You can't just ignore the predicate clause, as well as (as Prof. Epstein argues) the several other provisions of the Constitution that address the militia. The 2A has nothing to do with securing individual rights. It has everything to do with preserving the States' sovereignty, vis a vis the federal government, to maintain and regulate their militias. That is the context of the predicate clause, not securing your "God given" rights as in individual.
It takes a living Constitution to secure natural rights not explicitly protected by the document itself. Hence - state laws against contraception and abortion are invalid because the SCOTUS expanded the Constitution's protection to include the natural rights of privacy and self-determination. Just as the SCOTUS in Heller expanded the Constitution's protection to include the individual RKBA.
Thank Justice Scalia, not the Founders. The Founders were concerned only with protecting the States' sovereignty vis a vis the new federal government. The 2A never imposed any restrictions on the States from "infringing" on individual gun rights, and is silent regarding the federal government's ability to do so.
-
What is wrong with a requirement that a firearm be linked with its responsible owner.
Because you have ignored hundreds of posts by dozens of posters answering that very question in living color, I refuse to answer it now. I have a wall I'd rather talk to.
-
I am reading what they are saying. They are threatening a bloodbath against peace officers tasked with enforcing the will of the peoples' elected representatives that firearms be duly registered. Not the will of King George. The will of the People.
Registration is not confiscation. It is what it is, and nothing more - registration, just like we all do with our cars. Cars and guns are both dangerous. What is wrong with a requirement that a firearm be linked with its responsible owner.
Uh... no. Your reading comprehension is MIA, per usual (a well-known leftie trait, come to think of it). The non-compliance, resistance and resultant "bloodbath".... will occur if or when government decides to go door to door to confiscate our legally owned weapons.
-
Actually, these aren't rights found by any court but which were rights so obvious they did not need adjudication.
You keep making the same mistake. Natural rights may exist, but the issue is the Constitution's promise to protect and secure them. The individual "natural" right to use arms for self-defense was never been recognized as protected by the Constitution until Heller, just as the natural rights to privacy and self-determination were never recognized as protected by the Constitution until the 20th century.
Better thank God for our living Constitution.
-
Because you have ignored hundreds of posts by dozens of posters answering that very question in living color, I refuse to answer it now. I have a wall I'd rather talk to.
Arguing with a leftie is like arguing with a brick wall. Hence, the "thick as a brick" term....lolol.
-
Uh... no. Your reading comprehension is MIA, per usual (a well-known leftie trait, come to think of it). The non-compliance, resistance and resultant "bloodbath".... will occur if or when government decides to go door to door to confiscate our legally owned weapons.
Liar. The threat of violence has been leveled at mere attempts to enforce registration:
EFF your proposal. It is a declaration of war.
-
I am reading what they are saying. They are threatening a bloodbath against peace officers tasked with enforcing the will of the peoples' elected representatives that firearms be duly registered. Not the will of King George. The will of the People.
Registration is not confiscation. It is what it is, and nothing more - registration, just like we all do with our cars. Cars and guns are both dangerous. What is wrong with a requirement that a firearm be linked with its responsible owner.
As has been asked of you before, name one instance in which the widespread registration of weapons has not led to their confiscation. I am not alone in waiting for that response.
In a legitimate police investigation, the serial number of the firearm can be tracked from the manufacturer to the dealer, and through the Form 4473 data, again with just cause, the purchaser of the firearm can be located. That does not mean that that firearm was not stolen, nor sold from there, but it is a start to locate the person who owned it. If the firearm is known to be stolen the NCIC should register a 'hit' on the serial number, make, and model of the firearm as stolen.
In the event a firearm is stolen, and thieves will go to some extraordinary efforts at times to do so (NO security system is unbeatable, there are just some which have not been thwarted yet), the legal purchaser isn't the one responsible--I'm sure they would rather have kept their property.
As for straw buyers, large or frequent purchases are supposed to be reported to the BATFE as things stand. (Ask Eric Holder about this, I'm sure he knows something about it. The BATFE and DOJ ordered enough straw purchases and volume buys to be concluded for the purpose of tracing guns during Operation "Fast and Furious" .
But, back to the original question: Name one instance where registration of firearms has not led to confiscation. I eagerly await your reply.
-
Because you have ignored hundreds of posts by dozens of posters answering that very question in living color, I refuse to answer it now. I have a wall I'd rather talk to.
And the answer is idiotic. Registration is not confiscation.
-
As has been asked of you before, name one instance in which the widespread registration of weapons has not led to their confiscation. I am not alone in waiting for that response.
Switzerland.
-
And the answer is idiotic. Registration is not confiscation.
You are correct; registration is a prelude to confiscation.
-
Switzerland.
Those are military arms. Machine guns: REAL assault rifles. and no one has to pay a tax on them or a transfer fee. They are government issue. Try again.
Firearms legislation in Switzerland comes from a long tradition of shooting (tirs) as a formative element of national identity in the post-Napoleonic Restoration of the Confederacy,[1] and the long-standing practice of a militia organization of the Swiss Army in which soldiers' service rifles are stored privately at home. In addition to this, many cantons (notably the alpine cantons of Grisons and Valais) have strong traditions of hunting, accounting for a large but unknown number of privately held hunting rifles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland)
If those privately held arms were registered somewhere, they'd know how many there were.
-
Registration is not confiscation. It is what it is, and nothing more - registration, just like we all do with our cars. Cars and guns are both dangerous. What is wrong with a requirement that a firearm be linked with its responsible owner.
I will, once again, point out you make a false analogy. We are not required to register cars because we own them. We are only required to register them to use on public funded roads.
-
And the answer is idiotic.
What is idiotic is your belief that it won't lead to confiscation.
Registration is not confiscation.
Until...you know...it actually is...
Gun registration -- what Obama, Biden and Bloomberg euphemistically call "a national database" -- is also a perfect tool for the later confiscation of guns.
New York City has experience in this arena. In the mid-1960s, street crime was rising rapidly there as in most of the rest of the nation. The people who were perpetrating muggings in Central Park and robbing liquor stores in Queens were not the decent, law-abiding gun owners of New York City. Nevertheless, the New York City Council and anti-gun Mayor John Lindsay enacted long gun registration. The per-gun fee was just a few dollars. The politicians promised that gun registration could help solve crimes and, even if it didn't, registration was harmless. After all, it was just registering guns, not confiscating them.
As registration did nothing to solve crime or stop criminal use of guns, crime continued to get worse in the city. So in 1991, with the city becoming increasingly unlivable, Mayor David Dinkins attempted to make himself think he was tough on crime, this time by pressuring the City Council to enact a ban on so-called "assault weapons" (such as the M1 carbine).
After that, the New York state police used registration lists to conduct home inspections of every individual whose registered gun had been outlawed. The police were ensuring that the registered guns had been moved out of the city or already surrendered to the government.
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/kopel-catastrophic-consequences.htm (http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/kopel-catastrophic-consequences.htm)
<snip>
California, too, has used its gun registration records to seize firearms. Under the Armed Prohibited Persons System, teams of state agents confiscate thousands of guns from Californians who have been disqualified after the fact from ownership because of "maybe a felony conviction, mental health commitment, they received a restraining order, domestic violence restraining order — some type of a misdemeanor conviction that prohibits them from possessing firearms," according to Special Agent Kisu Yo of the California Department of Justice.
A fair number of the people receiving visits from Yo and company might well be less than ideal gun owners. But those categories for disqualification are broad enough to lead many people to wonder if they might wander into them with little effort. "Some type of a misdemeanor conviction" is not hard to come by in modern America. Civil rights attorney C.D. Michel cautions, "For example, you can get in a fight, and plead guilty to being in a fight, and wind up having a statutory prohibition on possessing firearms get triggered for a 10-year period. But the courts haven't told them that."
https://reason.com/archives/2013/12/11/how-government-officials-sealed-the-doom (https://reason.com/archives/2013/12/11/how-government-officials-sealed-the-doom)
Imagine if your boss was anti-gun and via the registration database available to his companies HR department was able to ascertain you were a gun owner?
There is a myriad of unintended consequences to registration beyond gun confiscation...only a fool thinks any kind of registry won't be abused.
-
Until Heller, the 2A addressed only the states' authority to maintain and regulate their militias.
Because the Constitution is not a document directed to The People, it is a document directed to government for the express purpose of limiting and setting the absolute constraints it is permitted to operate within. The ONLY aspect of arms that concerns the government, is in relation to the whole body of armed and able-bodied men equipped to defend the country and our liberties; the militia. It has no authority to touch the natural and inalienable and immutable right to arms, defense and the possession of such.
The 2A has nothing to do with securing individual rights. It has everything to do with preserving the States' sovereignty, vis a vis the federal government, to maintain and regulate their militias. That is the context of the predicate clause, not securing your "God given" rights as in individual.
A government that will not protect the inalienable and immutable individual liberties of the People, is not a government owed any allegiance, respect or obedience. Government only earns our obedience and respect when it acts to preserve the liberties you have repeatedly said can be *reasonably regulated*; *registered* and *insured* before we are permitted by said government to be able to exercise those natural inalienable rights. Which, as I have said - transforms inalienable rights into government-granted privileges. Which nullifies the authority of the government that does such.
It takes a living Constitution to secure natural rights not explicitly protected by the document itself.
Wrong. As you will learn if any imbecile in government tries to enact your 'proposal' - our natural rights are secured by our guns and our willingness to use them on those who attempt to enforce your 'proposal'.
The 2A never imposed any restrictions on the States from "infringing" on individual gun rights, and is silent regarding the federal government's ability to do so.
It has no authority to do so. The moment it does, said government will have discarded it's legitimate authority, and declared war on liberty and the people who retain it.
And the answer is idiotic. Registration is not confiscation.
We say it is, and will regard any 'registration' the same exact way we would agents showing up on our doorstep to take them. We will not comply - and you will have to empower your government to send armed agents to force compliance.
And then, it is time to water the tree of liberty.
Liar. The threat of violence has been leveled at mere attempts to enforce registration:
Exactly. Glad you understand the consequences of what your stupid proposal will cause.
Attempt to enforce registration - and we will treat the agents of the state the exact same way the Colonists treated the agents of the Crown at Lexington and Concord Green.
-
I urge you to read Prof. Epstein's piece regarding the 2A, linked nearby. It makes sense to me. You can't just ignore the predicate clause, as well as (as Prof. Epstein argues) the several other provisions of the Constitution that address the militia. The 2A has nothing to do with securing individual rights. It has everything to do with preserving the States' sovereignty, vis a vis the federal government, to maintain and regulate their militias. That is the context of the predicate clause, not securing your "God given" rights as in individual.
I have read it. As well I have read about McDonald v. City of Chicago. Also I have read about Caetano v. Massachusetts. The later interesting in that it was Justice Alito with Justice Thomas about the individual right to a modern weapon.
From that Judgement:
It is settled that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right to keep and bear arms that applies
against both the Federal Government and the States.
also:
A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people
safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either
unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect
Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To
make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy
its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of
a criminal offense for arming herself....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf)
-
Until Heller, the 2A addressed only the states' authority to maintain and regulate their militias.
I'm beginning to believe that our resident Liberal Jurist is counting on the fact none of us will read even a summary of Heller and just post knee jerk reactions to what he is telling us in the complete D.C. v. Heller decision.
His standard retort is only a half truth. And it's actually a very small part of the ruling he's hanging his hat on.
What is purposely leaving out is crucial and actually lends credence to what the rest of us have been saying about our right to keep and bear arms.
To wit:
The Supreme Court held:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia†comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
-
Democide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide) -- "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder" -- was the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th Century.
You might trust the government, @Jazzhead, but you should also recognize that even a benevolent government may change at any moment. Registrations conducted now may be used by evil in the future. It is prudent to act prudently. ^-^
-
To wit:
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
I know that! That's the point I keep trying to make - the individual right is protected only because of the say-so of a SCOTUS decision. Read the dissent about how four members of the Court took the position that the 2A has nothing to do with the individual right.
The individual RKBA is fragile, resting as it does on a single Court decision and its progeny. Appoint a liberal majority to the SCOTUS and protection of the right goes bye-bye.
The lesson? Codify Heller!
-
Until Heller, the 2A addressed only the states' authority to maintain and regulate their militias. Until Heller, the 2A offered no protection of the right to individual self-defense.
And while you try to imply from Heller, the individual right to own a gun hangs on a single vote, reading dissenting opinions show that claim to be false.
In interpreting and applying this Amendment,
I take as a starting point the following four propositions,
based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I
believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual†right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and may be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.
BREYER, J., dissenting
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD1 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD1)
Page 3
@Jazzhead
Modified to ping you Jazzhead as there seems to be some confusion about the dissenting viewpoint from Heller
-
Read the dissent about how four members of the Court took the position that the 2A has nothing to do with the individual right.
False claim!
-
His standard retort is only a half truth. And it's actually a very small part of the ruling he's hanging his hat on.
That is what ALL Leftists do in order to pervert plain language to an entirely different meaning in order to shove their agenda down our throats.
As always, they masquerade their true intentions behind *reasonablespeak* while arguing that you must submit yourself to subjugation of the State they have empowered to do their bidding because that is what 'the people' want.
The more JH posts here, the more he illustrates himself the abject enemy to liberty that I have always asserted he is.
-
You might trust the government, @Jazzhead, but you should also recognize that even a benevolent government may change at any moment.
Why the hell do you think I keep urging the codification of Heller? Because the SCOTUS can change in the future.
Rather than chest thumping about taking out peace officers, why not use the opportunity a GOP majority gives us to once and for all codify Heller?
-
That is what ALL Leftists do in order to pervert plain language to an entirely different meaning in order to shove their agenda down our throats.
As always, they masquerade their true intentions behind *reasonablespeak* while arguing that you must submit yourself to subjugation of the State they have empowered to do their bidding because that is what 'the people' want.
The more JH posts here, the more he illustrates himself the abject enemy to liberty that I have always asserted he is.
Indeed.
-
Why the hell do you think I keep urging the codification of Heller? Because the SCOTUS can change in the future.
Rather than chest thumping about taking out peace officers, why not use the opportunity a GOP majority gives us to once and for all codify Heller?
Why turn the might of an unalienable Right, Heller merely affirming that into something that needs to be codified. Doesn't the 2nd Amendment say "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."? If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, then no further codification should be necessary, as it will only be another mass of verbiage for attorneys to quibble over.
The code, the basis for the Heller decision is right there. Heller was only necessary because the Government went out of bounds in DC. Not to decide a Right existed (it did, prior to the need to shut down the DC Government on the issue), but to tell the DC Government it had exceeded its lawful authority and to cease and desist.
-
The individual RKBA is fragile
No. It is not.
It is only advocates of tyranny like yourself that insist that it is.
Our right is inalienable, immutable and not subject to the hand of man to infringe upon except by those hands that attempt to do so by force of arms.
The individual RKBA is fragile resting as it does on a single Court decision and its progeny. Appoint a liberal majority to the SCOTUS and protection of the right goes bye-bye.
Nope. It won't. Your 'court' could decide tomorrow that our right to arms is null and void and it will have no authority we are obligated to acknowledge whatsoever. In fact, if and when it does so, it will have earned the necessity to disregard and disobey anything that comes from it as wholly illegitimate and criminal. All it and your government will have, is agents it will have to arm to force compliance - and as I told you - when that time comes, it will be time to water the tree of liberty.
The lesson? Codify Heller!
Our rights do not come from a court decision as you keep insisting they do. Our right to arms is already codified in the restraint on government that it may not infringe upon it. The true lesson is how much blood are you willing to spill to enforce your proposal should anyone be stupid enough to try and make them policy?
-
Why turn the might of an unalienable Right, Heller merely affirming that into something that needs to be codified. Doesn't the 2nd Amendment say "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."? If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, then no further codification should be necessary, as it will only be another mass of verbiage for attorneys to quibble over.
The code, the basis for the Heller decision is right there. Heller was only necessary because the Government went out of bounds in DC. Not to decide a Right existed (it did, prior to the need to shut down the DC Government on the issue), but to tell the DC Government it had exceeded its lawful authority and to cease and desist.
The breviloquent clarity of the 2A is exactly why - its opponents need an opportunity to officially redefine it.
-
Why the hell do you think I keep urging the codification of Heller? Because the SCOTUS can change in the future.
SCOTUS can change...but the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights can not.
Rather than chest thumping about taking out peace officers,
The ONLY one continually talking about taking out peace officers is you. So why not just STFU with that nonsense.
why not use the opportunity a GOP majority gives us to once and for all codify Heller?
Because it's unnecessary and unneeded. The majority decision in Heller was crystal clear...
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
and also:
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
Unless you're trying to lessen the overall effect of the Heller decision in order to continue to restrict a person's right to own a firearm...there is absolutely nothing in Heller that needs to be "codified".
You're taking the position of the dissent written by Stevens who said in his dissent that:
...the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont
Stevens is the is the idiot that got this thread started with his moronic decree that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed.
But then you also seem to write in support of the second dissent that was written by Justice Breyer in which he said:
"there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., "'interest-balancing' approach") of Second Amendment protections against the government's compelling interest of preventing crime.
Either way you're dead wrong...they are dead wrong and at the end of the day...only Liberal gun grabbers think anything in the Heller decision needs to be codified.
-
The lesson? Codify Heller!
Nope. The lesson: Shut up and buy your guns off the back of a truck.
-
The 2A is a flawed amendment, but it doesn't need to be repealed. Rather, it should be clarified to extend to the individual right to self-defense. Arguably, the individual right to RKBA depends on the whim of a fickle court majority, no different than the abortion right. The 2A's focus on the militia is its great flaw; it is about time to ratify and confirm by Constitutional amendment the Heller decision.
@Jazzhead Every individual is a member fo the "militia" and the Private citizens had the exact same weapons as the military.
U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
-
Rather than chest thumping about taking out peace officers, why not use the opportunity a
GOP majority gives us to once and for all codify Heller?
Because obviously, the piece of paper conveys nothing. a government cognizant of its duties would not need the piece of paper. And a government beyond its duties would ignore it.
Every man-jack of y'all should possess arms that are unregistered by any means whatsoever It's the not knowing where they are that keeps the bastards honest.
-
Why turn the might of an unalienable Right, Heller merely affirming that into something that needs to be codified. Doesn't the 2nd Amendment say "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."? If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, then no further codification should be necessary, as it will only be another mass of verbiage for attorneys to quibble over.
The code, the basis for the Heller decision is right there. Heller was only necessary because the Government went out of bounds in DC. Not to decide a Right existed (it did, prior to the need to shut down the DC Government on the issue), but to tell the DC Government it had exceeded its lawful authority and to cease and desist.
Doing what JH wants to do would only "codify" and affirm that his stance is correct....
when it's not.
Which is, of course, why he wants it done.
-
@Jazzhead
What "good" do you see coming from registration?
-
Every man-jack of y'all should possess arms that are unregistered by any means whatsoever It's the not knowing where they are that keeps the bastards honest.
And afraid of attempting to do what Jazzhead suggests be done.
Because when the government is afraid of the people, there is liberty.
When the people are afraid of government, there is tyranny.
And I fear this government and millions of idiots who would empower it to do what they want, and I distrust it in total as evidenced by it's fruit. Waco and Ruby Ridge notwithstanding.
-
I know that! That's the point I keep trying to make - the individual right is protected only because of the say-so of a SCOTUS decision. Read the dissent about how four members of the Court took the position that the 2A has nothing to do with the individual right.
The individual RKBA is fragile, resting as it does on a single Court decision and its progeny. Appoint a liberal majority to the SCOTUS and protection of the right goes bye-bye.
The lesson? Codify Heller!
Perhaps I have some agreement on codification of Heller...it's similar to the anti-Federalist/Federalist debate.
But the lesson you should be taking from it is...registration is foolish.
-
Simply not true. Licensure and registration exists in several states - and have not led to confiscation. Countries like Switzerland, which have long standing traditions respecting both the shooting sports and self-defense, nevertheless require licensure and registration - again without confiscation.
@Jazzhead https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100626143039AAIVbUH
You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian states?
WWI Germany, Russia, Bermuda...Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia.
let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.
Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate
1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.
The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.
How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s
What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)
Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.
-
For that, you and others here threaten a bloodbath?.
@Jazzhead
Finally! A breakthrough!
Yes...now you finally understand us. In fact, I will go one step further: if this country ever enacts some sort of bullshit like you’re spouting here...it is WAY beyond time to merely not comply. YOUR registration can only be enforced at the point of a gun...it will be YOU forcing the bloodbath which is why YOU need to volunteer to enforce this nonsense.
Now that you understand us, leave us and our means to prevent tyranny the f&@k alone.
-
@Jazzhead
Finally! A breakthrough!
Yes...now you finally understand us. In fact, I will go one step further: if this country ever enacts some sort of bullshit like you’re spouting here...it is WAY beyond time to merely not comply.
Now that you understand us, leave us and our means to prevent tyranny the f&@k alone.
Succinct and to the point.
But he will ignore it and instead continue to push his inane bullshit couched in *reasonable* argumentation that our rights are not absolute. That they somehow come by grant of a court who interprets the Constitution a certain way, and thus can be abolished in like manner. Also noting his incredulity that if the demand of the 'people' through their 'representatives' (if we can even call them that anymore) to empower the government to do as he suggests, will be refused and resisted by gun owners, illustrates his hostile intentions towards our liberties.
His own words illustrate him to be an overt enemy to everything we hold dear on this board.
But we have done our duty to warn him of the consequences.
-
And afraid of attempting to do what Jazzhead suggests be done.
Because when the government is afraid of the people, there is liberty.
When the people are afraid of government, there is tyranny.
And I fear this government and millions of idiots who would empower it to do what they want, and I distrust it in total as evidenced by it's fruit. Waco and Ruby Ridge notwithstanding.
Perfectly stated. Distrusting the government is a long held Conservative and American tradition - A tradition I intend to honor.
Like every good country boy, everything I need is at least triplicated, and distributed. Let em come. I'll cede the ground... no sense dying for it... But then I'll walk off on up the holler and have it all right back again, with my family hidden away, and a big ol chip on my shoulder.
And history repeats... As it always does.
Don't come up the holler.
-
Perfectly stated. Distrusting the government is a long held Conservative and American tradition - A tradition I intend to honor.
Like every good country boy, everything I need is at least triplicated, and distributed. Let em come. I'll cede the ground... no sense dying for it... But then I'll walk off on up the holler and have it all right back again, with my family hidden away, and a big ol chip on my shoulder.
And history repeats... As it always does.
Don't come up the holler.
Tyrannical Statists and their advocates like our resident antagonist, can not and will not permit or allow anyone to exist that they do not have absolute control over. Thus they require *laws* to force compliance with measures designed to ensure their security and power. This is due the fact they want the ability to impose upon us their mandated worldview.
You and I cannot be trusted with liberty in the eyes of people like Jazzhead. You and I cannot be allowed to own an arsenal that is 'secret' and not catalogued and restrained and regulated by government via Jazzhead's own admission on this very thread. That we own weapons that the state does not know about, frightens tyrants and snowflakes who demand a tyranny be imposed so they can sleep without the fear that their neighbors are armed with the capability to resist him and his ideas.
Above all, they want their peace of mind to know that people like us are easily subjugated when necessary and that we pose no threat to them either to speak ideas contrary to theirs or to physically have the ability to resist.
He insists we show 'responsibility' by acquiescing to tyranny and willingly comply with the act of turning an inalienable right into a government-granted privilege. A 'privilege' that is dependent upon our ability to comply with restrictions, taxation and licensure he is advocating BEFORE being granted the permission to exercise it by the state.
The fact Jazzhead trusts the state and is aghast we distrust the government while demonstrating outrage at the expression of the actual purpose of our gun rights, more than illustrates the fact he is an unmitigated liar when he says he is a Conservative.
He is nothing of the kind, even though he continues to insist he is one.
-
@Jazzhead
What "good" do you see coming from registration?
That is a good question.
-
@Jazzhead
What "good" do you see coming from registration?
Jobs!
(To erect a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.)
-
@Jazzhead
@Smoking Joe
@INVAR
@Sanguine
@Cyber Liberty
@libertybele
@aligncare
@roamer_1
@Bigun
The right isn't protected by God. Nor is it protected by your guns. It will only be protected by action taken by the peoples' elected representatives to codify Heller or otherwise to modify the 2A to fix its flaw.
Your first statement is actually correct, since it is at least theoretically possible that our guns will wind up getting seized. Thus, you are correct by very the definition/nature of God's protection, which special protection happens to be infallible. The God Whom you do not even profess to know is ultimately in complete control of everything. (I am virtually certain that you have never figured that out.) Your Creator often permits sinners to violate the rights of others. He permits sin. Amazingly, He permits people to breathe His air (for a brief interval, of course). That even includes a temporary forbearance of spiritual reprobates. (Let me stipulate that I am not assuming that you are one of those utterly doomed souls, even if I find your legal[istically?] narrow, anti-hermeneutical position on this thread worrisome, let's say.)
***
Your second statement is incorrect. This, too, is by definition, since using firearms to assert the right to use firearms will sometimes succeed to one degree or another, i.e., will obviously protect the right. In fact, even having an arsenal, preferably a non-secret one--whether or not the arsenal is recognized as legal--will definitely afford some protection of the right. (I will not bother to parse the difference between trying to protect the right and successfully protecting the right, although even to try to protect is to protect. [In the case of God's protection of anything, however, this parsing doesn't work. If He genuinely "attempts" something, He succeeds.])
***
Your third statement is incorrect, since you added the word "only." There is a better way--the Constitutional way that is already in force and also beginning to strengthen--despite your peculiar way of second-guessing the language of the 2nd Amendment. (See below.)
The Constitution expects Americans (or in another sense of expectation, trusts Americans as a whole) to acknowledge and proclaim widely and loudly and clearly that the individual right to bear arms is already clear, already codified, as the SCOTUS has correctly pointed out. We'd better push this mantra, not yours. Your insistence on a "clarifying" Amendment actually confuses what is clear, what is already settled. We must not even accidentally facilitate the leftists' attempt to unsettle it. It's better to be polemically bellicose. Right now.
[/i]Nota bene: The SCOTUS has already recognized what I have said over and over on this thread--i.e., that the individual right to bear arms is already crystal clear in the 2nd Amendment. You. on the other hand, have been saying No, it's not crystal clear, seen largely in the fact that the vote was close at 5 to 4.
But the fact that the SCOTUS vote was close is Constitutionally irrelevant beyond showing that many federal judges are fools who will not uphold the Constitution; we need to face that fact. Some are even crooks; we need to face that fact. John Paul Stevens is not the quintessential "reasonable man," but a scoundrel, a political reprobate; we need to face that fact, too. And the corruption is best seen in the fact that so many progressive politicos and lawyers are hermeneutically dishonest and therefore cannot admit that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is self-evident (there's a Jeffersonian word for you) in establishing the defense of both life and liberty (more Jeffersonian language for you). What is especially ominous under our present circumstances of our Republic's very real peril (which fully demonic peril I am sure you haven't fully noticed), the Constitution actually presupposes corruption arising in the federal government--which is, interestingly, one of the main reasons for having an armed citizenry, not to mention a SCOTUS.
I should separately point out that American's final defense against political corruption--including gun-grabbing Marxists--is not the SCOTUS. It is the 2nd Amendment itself (plus or minus the heavily armed American military, which will never confiscate the firearms of ordinarily law-abiding American citizens even if the SCOTUS authorizes such a gun-grabbing order, since the military is sworn to protect the Constitution against even its domestic enemies--and since the military appreciates the proper role of firearms in defense of America].)
***
What I mainly want to show you in this post is that your claim that the 2nd Amendment is flawed is actually disrespectful of both the Constitution and the SCOTUS. The Bill of Rights is clear enough to be workable as it stands even if a lot of people WANT to misread it (as they do with several Articles in the Bill of Rights). At worst, the Amendment only seems to be a bit arcane (?) in its rhetorical style. Legal scholars who do not notice that the Amendment is clearly asserting both the individual's right to self-defense and the corporate right to use firearms in the defense of liberty are just too lazy to be honest. (Or, as I have already intimated, their dishonesty is what makes them lazy.)
Finally, I will say that I believe that we are at a tipping point as a nation. We must defy the progressives at every turn. We need to destroy the Deep State. We need to expose the Mockingbird propaganda set-up. The Marxists have mounted their most desperately aggressive public campaign to date against firearms. Miscellaneous restrictions are just the first step. They want us dead. One of them has told me so. (They even want you dead, @Jazzhead--and you're not all that "conservative.")
One thing I would have done a few years ago if I were POTUS would be to prosecute the Democrat Congressman who angrily said "I don't care what the Constitution says!"
If push comes to shove, the whole mess could turn into a civil war. As a matter of fact, this is what the Deep State Marxists (whether soft- or hardcore in their ideology) have been planning for decades. The apparent murder of Antonin Scalia was supposed to give them a quantum leap forward with respect to gun control, but even the RINOs refused to approve Obama's nominee to the SCOTUS.
At the bottom line, the crucial feature of our mess is the Deep State itself. If we fail to destroy the Deep State that is trying to destroy our Republic, we may very well wind up in the minority on the bench of the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS might even overturn a legally sancrosanct precedent like the Heller decision. But if things get that bad from the Deep State, your proposed clarification of the 2nd Amendment would be irrelevant anyway. The Marxists will quit feigning allegiance to the Constitution. And our unalienable right to bear arms, even with an unlawfully shredded Constitution, will be our final defense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In an unabashedly pagan manner of speaking, we will make Thomas Jefferson proud.
That is what the flamethrowing guys and gals have been trying to tell you on this entire thread. It's the polemical bellicosity of Patrick Henry and John Stark and William Barrett Travis attacking you all at once for so much as taking a soft stance on the intent and continuing importance of the 2nd Amendment.
-
@the_doc
Excellent post! I would only add that many of us fear/believe that there is very little to no chance of reining in the deep state and the tipping point has already been breached. Hence the reason why that other fools are notions are so strongly resisted.
-
@the_doc
Excellent post! I would only add that many of us fear/believe that there is very little to no chance of reining in the deep state and the tipping point has already been breached. Hence the reason why that other fools are notions are so strongly resisted.
One does not need to be a "deep state" conspiracy theorist to distrust a government capable of murdering Lavoy Finicum, the Weavers and all those children at Waco.
-
@the_doc Outstanding Post and a very good assessment of the situation, inho.
-
Tyrannical Statists and their advocates like our resident antagonist, can not and will not permit or allow anyone to exist that they do not have absolute control over. Thus they require *laws* to force compliance with measures designed to ensure their security and power. This is due the fact they want the ability to impose upon us their mandated worldview.
What would be comical if it weren't so deadly, is the attitude - the urban sophistry, the bare hubris accompanying the posts... Imagine the frame of mind that would assume his 'way', authored in an urban shithole, would be agreeable and work for me, two thousand miles away, and back up in the sticks. I'd like to leave him 50 miles off the gravel, with nothing but his wits, and see how long it took for the truth of things to hit him.
Folks been tellin me my whole damn life to mind my betters, and that ain't ever worked out very well.
You and I cannot be trusted with liberty in the eyes of people like Jazzhead. You and I cannot be allowed to own an arsenal that is 'secret' and not catalogued and restrained and regulated by government via Jazzhead's own admission on this very thread. That we own weapons that the state does not know about, frightens tyrants and snowflakes who demand a tyranny be imposed so they can sleep without the fear that their neighbors are armed with the capability to resist him and his ideas.
But what's he going to DO about it? meh.
I ain't got time for his bullshit lawyering, and bullshit laws, and won't pay em no mind even if he were to get his way. Won't change a ding dang thing, except maybe I have to poach my game, which I will surely do.... Not that it will get that far, because my state (and SoDak, NoDak, ID, WY, UT, AK, w/ eastern OR and WA) and every county in her will give him the flying finger of bellicosity...
Above all, they want their peace of mind to know that people like us are easily subjugated when necessary and that we pose no threat to them either to speak ideas contrary to theirs or to physically have the ability to resist.
Not ever gonna happen while my blood is still in me and mine. That is a guarantee.
He insists we show 'responsibility' by acquiescing to tyranny and willingly comply with the act of turning an inalienable right into a government-granted privilege. A 'privilege' that is dependent upon our ability to comply with restrictions, taxation and licensure he is advocating BEFORE being granted the permission to exercise it by the state.
Like I said. I won't pay it no mind. I will continue to buy unpapered guns off the back of a truck, and ammo too, if the need arises. Uncle Nanny will never know. Ever.
What he doesn't get is that there will always be a truck. the only difference being that given his proclivities and my own, heck, I might just be driving it one day.
The fact Jazzhead trusts the state and is aghast we distrust the government while demonstrating outrage at the expression of the actual purpose of our gun rights, more than illustrates the fact he is an unmitigated liar when he says he is a Conservative.
He is nothing of the kind, even though he continues to insist he is one.
TRUE.
-
That is what the flamethrowing guys and gals have been trying to tell you on this entire thread. It's the polemical bellicosity of Patrick Henry and John Stark and William Barrett Travis attacking you all at once for so much as taking a soft stance on the intent and continuing importance of the 2nd Amendment.
That's right. Only with more emphasis.
Great post.
-
Jobs!
(To erect a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.)
Excellent point!
...covering our land with officers and opening our doors to their intrusions . . . beginning that process of domiciliary vexation which once entered is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of property and produce.
-
What would be comical if it weren't so deadly, is the attitude - the urban sophistry, the bare hubris accompanying the posts... Imagine the frame of mind that would assume his 'way', authored in an urban shithole, would be agreeable and work for me, two thousand miles away, and back up in the sticks. I'd like to leave him 50 miles off the gravel, with nothing but his wits, and see how long it took for the truth of things to hit him.
An interesting point, considering the original intent of the Constitution/BoR was to deal with the Federal government, not putting any restriction on state or local governments who might determine that restrictions on gun ownership were appropriate for their local conditions.
Then...our whole system was turned onto it's head.
-
An interesting point, considering the original intent of the Constitution/BoR was to deal with the Federal government, not putting any restriction on state or local governments who might determine that restrictions on gun ownership were appropriate for their local conditions.
Then...our whole system was turned onto it's head.
That's right. And true. To this very day, it is illegal to open carry in a logging camp in the state of Montana.
-
@Jazzhead
@Smoking Joe
@INVAR
@Sanguine
@Cyber Liberty
@libertybele
@aligncare
@roamer_1
@Bigun
Your first statement is actually correct, since it is at least theoretically possible that our guns will wind up getting seized. Thus, you are correct by very the definition/nature of God's protection, which special protection happens to be infallible. The God Whom you do not even profess to know is ultimately in complete control of everything.
I need to correct the above statement, produced as a response to Jazzhead's declaration that God is not protecting our gun rights. I agreed with Jazzhead. Now, I feel that I ought to change my statement as follows:
God has not promised to protect our gun rights (which is the main point that I wanted to make in agreement with Jazzhead). Moreover, our Creator has not protected our gun rights from the miscellaneous infringements that have been implemented against us (too numerous to list). Under these circumstances, we cannot presume that God will never allow a complete collapse of the 2nd Amendment or, for that matter, our entire Constitutional Republic. In short, we cannot dogmatically, simplistically say that He is protecting our gun rights.
The good news, on the other hand, is that our Creator has been protecting our most basic rights thus far. For that much, we can be thankful to Him.
-
I need to correct the above statement, produced as a response to Jazzhead's declaration that God is not protecting our gun rights. I agreed with Jazzhead. Now, I feel that I ought to change my statement as follows:
God has not promised to protect our gun rights (which is the main point that I wanted to make in agreement with Jazzhead). Moreover, our Creator has not protected our gun rights from the miscellaneous infringements that have been implemented against us (too numerous to list). Under these circumstances, we cannot presume that God will never allow a complete collapse of the 2nd Amendment or, for that matter, our entire Constitutional Republic. In short, we cannot dogmatically, simplistically say that He is protecting our gun rights.
The good news, on the other hand, is that our Creator has been protecting our most basic rights thus far. For that much, we can be thankful to Him.
Yes, we can.
-
I need to correct the above statement, produced as a response to Jazzhead's declaration that God is not protecting our gun rights. I agreed with Jazzhead. Now, I feel that I ought to change my statement as follows:
God has not promised to protect our gun rights (which is the main point that I wanted to make in agreement with Jazzhead). Moreover, our Creator has not protected our gun rights from the miscellaneous infringements that have been implemented against us (too numerous to list). Under these circumstances, we cannot presume that God will never allow a complete collapse of the 2nd Amendment or, for that matter, our entire Constitutional Republic. In short, we cannot dogmatically, simplistically say that He is protecting our gun rights.
The good news, on the other hand, is that our Creator has been protecting our most basic rights thus far. For that much, we can be thankful to Him.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" - Thomas Jefferson
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." - Patrick Henry
If our Founders understood that Liberty was the gift of God, and that liberty required vigilant and jealous safeguarding - it is obvious that God left the protection of our Rights and Liberties up to ourselves. Like the Ancient Israelites before us, we always had the ability to discard our liberties for the dominion of men over us rather than the governance of God. Our own Founding teaches us this. God did not just dump liberty in our laps without a fight to protect it from tyrants. We had to rise up to defend it each and every time it was threatened.
Now it is threatened from within, and by our own government empowered by a population who does not trust you or I with liberty. They trust only themselves and the government.
God has little to do with protecting our liberties other than keeping a Hedge about the nation. He left liberty up to us to safeguard that gift. It is up to us whether or not we surrender it to clever and devious men who have nefarious intent and pretend to be benefactors and peacemakers.
-
@Jazzhead
Finally! A breakthrough!
Yes...now you finally understand us. In fact, I will go one step further: if this country ever enacts some sort of bullshit like you’re spouting here...it is WAY beyond time to merely not comply. YOUR registration can only be enforced at the point of a gun...it will be YOU forcing the bloodbath which is why YOU need to volunteer to enforce this nonsense.
Now that you understand us, leave us and our means to prevent tyranny the f&@k alone.
@Axeslinger :amen: TESTIFY brother, I say TESTIFY!!!!!!
-
Perfectly stated. Distrusting the government is a long held Conservative and American tradition - A tradition I intend to honor.
Like every good country boy, everything I need is at least triplicated, and distributed. Let em come. I'll cede the ground... no sense dying for it... But then I'll walk off on up the holler and have it all right back again, with my family hidden away, and a big ol chip on my shoulder.
And history repeats... As it always does.
Don't come up the holler.
@roamer_1 finished processing the first bach of "Fire Cider" over the weekend. It bites going down.
-
And while you try to imply from Heller, the individual right to own a gun hangs on a single vote, reading dissenting opinions show that claim to be false.
In interpreting and applying this Amendment,
I take as a starting point the following four propositions,
based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I
believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual†right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and may be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.
BREYER, J., dissenting
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD1 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD1)
Page 3
@Jazzhead
Modified to ping you Jazzhead as there seems to be some confusion about the dissenting viewpoint from Heller
We must be reading different opinions, @thackney. Justice Breyer, on page 1, explicitly joins in Justice Stevens' opinion that "the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense related, interests. . . . But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern."
The passage you cited, btw, merely relates that the right is enforceable by individuals. BUT WHAT RIGHT? According to Justice Breyer, the right is concerned solely with militia-related objectives.
I'll say it again, with the understanding that whatever I say is poison and will be mocked, that it is myopic to assume that the 2A protects your natural right to self-defense. It does so only because of a SCOTUS decision that was far, far from unanimous. We possess the means to address that fragility, by means of the legislature or the Constitutional amendment process, to place the stamp of authority on the majority's opinion in Heller.
We had better do so while we still command GOP majorities. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
-
We must be reading different opinions, @thackney. Justice Breyer, on page 1, explicitly joins in Justice Stevens' opinion that "the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense related, interests. . . . But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern."
The passage you cited, btw, merely relates that the right is enforceable by individuals. BUT WHAT RIGHT? According to Justice Breyer, the right is concerned solely with militia-related objectives.
I'll say it again, with the understanding that whatever I say is poison and will be mocked, that it is myopic to assume that the 2A protects your natural right to self-defense. It does so only because of a SCOTUS decision that was far, far from unanimous. We possess the means to address that fragility, by means of the legislature or the Constitutional amendment process, to place the stamp of authority on the majority's opinion in Heller.
We had better do so while we still command GOP majorities. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
I
believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual†right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and may be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.
You seem to be skipping some of the words written by Justice Breyer.
-
@thackney, Justice Breyer is addressing a procedural point. The right may be individually possessed and individually enforceable, but that does not expand the right in his view to individual self-defense unrelated to the militia.
Indeed, he explicitly joined in Justice Stevens' opinion that the 2A does not relate to the individual, natural right of self-defense.
-
The militia is every single able-bodied male in the country.
Their right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.
-
@thackney, Justice Breyer is addressing a procedural point. The right may be individually possessed and individually enforceable, but that does not expand the right in his view to individual self-defense unrelated to the militia.
Indeed, he explicitly joined in Justice Stevens' opinion that the 2A does not relate to the individual, natural right of self-defense.
From the first page:
The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE
STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects
militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These
two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18thcentury
citizens that they could keep arms for militia
purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep
arms that they could have used for self-defense as well.
But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related
objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.
I can agree that the second amendment is not detached from a militia-related objective. As many of us has stated, it wasn't about hunting and it wasn't only about self defense. It was put in place to be a restriction of the power of the federal government. That all able body citizens can stand against a tyrannical government attack. And that is regardless if the attack is foreign or domestic.
This is part of why I could not support an attempt to modify the second amendment.
-
The militia is every single able-bodied male adult citizen in the country.
Their right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.
I don't think there is a right for non-citizens. And, we have decided that women are people too.
-
I don't think there is a right for non-citizens. And, we have decided that women are people too.
The Right extending to women and all citizens of the nation is self-evident, except to traitors and tyrants.
-
it is myopic to assume that the 2A protects your natural right to self-defense. It does so only because of a SCOTUS decision that was far, far from unanimous.
Actually Heller reinforces what is clearly written in the 2A and approved as part of the Bill of Rights.
Funny how you keep saying that there is no correlation between the natural right of self defense and the 2A and ignore some very important parts of the majority opinion that show you're premise is patently false.
Here...I'll put them out there for you again.
The Supreme Court held:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia†comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
-
The Right extending to women and all citizens of the nation is self-evident, except to traitors and tyrants.
Women, yes, non-citizens - no.
-
Women, yes, non-citizens - no.
Non-citizens have the same Natural Rights that we have. Our Constitution just does not protect their rights.
Our govt doesn't do a very good job of protecting Our Constitutional Rights.
-
Non-citizens have the same Natural Rights that we have. Our Constitution just does not protect their rights.
Our govt doesn't do a very good job of protecting Our Constitutional Rights.
Yes, you said that better than I did.
-
We must be reading different opinions, @thackney. Justice Breyer, on page 1, explicitly joins in Justice Stevens' opinion that "the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense related, interests. . . . But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern."
The passage you cited, btw, merely relates that the right is enforceable by individuals. BUT WHAT RIGHT? According to Justice Breyer, the right is concerned solely with militia-related objectives.
I'll say it again, with the understanding that whatever I say is poison and will be mocked, that it is myopic to assume that the 2A protects your natural right to self-defense. It does so only because of a SCOTUS decision that was far, far from unanimous. We possess the means to address that fragility, by means of the legislature or the Constitutional amendment process, to place the stamp of authority on the majority's opinion in Heller.
We had better do so while we still command GOP majorities. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
I agree with your analysis here regarding the Opinions, but I don't quite understand the bolded. "We" (and by that I mean the Republican Party) do posses a majority in Congress (albeit a tiny one in the Senate), but that is not nearly enough for the passage of a revised Second Amendment that more explicitly protects individual rights. And passage of the legislation to codify Heller could be reversed just as easily as we passed it the very next time the Democrats control the political branches. So a legislative "solution" really is just a temporary band-aid at best.
-
I agree with your analysis here, but I don't quite understand the bolded. "We" (and by that I mean the Republican Party) due posses a majority in Congress (albeit a tiny one in the Senate), but that is not nearly enough for the passage of a revised Second Amendment that more explicitly protects individual rights. And passage of the legislation to codify Heller could be reversed just as easily as we passed it the very next time the Democrats control the political branches. So a legislative "solution" really is just a temporary band-aid at best.
Our Rights do not come from the Parchment, and I will vehemently oppose any attempts made to ascribe them to the province of men and parchment.
The only effort I will support is one that simply directs the government: 'hands off - don't touch, you have no authority to meddle or otherwise regulate a Right' in any manner, shape or form. The people retain the right to self defense against any and all threats to liberty by any arms by which they see fit to supply themselves.'
-
Our Rights do not come from the Parchment, and I will vehemently oppose any attempts made to ascribe them to the province of men and parchment.
Well, I'm sure your vehement opposition -- as opposed to just the ordinary opposition of the rest of us mortals -- will surely carry the day.
Our natural rights don't come from parchment, but our legal ones do. And since I don't think the Creator is going to intervene personally to ensure that you or I aren't required to surrender our weapons, the legal stuff actually matters. Whether or not we choose to comply.
-
And, we have decided that women are people too.
Oh, say it ain't so!
-
@roamer_1 finished processing the first bach of "Fire Cider" over the weekend. It bites going down.
@verga
YEP :)
Now you have to roughly calculate your shots to estimate when you need to start your next pot... Not that you need to - I don't drink it year round - you've prolly enough to top off the spring flu season, and can leave off for the summer, so really just an exercise...
But come harvest, you'll need to start cooking another pot, and know your yield, to know when to start the next... it varies some, and you want enough.
Math is hard. **nononono*
-
Our Rights do not come from the Parchment, and I will vehemently oppose any attempts made to ascribe them to the province of men and parchment.
The only effort I will support is one that simply directs the government: 'hands off - don't touch, you have no authority to meddle or otherwise regulate a Right' in any manner, shape or form. The people retain the right to self defense against any and all threats to liberty by any arms by which they see fit to supply themselves.'
Although the Declaration of Independence is similar in some respects to the Magna Carta, our Founders did not cite it in the Declaration as a document that legally bound the Crown in their miserable case. The Founders were more concerned about unalienable rights than about legal rights.
They would not have cared to bicker with the Crown about the legality of their stand against gun-grabbling British troops at Lexington and Concord. So, if the Courts of our day eventually authorize gun confiscation, we still have the right to oppose the gun grabbers with those very guns, do we not?
\
Jefferson would say That's an idiotic question. Of course you do. Haven't you read the Declaration of Independence? Haven't you figured out why we bothered to codify our gun rights in the Constitution? It was to reassert a right that naturally already exists. It was to remind would-be murderers/tyrants that the United States will not tolerate incursions against our lives and liberty and therefore will not tolerate "misinterpretations" of this matter. (For that matter, I haven't you noticed the episode that triggered our War of Independence?)
There is no room for disagreement. A supposedly learned, reasonable SCOTUS Justice who misreads the 2nd Amendment is ideologically corrupt, is anti-American. Voting against the utterly plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment, demonstrated over and over on this thread, is not merely a matter of "We'll just have to agree to disagree." Voting against a clear reading of the 2nd Amendment is grounds for impeachment. FAST.
This is why our TBR stalwarts are throwing flames at members who do seem to endorse private ownership of firearms but who still think the 2nd Amendment is not already clear.
-
Actually Heller reinforces what is clearly written in the 2A and approved as part of the Bill of Rights.
Funny how you keep saying that there is no correlation between the natural right of self defense and the 2A and ignore some very important parts of the majority opinion that show you're premise is patently false.
You miss my point. I agree with Heller. I support Heller. But the Court's minority view - that the 2A has nothing to do with protecting the individual RKBA outside the militia context - remains potent because a reversal of Heller becomes a likely reality once the Dems control the Presidency and the Congress.
What I am suggesting is that we do something about it, and take steps to keep Heller from becoming a political football like Roe v. Wade has been for 40 years. Are you one who votes on the basis of appointing judges who will overturn the right to abortion? Well, congratulations, you're no different than millions who will be urged to vote Dem in 2020 in order to break the back of the 2A.
Court decisions tend to lack practical legitimacy when they do not have the support of the people. Codifying Heller will bestow that legitimacy, and make it that much harder for a future SCOTUS composed of Dem appointees from adopting the views of Justices Stevens and Breyer.
I see what is coming, folks.
-
Well, I'm sure your vehement opposition -- as opposed to just the ordinary opposition of the rest of us mortals -- will surely carry the day.
Funny. I get chastised for the offense of using the term 'we' when describing courses of action in opposition to these despotic schemes being suggested, and ridiculed for ascribing actionable predicates to myself.
I prefer to believe that the vehement opposition to any attempt made to make our rights the province of men is a 'we', but I concede that many do not have the stomach to be included in the supposition, therefore the 'I'.
-
Voting against the utterly plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment, demonstrated over and over on this thread, is not merely a matter of "We'll just have to agree to disagree." Voting against a clear reading of the 2nd Amendment is grounds for impeachment. FAST.
This is why our TBR stalwarts are throwing flames at members who do seem to endorse private ownership of firearms but who still think the 2nd Amendment is not already clear.
Utterly plain meaning? Nothing could be further from the truth. The 2A will be eviscerated as soon as there is a majority of Justices willing to do so. Scalia went out on a limb to declare the militia language to be merely prefatory. But that ignores centuries of statutory construction - CONSERVATIVE statutory construction, just ask Justice Thomas - that says you do simply ignore the plain language of the statute.
Scalia did not exercise "strict constructionism" in Heller. He found the individual RKBA based on his interpretation of a "living Constitution" no different than what Justice Blackmun did before him.
Scalia is correct, but not necessarily because the language of the 2A says so. He is correct because the Constitution protects our natural rights whether or not specifically enumerated in the document. But because he based his ruling on the supposed authority of the 2A, protection of the individual RKBA hangs by the thinnest of threads. The 2A contains all the language necessary for a liberal Court to declare that it has nothing to do with the individual right.
It is therefore imperative on Congress to place its stamp of authority on Heller.
-
I see what is coming, folks.
I would fully expect the driver of the bus to see what's coming.
-
I would fully expect the driver of the bus to see what's coming.
Keep it above 50 mph.
-
It is therefore imperative on Congress to place its stamp of authority on Heller.
No it is not imperative. It's a trap you're setting.
Doing so sets a precedent for Congress to ascribed itself the power to legislate Rights into and out of existence at it's own discretion.
Just as the courts have been handed that power by people like you.
No.
-
It is therefore imperative on Congress to place its stamp of authority on Heller.
Congress does not have the authority to modify any part of the constitution including the amendments. You know this; why pretend our slim majority makes a difference compared to what is required?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Constitutional_amendment_process_%28USA%29.png)
-
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.
https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm (https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm)
-
Utterly plain meaning? Nothing could be further from the truth. The 2A will be eviscerated as soon as there is a majority of Justices willing to do so.
A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G will be eviscerated as soon as there is a majority of justices willing to do so, as they have already proven - Constitution be damned. Congress be damned.
The only thing that stops that is a Congress jealous of its powers. Which, it isn't.
-
Congress does not have the authority to modify any part of the constitution including the amendments. You know this; why pretend our slim majority makes a difference compared to what is required?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Constitutional_amendment_process_%28USA%29.png)
And amendment to the Constitution is clearly preferable, @thackney. Except it's one of the hardest tasks to accomplish - heck, the most strident gun activists on this board don't want to attempt it.
But at a minimum, a law passed by Congress that codifies the holding in Heller that the individual RKBA is Constitutionally protected, and describes the level of scrutiny to be applied in addressing regulation of the right, would go a long way towards reining in the possibility of a future Dem-dominated SCOTUS from holding the 2A doesn't protect the individual right.
-
And amendment to the Constitution is clearly preferable, @thackney. Except it's one of the hardest tasks to accomplish - heck, the most strident gun activists on this board don't want to attempt it.
But at a minimum, a law passed by Congress that codifies the holding in Heller that the individual RKBA is Constitutionally protected, and describes the level of scrutiny to be applied in addressing regulation of the right, would go a long way towards reining in the possibility of a future Dem-dominated SCOTUS from holding the 2A doesn't protect the individual right.
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood your intent.
But I don't see how a Law passed by Congress would in anyway inhibit a a SCOTUS intent on taking that right of self-defense away. And it seems strengthen the argument that without the law, or when it is overturned, we don't have an inalienable right of self defense.
-
A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G will be eviscerated as soon as there is a majority of justices willing to do so, as they have already proven - Constitution be damned. Congress be damned.
The only thing that stops that is a Congress jealous of its powers. Which, it isn't.
Why should it be? It has over the decades surrendered it's responsibility to the Courts so its members would not have to face the wrath of their constituents. Keeps them in office for a career. The justices on the court do not give a damn because they are unaccountable and are on the bench for life. So if they have an ideological agenda to pursue - they can do so with impunity - while Congress dodges it's duties and hands it off to the judiciary. Symbiotic relationship that furthers the political agenda.
...a law passed by Congress that codifies the holding in Heller that the individual RKBA is Constitutionally protected, and describes the level of scrutiny to be applied in addressing regulation of the right, would go a long way towards reining in the possibility of a future Dem-dominated SCOTUS from holding the 2A doesn't protect the individual right.
Congress has no authority to legislate Rights into or out of existence. Neither has it the power to limit how SCOTUS looks at cases brought before it.
You are laying a trap by creating a hoped-for precedent of granting Congress the power to create inalienable rights, and to regulate and abolish them at it's own discretion.
No.
-
Why should it be? It has over the decades surrendered it's responsibility to the Courts so its members would not have to face the wrath of their constituents. Keeps them in office for a career. The justices on the court do not give a damn because they are unaccountable and are on the bench for life. So if they have an ideological agenda to pursue - they can do so with impunity - while Congress dodges it's duties and hands it off to the judiciary. Symbiotic relationship that furthers the political agenda.
Congress has no authority to legislate Rights into or out of existence. Neither has it the power to limit how SCOTUS looks at cases brought before it.
You are laying a trap by creating a hoped-for precedent of granting Congress the power to create inalienable rights, and to regulate and abolish them at it's own discretion.
No.
@INVAR
Perhaps you would care to explain the meaning of the highlighted text I excerpted from Article III below then.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
-
@verga
YEP :)
Now you have to roughly calculate your shots to estimate when you need to start your next pot... Not that you need to - I don't drink it year round - you've prolly enough to top off the spring flu season, and can leave off for the summer, so really just an exercise...
But come harvest, you'll need to start cooking another pot, and know your yield, to know when to start the next... it varies some, and you want enough.
Math is hard. **nononono*
@roamer_1 I am also using it to help with the Diabetes. Since I began taking it. my A1C went from a 7.2 down to a 6.9. I am expecting a further drop with my next checkup.
-
@INVAR
Perhaps you would care to explain the meaning of the highlighted text I excerpted from Article III below then.
I should have been specific in stating that Congress has no power to tell SCOTUS how it must rule in cases brought before it. Otherwise Congress would make itself the arbitrary power in the judiciary.
But Congress is not going to limit the court as it has the ability to do in matters of jurisdiction - because it defers TO the court for matters of absolving itself of responsibility for oversteps and breaches of Constitutionality.
-
I should have been specific in stating that Congress has no power to tell SCOTUS how it must rule in cases brought before it. Otherwise Congress would make itself the arbitrary power in the judiciary.
But Congress is not going to limit the court as it has the ability to do in matters of jurisdiction - because it defers TO the court for matters of absolving itself of responsibility for oversteps and breaches of Constitutionality.
@INVAR
Which is exactly 180 degrees removed from what the founders intended!
-
You miss my point. I agree with Heller. I support Heller. But the Court's minority view - that the 2A has nothing to do with protecting the individual RKBA outside the militia context - remains potent because a reversal of Heller becomes a likely reality once the Dems control the Presidency and the Congress.
The minority is just that. The minority. The dissenting opinion written by the people who drew the short end of the straw.
It's really kinda amazing to see you place such importance on the dissent on things you disagree with...like gun ownership. But you care not one whit about the dissent in things like Roe v. Wade or what Justice Scalia said in the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas when it's one of your pet Liberal causes.
But then again...that's par for the course for a Liberal.
What I am suggesting is that we do something about it, and take steps to keep Heller from becoming a political football like Roe v. Wade has been for 40 years
You're arguing for a fix something that isn't an issue or a problem. There have been far more Liberal courts that haven't overturned the 2A...even in the wake of the MLK and RFK assassinations the Warren Court NEVER considered what you're advocating for...and they'd have had a much better chance back then.
Roe has been a political football because new "rights" were created out of whole cloth where no right existed before. THAT is why it still a political football today.
In the case of the 2nd Amendment no new right has been created whether it's in Heller or any other lower court decision on gun ownership.
What has been reaffirmed by the MAJORITY decision...which is what you SHOULD focus on...is that the right to keep and bear arms AND the right to self defense are inexorably linked together and can not be separated.
Shall not be infringed. It's really that east and that clear and the Heller decision backs up that simple wording in the Bill of Rights.
Are you one who votes on the basis of appointing judges who will overturn the right to abortion? Well, congratulations, you're no different than millions who will be urged to vote Dem in 2020 in order to break the back of the 2A.
Nope I vote for judges...politicians in general ...hat will uphold the originalism text of the Constitution...not try to turn it into some "living document" in order to get around the restrictions it places on government to encroach on the rights of the citizens.
Court decisions tend to lack practical legitimacy when they do not have the support of the people.
And yet two of your pet court decisions don't have the support of the people...the MAJORITY of the people and yet you hold them up as black letter law that should never be challenged.
Codifying Heller will bestow that legitimacy, and make it that much harder for a future SCOTUS composed of Dem appointees from adopting the views of Justices Stevens and Breyer.
That's legalistic bullsh*t and you know it. Nothing could more plain and easy to understand than what is written in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States.
Your need to "codify" the Heller decision just opens it up to more political interpretation and the ability at some point for gun grabbers like yourself as a back to eventual gun confiscation.
Again you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and doesn't need fixing...certainly not by the Imperial Federal Government.
I see what is coming, folks.
What you see is a vast majority of people not bowing to the government and refusing all of the registration...insurance and "codifying" schemes you're pimping on here. They will simply not comply...myself and my family included.
And for someone who wants this country ruled by judicial fiat and the threat of legal action for non compliance...the thought of several million people who exercise their 2nd Amendment rights on a daily basis refusing to become a drone of the state scares the living crap out of you.
-
@roamer_1 I am also using it to help with the Diabetes. Since I began taking it. my A1C went from a 7.2 down to a 6.9. I am expecting a further drop with my next checkup.
Well, I'll be @verga ...
That's excellent... Let me know if that comes true... Really. It would be good to know that it actually effects diabetes... or maybe even cures. :shrug:
-
And amendment to the Constitution is clearly preferable, @thackney. Except it's one of the hardest tasks to accomplish - heck, the most strident gun activists on this board don't want to attempt it.
But at a minimum, a law passed by Congress that codifies the holding in Heller that the individual RKBA is Constitutionally protected, and describes the level of scrutiny to be applied in addressing regulation of the right, would go a long way towards reining in the possibility of a future Dem-dominated SCOTUS from holding the 2A doesn't protect the individual right.
The individual RKBA is already protected, by the 2nd Amendment.
It is a "...RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE...". That's pretty damn individual. That the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would somehow exclude their use in the practice of the natural right of self-defense is nonsensical, at best. Only the most ridiculous interpretations can find that a "right of the People" is anything but an individual Right as it is in other amendments which speak of an individual Right. That phrase doesn't become void in this one and not in that one, which is what the 'living Constitution' people try to assert.
It's so plain, people who don't 'get it' don't want to. They have another axe to grind (wait, axes are 'arms', too, if used thus).
Keep in mind, in that document limiting the power of the Federal Government, the people would indeed be protecting themselves, individually and as a community against the depredations of a standing Federal army either gone rogue or acting illegally to oppress. Defense against totalitarianism is self-defense, at its smallest unit. That is the most extreme instance of self-defense, but it is self-defense, regardless of the outcome.
-
I believe you are mixing up the claim that knives kill more than rifles, not guns. Even that claim is difficult due to the number of death by Firearms not identified.
(http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Screen-Shot-2018-02-19-at-12.04.28-PM.png)
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/knives-gun-control-fbi-statistics/ (http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/knives-gun-control-fbi-statistics/)
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12)
You are correct. It is rifles which are what is under attack by the registration livs and the 4x statistics apply to that.
-
Until Heller, the 2A addressed only the states' authority to maintain and regulate their militias. Until Heller, the 2A offered no protection of the right to individual self-defense.
Wrong once again.
The second amendment addresses what it addresses, and is clear.
It is only YOUR opinion that says that it addresses only a states' authority until Heller.
-
The minority is just that. The minority. The dissenting opinion written by the people who drew the short end of the straw.
It's really kinda amazing to see you place such importance on the dissent on things you disagree with...like gun ownership. But you care not one whit about the dissent in things like Roe v. Wade or what Justice Scalia said in the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas when it's one of your pet Liberal causes.
But then again...that's par for the course for a Liberal.
You keep missing my point. The minority opinion is important because it shows that the Heller ruling is vulnerable. The minority view is that the predicate clause limits the purpose of the 2A, and that the Founders did not intend the 2A to protect any "natural right" of self-defense outside the context of the states' well-regulated militias.
I agree with the result of the Heller decision, but I fear the reasoning - that the natural right is protected by the 2A- is vulnerable to being overturned. It is contrary to the 2A's plain language (Scalia concluded the predicate clause is merely prefatory, a most un-conservative approach to statutory interpretation), as well as the Founders' intent (see Prof. Epstein's article) that the 2A's purpose was to protect the States' right to maintain their militias from usurpation by the new Federal government.
The individual RKBA is, IMO, an unenumerated natural right that is protected by the Constitution in the same way it protects the unenumerated rights of privacy and self-determination. No, that's not what Heller says, but Heller's reliance on the 2A is disputed and can easily be overturned. It is that vulnerability that prompts me to advocate for codification of the right, to provide a sounder basis for the right than a flawed Second Amendment and its inconvenient predicate clause.
-
You keep missing my point. The minority opinion is important because it shows that the Heller ruling is vulnerable. The minority view is that the predicate clause limits the purpose of the 2A, and that the Founders did not intend the 2A to protect any "natural right" of self-defense outside the context of the states' well-regulated militias.
No I don't miss your point. It's just that your point is wrong. It's factually wrong...it's been demonstrated repeatedly by others here that you're point and your belief on what the 2nd Amendment means is wrong as well.
You're the one that seems to keep "missing the point".
I agree with the result of the Heller decision, but I fear the reasoning - that the natural right is protected by the 2A- is vulnerable to being overturned. It is contrary to the 2A's plain language (Scalia concluded the predicate clause is merely prefatory, a most un-conservative approach to statutory interpretation), as well as the Founders' intent (see Prof. Epstein's article) that the 2A's purpose was to protect the States' right to maintain their militias from usurpation by the new Federal government.
Your fear is self created and unnecessary. Again you're wanting to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
The individual RKBA is, IMO, an unenumerated natural right that is protected by the Constitution in the same way it protects the unenumerated rights of privacy and self-determination. No, that's not what Heller says, but Heller's reliance on the 2A is disputed and can easily be overturned. It is that vulnerability that prompts me to advocate for codification of the right, to provide a sounder basis for the right than a flawed Second Amendment and its inconvenient predicate clause.
Perhaps then you need a course from Hooked on Phonics. Or a remedial reading class. Because the right to keep and bear arms IS an enumerated right. In fact it's the second enumerated right of the first 10 enumerated rights in a little document called the Bill of Rights.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right of the people...the "people" being you and me.
There is no vulnerability...there is no need for codification or clarification. There is no more sounder basis for the citizen to be able to own and keep firearms on their person or in their house than what was written in the 2nd Amendment.
Keep talking in circles until your dizzy...it won't change the fact you're wrong...and that myself and others will continue to prove that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not only in the minority...both in legal reviews...judicial rulings as well as what's in the Constitution and what the vast majority of the population of this country believe the 2nd Amendment means and stands for...but it's in the minority here as well.
-
I don't get involved in these discussions, because frankly it doesn't matter what we think about it. Literally. What matters is the 9 members of the USSC, which is a huge reason why I voted Trump.
I know you may accuse me of wanting the USSC "Oligarchs" ruling over us, but I'm just stating the truth. Argue all day and night, even if you win, you still lose. What matters is getting good justices on the bench. That is what will affect gun rights at this point. Because you and I both know the left will not hesitate to judge their own opinions on gun regardless of the law/constitution.
-
You keep missing my point. The minority opinion is important because it shows that the Heller ruling is vulnerable. The minority view is that the predicate clause limits the purpose of the 2A, and that the Founders did not intend the 2A to protect any "natural right" of self-defense outside the context of the states' well-regulated militias.
I agree with the result of the Heller decision, but I fear the reasoning - that the natural right is protected by the 2A- is vulnerable to being overturned. It is contrary to the 2A's plain language (Scalia concluded the predicate clause is merely prefatory, a most un-conservative approach to statutory interpretation), as well as the Founders' intent (see Prof. Epstein's article) that the 2A's purpose was to protect the States' right to maintain their militias from usurpation by the new Federal government.
The entire Bill of Rights was supposed to limit only the federal government. State governments were perfectly free to limit free speech, religion, firearms etc.. And they did.
But that all changed with the passage of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War, and the subsequent adoption of the incorporation doctrine by the Supreme Court. So, while I'd agree that the Founders would have thought states could limit gun ownership any way they wanted, I think that gets tossed out the window with the 14th. With the incorporation doctrine from the 14th Amendment, the 2nd now limits state actions as well.
The individual RKBA is, IMO, an unenumerated natural right that is protected by the Constitution in the same way it protects the unenumerated rights of privacy and self-determination.
I disagree with this as well. The "rights" of "privacy" and "self-determination" should not be considered constitutional rights of any kind, unenumerated or otherwise. They are judge-created rights with absolutely no textual basis or support. I assume you disagree, so I'll frame it differently. The Constitution places no limitations or interpretative guidance at all on either the right to "privacy" or "self-determination", nor is there any common-law basis that could possibly serve as a guideline for how courts should interpret those "rights".
What all that means is that if you consider the "right of privacy" and the "right of self-determination" to be unenumerated Constitutional rights, then you have to assume that the Founders chose to give the third most powerful branch (in their view), the unfettered right to define and enforce those completely undefined rights without any Constitutional or other guidance whatsoever, other than the personal whims of individual judges. I think that's completely at odds with our Constitutional structure.
-
I don't get involved in these discussions, because frankly it doesn't matter what we think about it. Literally. What matters is the 9 members of the USSC, which is a huge reason why I voted Trump.
I know you may accuse me of wanting the USSC "Oligarchs" ruling over us, but I'm just stating the truth. Argue all day and night, even if you win, you still lose. What matters is getting good justices on the bench. That is what will affect gun rights at this point. Because you and I both know the left will not hesitate to judge their own opinions on gun regardless of the law/constitution.
Bingo - because if the Dems can appoint their own to the SCOTUS, they will overrule Heller. Txradioguy says I'm wrong. Believe me, I wish I were.
But is this really the way we want to proceed as a nation? For 40 years right and left have skirmished over the Supreme Court and the right's desire (and the left's fear) that a change in the Court will do away with the abortion right. Do we want to continue this same polarization and politicization of the Court on the issue of the gun right?
That is the primary reason I advocate that the Heller decision be codified by the People.
-
But is this really the way we want to proceed as a nation? For 40 years right and left have skirmished over the Supreme Court and the right's desire (and the left's fear) that a change in the Court will do away with the abortion right. Do we want to continue this same polarization and politicization of the Court on the issue of the gun right?
That is the primary reason I advocate that the Heller decision be codified by the People.
Exactly how do you foresee the Democrats having the power to appoint and confirm anti-Second Amendment justices, but not have the power to overturn the codification you believe will protect us if that happens?
Also, I'd add this -- I think it very likely that a Court willing to overturn Heller would be willing to read any codification of Heller as a violation of the commerce clause/infringing on state prerogatives. Essentially, they'd use the reasoning of the original Gun Free School Zones Act to say that the Feds cannot mandate that states permit people to own/carry guns. Sure, it'd be a dishonest, sketchy argument, but I don't think that would stop them for a moment.
In other words, if they get 5 anti-Second Amendment/anti-gun justices on the Supreme Court, there's no federal legal protection that could actually protect gun owners.
-
What all that means is that if you consider the "right of privacy" and the "right of self-determination" to be unenumerated Constitutional rights, then you have to assume that the Founders chose to give the third most powerful branch (in their view), the unfettered right to define and enforce those completely undefined rights without any Constitutional or other guidance whatsoever, other than the personal whims of individual judges. I think that's completely at odds with our Constitutional structure.
The individual RKBA (outside the militia context) is also, IMO, an un-enumerated natural right. If you subscribe to the idea that human beings have natural rights, are you comfortable with the notion that the Constitution protects only those rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution? Because if you are, the stakes in upholding Heller have just gotten greater. Overrule Heller, and the 2A provides for NO enumerated protection of the basic right of self-defense unconnected with the militia. And since in your view the natural right cannot be protected, it can be taken away, by either the federal government or by the states.
I therefore disagree with you, and accept the idea that the Constitution protects un-enumerated natural rights of man. Yes, that view leads to the protection of the abortion right, but it also permits the right to self-defense to be protected notwithstanding the 2A's limitation by the predicate clause. It also permits that protection to be extended vis a vis the states by means of the incorporation doctrine. If you don't take that view, then the entire right dies as soon as the Dems assemble a Court majority to overrule Heller. Gone. Kaput. Bye-bye.
-
I just wish everyone would just put @Jazzhead on ignore. (I’m only officially pinging you out of courtesy...please don’t bother to reply, you have NOTHING useful to say)
He’s the single most disruptive member on this board...deliberately obtuse, deliberately incapable of acknowledging any of the facts laid out before him. The sooner he is fully ignored, the sooner he will leave and go troll somewhere else.
-
Some of those posting here on this thread need to remember that there are 9 other amendments in the Bill of Rights outside the Second. This one seems appropriate to mention at the moment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-
The individual RKBA (outside the militia context) is also, IMO, an un-enumerated natural right. If you subscribe to the idea that human beings have natural rights, are you comfortable with the notion that the Constitution protects only those rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
Comfortable? No. But whether or not I'm "comfortable" with what the Constitution said doesn't change what it actually did say.
The truth is that "notion" isn't as simple as you're portraying it. The starting point of the analysis is that the Constitution limited only the federal government, and that the Bill of Rights only limited the actions of the federal government. I assume we at least agree with that, right? And that the states had the acknowledged right to pass laws regulating religions, speech, etc.. That is basic hornbook law, openly acknowledged by the Supreme Court right up through the Civil War. Right?
It also is generally understood that the Bill of Rights was, to many, considered somewhat redundant. The Constitution was viewed as creating a government of limited, enumerated powers only, and therefore the federal government didn't have the right to do the things listed in the Bill of Rights anyway. But some delegates wanted it to be even more explicitly limited, so they added the Bill of Rights. The point of the Ninth and Tenth was to ensure that the Bill of Rights wasn't used as a wedge to essentially argue backwards that it gave the Federal Government more power. In other words, "natural rights" were protected not by the Bill of Rights, but by the foundational limitations of a government that was limited only to strictly enumerated powers.
So the point is this -- from very beginning of this country, states were permitted, and did, take actions that violated even Constitutionally-enumerated rights. Therefore, the idea that there were some "hidden", unenumerated rights in the Constitution is preposterous. The Framers openly didn't protect any such rights, right from the start of the country. Those rights simply did not exist in the Constitution. There is no rational argument that they did given that states were freely permitted to "violate" them.
Because if you are, the stakes in upholding Heller have just gotten greater. Overrule Heller, and the 2A provides for NO enumerated protection of the basic right of self-defense unconnected with the militia. And since in your view the natural right cannot be protected, it can be taken away, by either the federal government or by the states.
The natural right isn't extinguished, though the legal right may be. That is simply the reality of our Constitutional/legal structure, not a moral judgment about what is preferable to me personally.
I disagree with you, and accept the idea that the Constitution protects un-enumerated natural rights of man. Yes, that view leads to the protection of the abortion right, but it also permits the right to self-defense to be protected notwithstanding the 2A's limitation by the predicate clause. It also permits that protection to be extended vis a vis the states by means of the incorporation doctrine. If you don't take that view, then the entire right dies as soon as the Dems assemble a Court majority to overrule Heller.
You didn't address the incongruity of the Founders believing in giving the Courts zero guidance, boundaries, or standards, to enforce upon the states their vision of what other "rights" should be protected.
-
Some of those posting here on this thread need to remember that there are 9 other amendments in the Bill of Rights outside the Second. This one seems appropriate to mention at the moment.
That is not an affirmative protection of unenumerated rights. It is a recognition that the Federal Government had strictly limited powers, beyond which it was not permitted to go. States were free to "violate" any rights they wanted, even after the Constitution was ratified.
I don't know if people forget that, or just never knew it.
-
Some of those posting here on this thread need to remember that there are 9 other amendments in the Bill of Rights outside the Second. This one seems appropriate to mention at the moment.
But without the Second...there is no protection real or otherwise for the other 9.
-
But without the Second...there is no protection real or otherwise for the other 9.
Sure there is. I saw it posted on this thread impartial Judges will protect us from the predations of the government. Relax. *****rollingeyes*****
-
The argument for the Second Amendment should be pretty simple. If you take the Second Amendment to mean what the "militia" people say it means, then the Federal Government should have had the right to ban individual ownership of arms, but permitted states to maintain their own armories. Nobody in their right mind thought the Feds could do that. So, at least from the Federal perspective, Congress didn't have the power to regulate individual ownership of guns either. Also, as Scalia pointed out in Heller, the use of the words "the People" rather than "the States" also is proof that it was an individual right being protected from federal regulation. The states could (and did) limit guns, though.
When the 14th Amendment was passed, part of it read "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". When this was passed, the above-described prohibition against the federal government regulating individual gun ownership -- along with the federal prohibitions against speech laws, laws restricting religion, etc. -- became binding on state governments as well. That's why the Second Amendment should now apply to states governments as well, and so protect the rights of individuals completely.
-
I just wish everyone would just put @Jazzhead on ignore. (I’m only officially pinging you out of courtesy...please don’t bother to reply, you have NOTHING useful to say)
He’s the single most disruptive member on this board...deliberately obtuse, deliberately incapable of acknowledging any of the facts laid out before him. The sooner he is fully ignored, the sooner he will leave and go troll somewhere else.
:tongue2:
-
Argue all day and night, even if you win, you still lose. What matters is getting good justices on the bench.
Sad travesty that so many have accepted an absolute aberration of governance as legitimate. That anyone would accept the lie that our inalienable rights hang by the decision of one justice on a court, speaks to the reality that this Republic is already dead in the minds and hearts of a huge swath of the population.
-
The argument for the Second Amendment should be pretty simple. If you take the Second Amendment to mean what the "militia" people say it means, then the Federal Government should have had the right to ban individual ownership of arms, but permitted states to maintain their own armories. Nobody in their right mind thought the Feds could do that. So, at least from the Federal perspective, Congress didn't have the power to regulate individual ownership of guns either. Also, as Scalia pointed out in Heller, the use of the words "the People" rather than "the States" also is proof that it was an individual right being protected from federal regulation. The states could (and did) limit guns, though.
When the 14th Amendment was passed, part of it read "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". When this was passed, the above-described prohibition against the federal government regulating individual gun ownership -- along with the federal prohibitions against speech laws, laws restricting religion, etc. -- became binding on state governments as well. That's why the Second Amendment should now apply to states governments as well, and so protect the rights of individuals completely.
I agree that the 14th amendment changed the game - prior thereto, the sovereign states were constrained only by their own constitutions with respect to acknowledging and protecting individual "rights". With the 14th, rights protected by the Federal constitution became binding on state governments as well.
So the broader issue is whether the Federal Constitution protects un-enumerated as well as enumerated individual rights. Whether you agree or not, the SCOTUS has expanded the Constitution's reach to protect natural rights not enumerated therein. To me that's a good thing - why should the state forbid a couple from practicing contraception? And, likewise, why should the state make it impossible for a citizen to have the means to protect his home from intruders? To me, the "living Constitution" has expanded the protection of human liberty from encroachment by the state.
The narrow issue here is whether the individual RKBA is an enumerated or un-enumerated right. Heller says the former, and I believe that ruling stands on very fragile ground, and will likely be overruled in future years. But the right can still be protected as an un-enumerated right. Will a liberal SCOTUS agree? That's the risk - and the reason I favor taking measures now to codify the right by statute or Constitutional amendment.
Can a future Congress override such a statutory codification? Sure - which is why I'd prefer a Constitutional amendment. But the process of revoking a statute is very different than overturning a court decision. The former requires the action of the peoples' elected representatives, who must ultimately account to the voters for their decision. The overturning of a court decision is made solely by unelected judges. And while the codification remains on the books, it represents a practical check to the behavior of a court, since most judges recognize their job is to interpret and apply the law, not second-guess political decisions.
-
:tongue2:
I hope you don't go away. I've learned a lot debating with you. I don't think you've changed my mind on any position.
However, without a doubt I've become more informed on issues that are important to me. You have caused me to research more and I have learned quite a bit in the process.
I'm not looking for a forum that is only an echo chamber of "Yah! Me too!"
-
I hope you don't go away. I've learned a lot debating with you. I don't think you've changed my mind on any position.
However, without a doubt I've become more informed on issues that are important to me. You have caused me to research more and I have learned quite a bit in the process.
I'm not looking for a forum that is only an echo chamber of "Yah! Me too!"
NOr am I. However I have zero use for fools who repeat the same nonsensical crap over and over ad nauseum refusing to acknowledge ANY other facts that are shown over and over and over...as if the mere repetition of their nonsense will be enough to sway others to their proven faulty position. People like that are merely useful idiots and in this case threats to our liberty...no matter how eloquently they try to spout their nonsense.
-
NOr am I. However I have zero use for fools who repeat the same nonsensical crap over and over ad nauseum refusing to acknowledge ANY other facts that are shown over and over and over...as if the mere repetition of their nonsense will be enough to sway others to their proven faulty position. People like that are merely useful idiots and in this case threats to our liberty...no matter how eloquently they try to spout their nonsense.
What "facts" (as opposed to mere opinions) have I "refused to acknowledge over and over again."
Thackney says I've never persuaded him to change his opinion. That's fine - for most of us, we tend to stand firm in our opinions. I'm sure I've changed a few of my opinions over the years based on discussion and information posted on this board. And I continue to have an open mind. Indeed, my view of the 2A's historical purpose was recently changed and clarified by Prof. Epstein's article linked to on this thread. However, that article reinforced by view that Heller is hanging by a thread and needs to be codified because the 2A's plain language, read in the context of the rest of the Constitution's pronouncements regarding the militia as explained by Prof. Epstein, simply does not support protection of the individual RKBA.
-
Go reread your own friggin comments over the last 631 comments on this damn thread and, hell, EVERY 2A thread on this forum
You’ll find the same gag inducing catch phrases repeated ad nauseum. We ain’t buying your bullshit Jazz...feel free to stay, but you might win a few more friends and influence a few more people if you start trying to sell your bullshit elsewhere. We are all tired of reading your fact challenged bullshit.
-
I just wish everyone would just put @Jazzhead on ignore. (I’m only officially pinging you out of courtesy...please don’t bother to reply, you have NOTHING useful to say)
He’s the single most disruptive member on this board...deliberately obtuse, deliberately incapable of acknowledging any of the facts laid out before him. The sooner he is fully ignored, the sooner he will leave and go troll somewhere else.
Quick translation of @Axeslinger 's post: Dear Briefers ~ Please put @Jazzhead on ignore so he finally leaves the forum. I'm damn tired of losing *every* debate point to him. XOXO from your Axe
-
Go reread your own friggin comments over the last 631 comments on this damn thread and, hell, EVERY 2A thread on this forum
You’ll find the same gag inducing catch phrases repeated ad nauseum. We ain’t buying your bullshit Jazz...feel free to stay, but you might win a few more friends and influence a few more people if you start trying to sell your bullshit elsewhere. We are all tired of reading your fact challenged bullshit.
What "facts" are you referring to? Your profanity-laced posts constitute opinions, not facts.
And why don't you take your own advice and put me on ignore? Stop responding to my posts - you'll feel much better for it. :tongue2:
-
Quick translation of @Axeslinger 's post: Dear Briefers ~ Please put @Jazzhead on ignore so he finally leaves the forum. I'm damn tired of losing *every* debate point to him. XOXO from your Axe
That's a fun revelation that illustrates your agreement with the anti-gun tyranny-advocating arguments our resident Commie-Lib-Statist has been suggesting.
More proof that the people IN the Republican party are as indistinguishable from Democrats as their leadership is.
-
Quick translation of @Axeslinger 's post: Dear Briefers ~ Please put @Jazzhead on ignore so he finally leaves the forum. I'm damn tired of losing *every* debate point to him. XOXO from your Axe
Oh look @Right_in_Virginia must’ve got a private message to come save JH. Go read the whole thread dear and then get back to me. The only thing @Jazzhead has done is prove he is another anti-freedom statist.
-
What "facts" are you referring to? Your profanity-laced posts constitute opinions, not facts.
And why don't you take your own advice and put me on ignore? Stop responding to my posts - you'll feel much better for it. :tongue2:
Your whole damn argument is nothing but opinion and you ignore every fact put in front of you!
-
Your whole damn argument is nothing but opinion and you ignore every fact put in front of you!
Bite me, statist.
What facts have I ignored? Do you know the difference between opinions and facts?
-
Quick translation of @Axeslinger 's post: Dear Briefers ~ Please put @Jazzhead on ignore so he finally leaves the forum. I'm damn tired of losing *every* debate point to him. XOXO from your Axe
:cool:
-
This is so far off topic I don't think it can be gotten back on track. We'll give it a few more comments to see.
-
Oh look @Right_in_Virginia must’ve got a private message to come save JH. Go read the whole thread dear and then get back to me. The only thing @Jazzhead has done is prove he is another anti-freedom statist.
@Axeslinger some people here tend to apply the philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
That's true in this case.
-
What facts have I ignored? Do you know the difference between opinions and facts?
Indeed we DO! We've ben offering facts and you've bene offering opinion.
-
This is so far off topic I don't think it can be gotten back on track. We'll give it a few more comments to see.
IMO - The topic thread is retired Justice Stevens' op-ed calling for repeal of the 2A. Stevens is also the author of one of the dissenting opinions in Heller, and therefore represents the perspective that Heller was wrongly decided. The discussion, IMO, remains on-topic - whether Heller is indeed on fragile ground and whether conservatives should try to codify Heller to bolster its legitimacy.
-
Indeed we DO! We've ben offering facts and you've bene offering opinion.
Again - what "facts" have I ignored?
-
Again - what "facts" have I ignored?
The words Shall Not Be Infringed for starters.
-
IMO - The topic thread is retired Justice Stevens' op-ed calling for repeal of the 2A. Stevens is also the author of one of the dissenting opinions in Heller, and therefore represents the perspective that Heller was wrongly decided. The discussion, IMO, remains on-topic - whether Heller is indeed on fragile ground and whether conservatives should try to codify Heller to bolster its legitimacy.
Nice try. There is one person still beating Heller's dead horse. We've all heard the arguments over a dozen times now. I wouldn't blame Mod1 if he just junks this right now, it's toast.
-
I got a $20 that says this trainwreck thread will outlive Stevens himself.
-
The words Shall Not Be Infringed for starters.
Don't forget "...of the People...", either, which denotes an individual Right.
From there, the idea that one would have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but only not in self-defense, is as ludicrous as it appears. Heller was only an issue because the DC Government was stupid enough to make such an assertion against a natural and unalienable Right. That the issue had not been before the SCOTUS before only is a measure of how far the Republic has presently slid into the abyss.
-
Again - what "facts" have I ignored?
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense
-
Oh look @Right_in_Virginia must’ve got a private message to come save JH. Go read the whole thread dear and then get back to me. The only thing @Jazzhead has done is prove he is another anti-freedom statist.
I get such a kick out of counting the myriad ways you can be wrong.
Please don't stop posting @Axeslinger ... you tickle my funny bone! 88devil
-
I got a $20 that says this trainwreck thread will outlive Stevens himself.
ROFL!!! :silly:
You are on a roll today @Frank Cannon
-
The words Shall Not Be Infringed for starters.
As well as the facts of all the instances where gun registration has led to confiscation.
Lawyers love opinions, not facts.
-
As well as the facts of all the instances where gun registration has led to confiscation.
Lawyers love opinions, not facts.
And what of the facts of all the MANY instances where gun registration has NOT led to confiscation?
It is OPINION, not fact, that registration is a slippery slope to confiscation. But what we ought to be able to agree on is the need to fix the Second Amendment so that the Constitution can effectively stand as a bulwark against such slippery slope. And yes, that's my opinion.
-
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense
Yes, those are the facts of the majority holding in Heller. But I've never had an issue with the holding, only its fragility given the dissenting opinions and the goal of the Democrats to appoint Court members who will, when the issue is before it again, follow the dissent's view that the predicate clause is not merely prefatory.
-
It is OPINION, not fact, that registration is a slippery slope to confiscation.
And Satan would have everyone believe he doesn't exist either.
...follow the dissent's view that the predicate clause is not merely prefatory.
F*ck the dissenting view. It's worthless as you yourself have claimed in cases involving abortion and the dissent in ObamaCare's mandate.
-
And what of the facts of all the MANY instances where gun registration has NOT led to confiscation?
Please by all means show us the long lists of places where registration hasn't lead to confiscation.
It is OPINION, not fact, that registration is a slippery slope to confiscation.
That right there is 100% pure blind and willful ignorance to the long list of countries you've been shown...not to mention a couple of states in the U.S. repeatedly...where registration has led to confiscation.
-
That right there is 100% pure blind and willful ignorance to the long list of countries you've been shown...not to mention a couple of states in the U.S. repeatedly...where registration has led to confiscation.
Deerfield, IL right now.
-
F*ck the dissenting view. It's worthless as you yourself have claimed in cases involving abortion and the dissent in ObamaCare's mandate.
It's worthless unless and until the composition of the Court changes. SoCons have been agitating for forty years now to change the composition of the Court for the specific purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade. If the Dems win the Presidency in 2020 (something you yourself have been long working for), and a couple of SCOTUS members die or resign, than say goodbye to Heller and goodbye to the Constitution's protection of your gun right.
-
If the Dems win the Presidency in 2020 (something you yourself have been long working for)....
Knock it off. Nobody here is trying to help the Dems.
-
And what of the facts of all the MANY instances where gun registration has NOT led to confiscation?
It is OPINION, not fact, that registration is a slippery slope to confiscation. But what we ought to be able to agree on is the need to fix the Second Amendment so that the Constitution can effectively stand as a bulwark against such slippery slope. And yes, that's my opinion.
I have repeatedly asked you to provide those examples where registration has not led to confiscation. Numerous examples, foreign and domestic exist which refute that concept and show that registration ultimately leads to confiscation of privately held firearms. So, Have at it. Let's have that list of MANY instances where it hasn't (yet).
The Second Amendment exists for the sole purpose of keeping the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms free of government interference, because its purpose was to ensure that the people retained their power by being capable of altering or abolishing that government if it became abusive and it became necessary. In the 18th century, the carrying and possession of arms for other lawful purposes such as self defense and hunting was a given, so universally understood there was no need to codify such. it was, after all "common sense". (As John Prine put it, "Common sense ain't so common any more.")
In the federalist Papers, it is laid out in the discussion of the standing federal Army, that while each State had its own army (Militia, in the parlance of the day), the Federal Army should be large enough to defend our States' mutual borders, to intervene in military conflicts between any of the several states, but small enough as to not be able to overwhelm the combined efforts of all of the states. While much of that structure was changed due to the War of Northern Aggression, the principle remained that that Federal Army (or any of the States' armies) would be held in check from becoming instruments of tyrannical oppression by the sheer force of arms which could be mustered by the population at large, which by force of individual arms and overwhelming numbers, even in the absence of martial training, would be enough to deter such attempts at that tyrannical imposition.
For that purpose, the 2nd Amendment was crafted, that the People could regulate (control) the actions of the Government, not vice-versa, and that the government would not interfere with that ability.
All that need be done for the Constitution to act as a bulwark against the slippery slope is to quit greasing that slope with the mindless drivel of those who would disarm us all, for whatever motive, with the inevitable (even if unintended) consequence of totalitarian oppression. Liberals are famous for not thinking things out, for having starry-eyed theories that ignore salient points which inevitably have disastrous and unforeseen (by the liberals) results, when implemented. The social experiment of LBJ's Great Society is a textbook case, if the liberals were honest enough to print it for what it is. There is no reason to believe the loose manure of liberalism will in any way improve upon the traction on the slope of social decline, and the meaning of the Founders and their intent is plain for any who wish to read it.
-
I have repeatedly asked you to provide those examples where registration has not led to confiscation. Numerous examples, foreign and domestic exist which refute that concept and show that registration ultimately leads to confiscation of privately held firearms. So, Have at it. Let's have that list of MANY instances where it hasn't (yet).
The Second Amendment exists for the sole purpose of keeping the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms free of government interference, because its purpose was to ensure that the people retained their power by being capable of altering or abolishing that government if it became abusive and it became necessary. In the 18th century, the carrying and possession of arms for other lawful purposes such as self defense and hunting was a given, so universally understood there was no need to codify such. it was, after all "common sense". (As John Prine put it, "Common sense ain't so common any more.")
In the federalist Papers, it is laid out in the discussion of the standing federal Army, that while each State had its own army (Militia, in the parlance of the day), the Federal Army should be large enough to defend our States' mutual borders, to intervene in military conflicts between any of the several states, but small enough as to not be able to overwhelm the combined efforts of all of the states. While much of that structure was changed due to the War of Northern Aggression, the principle remained that that Federal Army (or any of the States' armies) would be held in check from becoming instruments of tyrannical oppression by the sheer force of arms which could be mustered by the population at large, which by force of individual arms and overwhelming numbers, even in the absence of martial training, would be enough to deter such attempts at that tyrannical imposition.
For that purpose, the 2nd Amendment was crafted, that the People could regulate (control) the actions of the Government, not vice-versa, and that the government would not interfere with that ability.
All that need be done for the Constitution to act as a bulwark against the slippery slope is to quit greasing that slope with the mindless drivel of those who would disarm us all, for whatever motive, with the inevitable (even if unintended) consequence of totalitarian oppression. Liberals are famous for not thinking things out, for having starry-eyed theories that ignore salient points which inevitably have disastrous and unforeseen (by the liberals) results, when implemented. The social experiment of LBJ's Great Society is a textbook case, if the liberals were honest enough to print it for what it is. There is no reason to believe the loose manure of liberalism will in any way improve upon the traction on the slope of social decline, and the meaning of the Founders and their intent is plain for any who wish to read it.
(http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1850965/Orson-welles-clapping.gif)
-
So the broader issue is whether the Federal Constitution protects un-enumerated as well as enumerated individual rights.
Right -- and the problem is there is absolutely no plausible, remotely objective method for judges to identify those unenumerated rights.
Given that the Federal Government was supposed to be a government of strictly limited, enumerated powers only, it was barred from doing almost everything except those things for which it was granted express authority. So what are we supposed to do -- assume that everything it couldn't do from day one is an "unenumerated right?", then incorporate them as limitations on the states by the 14th Amendment? That clearly can't be the right answer, because then states couldn't really do anything. So what you end up with is judges deciding -- based on nothing more than their own personal morality -- what these unenumerated -- but "fundamental" -- legal rights are.
Whether you agree or not, the SCOTUS has expanded the Constitution's reach to protect natural rights not enumerated therein.
I don't agree, though I realize that SCOTUS has indeed done that with respect to a relatively few rights in cases I believe were wrongly decided. But that is no excuse to make a bad situation worse, and encourage the Supreme Court to keep doing the same and inventing even more unenumerated rights as it sees fit. Because we're starting to see that now with lower courts inventing new "rights" to shut down completely Constitutional actions by the President, simply because they don't like them. And the very next step -- and we're not far from it at all now -- is for the Supreme Court to start recognizing unenumerated positive rights, like "the right to a college education", the "right to housing" the "right to freedom to cross borders", etc., etc. etc.. And at that point, we'll have lost our Republic, and essentially be ruled by judges rather than by elected representatives.
To me that's a good thing - why should the state forbid a couple from practicing contraception? And, likewise, why should the state make it impossible for a citizen to have the means to protect his home from intruders? To me, the "living Constitution" has expanded the protection of human liberty from encroachment by the state.
And to me, that is an absolutely terrible thing. It amounts to saying you'd rather have judges deciding what our rights are than...us.
And honestly, I can't believer you played the Griswold/contraceptive card. You do realize that case was a complete set-up, right? That the law wasn't enforced because it wasn't supported by the people anyway, so they had to stage an arrest with a compliant DA to create a court case to challenge the law? The solution already is built in to our system. When "the people" truly want to recognize a completely new right, they'll do it via legislation or some other representative means. What you want is for judges to make up new rights even when most people don't support them. That is fundamentally undemocratic.
The narrow issue here is whether the individual RKBA is an enumerated or un-enumerated right. Heller says the former, and I believe that ruling stands on very fragile ground, and will likely be overruled in future years. But the right can still be protected as an un-enumerated right. Will a liberal SCOTUS agree? That's the risk -
Oh come on. You can't possibly believe there is any chance in Hades that a liberal SCOTUS would strike down Heller, but then recognize an individual right as an "unenumerated right". Nobody thinks that is remotely possible -- it is a non-issue.
ETA: I have to add here that the argument that the individual legal right should be found not in the Second Amendment, but as an "un-enumerated right" is just horrible as a basic matter of legal reasoning. We already have an Amendment, the Second, that deals squarely with the right to keep and bear arms. If you're going to assume that the Framers did not intend that Amendment to protect individual gun owners from the federal government, but rather only state militias, then you'd actually be going against their intention by deciding that they really meant to protect that right as an "unenumerated" right. The Second was the clear place to protect individual gun rights, so if it isn't there (which I think it is), then inventing it out of nothing can't be justified.
But the process of revoking a statute is very different than overturning a court decision. The former requires the action of the peoples' elected representatives, who must ultimately account to the voters for their decision.
Striking down Heller doesn't accomplish anything on its own. You'd still need legislative bodies to pass actual gun control laws. And the only way those legislative bodies are going to pass those laws is if they are already willing to be accountable to the voters in the passage of those restrictions. You're literally accomplishing nothing because as soon as they have the votes to pass gun restrictions, they inherently have the votes to overturn/amend your codification of Heller. Seriously, think about what you're saying here. Congress isn't going to pass a new gun control law because of the codification of Heller? That makes zero sense.
And while the codification remains on the books, it represents a practical check to the behavior of a court, since most judges recognize their job is to interpret and apply the law, not second-guess political decisions.
Unless those decisions are about contraception, abortion, immigration, trannies in the military, or any other political decision with which activists judges who believe in a "Living Constitution" happen to disagree.
-
And what of the facts of all the MANY instances where gun registration has NOT led to confiscation?
It is OPINION, not fact, that registration is a slippery slope to confiscation. But what we ought to be able to agree on is the need to fix the Second Amendment so that the Constitution can effectively stand as a bulwark against such slippery slope. And yes, that's my opinion.
And where exactly are those factual episodes you are referring to? You blurt it out, yet do not prove the case before you.
Are you suggesting because there are instances of a gross injustice NOT being done for a course of action is rationale for claiming that course of action is lawful?
EG - because a bullet fired from a gun aimed at you happens to not hit you means that the threat of homicide was not being contemplated?
Poor methods, Counselor.
-
@Smokin Joe
Fear not, that silly fool will continue to ignore your question. Just like he will continue to ignore all of the many statements that we have made that our 2A rights come from GOD and we don’t rightly care what a court of man says it is. For when that court of man opts to restrict that right, indeed “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it†and now that silly fool will state that we not he are pushing for a bloodbath.
-
@Smokin Joe
Fear not, that silly fool will continue to ignore your question. Just like he will continue to ignore all of the many statements that we have made that our 2A rights come from GOD and we don’t rightly care what a court of man says it is. For when that court of man opts to restrict that right, indeed “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it†and now that silly fool will state that we not he are pushing for a bloodbath.
Ironically, the people pushing for a bloodbath are those seeking to take the arms from their lawful owners. Changing the law does not alter that equation.
I wonder what his reaction would be if someone were to decide that someone with HIV/AIDS is a 'deadly weapon', with a 'large capacity magazine' and that they cannot be allowed to continue to walk about in society. (1.3 million infected and growing in the US alone). At least Newton's laws of motion and inertia will predict how my firearm will behave when I am not around.
-
Ironically, the people pushing for a bloodbath are those seeking to take the arms from their lawful owners.
Such malarkey. Keep your damn guns. Collect as many as you want. Just register them so sales and dispositions can be documented, and you're incented to report them if stolen. It is no great imposition to require you to be responsible for the guns you choose to own. It is not "infringement". It is not "confiscation". It is you being a responsible member of the community.
-
our 2A rights come from GOD
:silly: :silly: :silly:
So God's the origin of the predicate clause?
-
Such malarkey. Keep your damn guns. Collect as many as you want. Just register them so sales and dispositions can be documented, and you're incented to report them if stolen. It is no great imposition to require you to be responsible for the guns you choose to own. It is not "infringement". It is not "confiscation". It is you being a responsible member of the community.
Well after another logical lap we return to the starting gate. I will NOT register my guns, simply because registration leads to confiscation, and registering them would only be a precursor to NOT keeping my damn guns--or worse, to having to use them to keep them.
Now, where is that list of MANY instances where registration did not lead to confiscation?
-
Just register them so sales and dispositions can be documented, and you're incented to report them if stolen.
Nope. I do not need "Extra Incentive" to report stolen property, you are just going to have to trust me, as you are demanding I trust Judges I know are activists who don't want me to have weapons.
I will not comply.
-
Well after another logical lap we return to the starting gate.
Another turn of the broken record, another skip of the needle.
-
Such malarkey. Keep your damn guns. Collect as many as you want. Just register them so sales and dispositions can be documented, and you're incented to report them if stolen. It is no great imposition to require you to be responsible for the guns you choose to own. It is not "infringement". It is not "confiscation". It is you being a responsible member of the community.
@Jazzhead
How about this: Eff you. Neither you nor any other statist is gonna tell me to register my guns...that way I will still have them when I have to deal with with anyone who tries to confiscate them after the registration scheme runs its course.
Oh and by the way you <nope>...answer @Smokin Joe question. Otherwise STFU
-
:silly: :silly: :silly:
So God's the origin of the predicate clause?
@Jazzhead
No you silly statist ...God is the origin of my right to self defense which the 2A limits government from infringing upon. You claim to be another lawyer...you’d think you’d have some clue about the Bill of Rights
-
@Jazzhead
How about this: Eff you. Neither you nor any other statist is gonna tell me to register my guns...that way I will still have them when I have to deal with with anyone who tries to confiscate them after the registration scheme runs its course.
Oh and by the way you statist tool...answer @Smokin Joe question. Otherwise STFU
Dittos. Including the part about "answer the question." He ignores our questions, then just repeats his assertions like a bloody parrot as if they were actually answers. We've giving plenty of examples where registration leads to confiscation and all we get when we ask for countering examples, is "Ooooh! Just register them and trust the government." Over. And. Over.
-
@Jazzhead
No you statist tool...God is the origin of my right to self defense which the 2A limits government from infringing upon. You claim to be another (douchebag) lawyer...you’d think you’d have some clue about the Bill of Rights
If he treated courtrooms the way he treats us on this thread, his ass would be in jail for Contempt of Court. He may be a lawyer, but not the kind that tries cases.
-
:silly: :silly: :silly:
So God's the origin of the predicate clause?
All unalienable Rights, "natural" Rights, come from our Creator (God). Maybe you missed that phrase in The Declaration of Independence, counselor. The government is the reason for the predicate clause. A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state.... In Barclay's English dictionary (my copy is missing the flyleaf, but King George III's son is regent, so that makes it ca. 1820), published in London, the Militia is defined as "The Army, in its entirety." Regulation has little enough to do with training so much as control.
Broken down, a free country (or Federation) needs an Army to deal with threats from without, but that same Army has to be kept from being a threat to the the freedom that country has, therefore the security of a Free State is dependent on a well controlled Army. As has been brought up in this thread numerous times, the Founders saw that that control (the army being subservient to the Civil Government) comes from the overwhelming number of the People themselves who, by force of their private arms if necessary, could thwart the tyrannical visions of anyone in either command of the Army, or the Civil Government if they would use the Army to such ends.
That purpose, is to protect the entire Republic, and especially the people, from the depredations of tyrants who would try to infringe on the unalienable Rights of the people. The Government exists because we have granted it power, not the other way around, and no document nor government is capable of creating an unalienable Right.
Unalienable, by definition, is something which exists beyond the authority of man to give away, transfer, or be taken. It exists above the pay grade of any human to decide: from God. What we are discussing is the level of infringement of one of those Rights which will be tolerated.
-
If he treated courtrooms the way he treats us on this thread, his ass would be in jail for Contempt of Court. He may be a lawyer, but not the kind that tries cases.
Now, now, it's only 99.999% of the attorneys who make a bad name for the rest of them.
-
Now, now, it's only 99.999% of the attorneys who make a bad name for the rest of them.
Mrs. Liberty worked in a court her whole life, and I've watched my share of trials. Anybody who circle-jerked a court like that would have been kicked out, and stripped of his status as an Officer of the Court.
-
Such malarkey. Keep your damn guns. Collect as many as you want. Just register them so sales and dispositions can be documented, and you're incented to report them if stolen.
NO. Now what? Here we are again... Just how the hell do you expect to make me comply?
It is no great imposition to require you to be responsible for the guns you choose to own.
The hell it ain't... and there you go again with your backhanded accusation of irresponsibility. Who the hell are you to say that?
It is not "infringement".
The hell it ain't.
It is not "confiscation".
The hell it ain't.
It is you being a responsible member of the community.
There you go again throwing that accusation around. You have no knowledge of what is and isn't responsible wrt weapons - Your authority in this matter is nonexistent. And you are not authorized to speak for any 'community' I give a shit about.
-
Just register them so sales and dispositions can be documented,
As someone who has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution I would not comply with an unconstitutional order like that.
-
Such malarkey. Keep your damn guns. Collect as many as you want. Just register them so sales and dispositions can be documented, and you're incented to report them if stolen. It is no great imposition to require you to be responsible for the guns you choose to own. It is not "infringement". It is not "confiscation". It is you being a responsible member of the community.
Once again, when will you call for the registration of knives which kill many more people in this country than rifles?
To quote you
Such malarkey. Keep your damn knives. Collect as many as you want. Just register them so sales and dispositions can be documented, and you're incented to report them if stolen. It is no great imposition to require you to be responsible for the knives you choose to own. It is not "infringement". It is not "confiscation". It is you being a responsible member of the community.
If you do not back up the registration of knives, you have so much malarkey.
-
Once again, when will you call for the registration of knives which kill many more people in this country than rifles?
To quote you
If you do not back up the registration of knives, you have so much malarkey.
Which would bring us to here: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives (https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives)
Basic laws on knives
It’s illegal to:
sell a knife to anyone under 18, unless it has a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less
carry a knife in public without good reason, unless it has a folding blade with a cutting edge 3 inches long or less
carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife)
Scotland
In Scotland, 16 to 18 year olds are allowed to buy cutlery and kitchen knives.
Lock knives
Lock knives are not classed as folding knives and are illegal to carry in public without good reason. Lock knives:
have blades that can be locked and refolded only by pressing a button
can include multi-tool knives - tools that also contain other devices such as a screwdriver or can opener
They are coming for your Leatherman....
The next step has already been taken elsewhere, and the terrorists there use bombs and vans.
But we fought a war with that country so we didn't have to live by their laws, and the first shots were fired over the deployment of authorities (troops) to seize stores of ammunition and arms.
Who doesn't understand how ingrained the RKBA is in our very national essence?
-
I think @Jazzhead may have gone into troll mode, and he's just yanking our chains now, laughing at us. He hasn't contributed a single novel argument in days.
Don't feed the :troll:
-
I think @Jazzhead may have gone into troll mode, and he's just yanking our chains now, laughing at us. He hasn't contributed a single novel argument in days.
Don't feed the :troll:
He has been neutered.
Which is why I like him here.
-
I have reported you to the Mods for insulting a valued member of our fine establishment.
:silly:
-
I have reported you to the Mods for insulting a valued member of our fine establishment.
:chairbang: :tongue2:
-
:chairbang: :tongue2:
Did Wingnut just call you a geezer?
-
The boy is a loose cannon. A geezer with an attitude.
Behave, son.
-
Did Wingnut just call you a geezer?
A badge I proudly wear with honor, @Sanguine!
(http://patchpatrol.com/wp-content/uploads/patches/upper-terrace-geezers_ID-3052/upper-terrace-greezer-640x640.jpg)
-
A badge I proudly wear with honor, @Sanguine!
(http://patchpatrol.com/wp-content/uploads/patches/upper-terrace-geezers_ID-3052/upper-terrace-greezer-640x640.jpg)
Nice. But, I think Wings was talking about mental ages. He's still at whippersnapper age. :silly:
-
You are pushing it now sister. :cool:
:kisses2:
-
@Jazzhead I really hope you're doing ok with your rehab. As you know, I agree with you and think you will eventually be proven right.
-
@Jazzhead I really hope you're doing ok with your rehab. As you know, I agree with you and think you will eventually be proven right.
Why? What part of shall not be infringed is confusing to the both of you?
-
Why? What part of shall not be infringed is confusing to the both of you?
@txradioguy
That endorsement is just more evidence that our statist buddy is just another card carrying lib
-
@Jazzhead I really hope you're doing ok with your rehab. As you know, I agree with you and think you will eventually be proven right.
@LauraTXNM Perhaps you can tell us what "good" would supposedly come of registration.
And tell us why that magical Right to Privacy suddenly disappears with forearms.
-
@LauraTXNM Perhaps you can tell us what "good" would supposedly come of registration.
And tell us why that magical Right to Privacy suddenly disappears with forearms.
Ummm....The right to bear a nice wristwatch?
-
And tell us why that magical Right to Privacy suddenly disappears with forearms.
Sometimes, they're impossible to hide, so no privacy.
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/BsuTU6N1gRaT0w9X67iAxQ--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0zNjA7dz00ODA-/https://i.ytimg.com/vi/drLl4iNCAYo/hqdefault.jpg.cf.jpg)
-
Ummm....The right to bear a nice wristwatch?
Maybe the right to bare a nice wristwatch?
-
@txradioguy
That endorsement is just more evidence that our statist buddy is just another card carrying lib
@Axeslinger Nah, I'm the only Commie heathen here. I've talked to @Jazzhead enough to recognize him as a true-blue old-school Republican/libertarian like my mother was. In fact, I think they might be the "true" Rs like Reagan, compared to the conservatives he brought into the tent.
-
@LauraTXNM Perhaps you can tell us what "good" would supposedly come of registration.
And tell us why that magical Right to Privacy suddenly disappears with forearms.
@Suppressed I'd make a quip about bangles and bracelets, but many have beaten me to it ;). Good job, @Cyber Liberty, @edpc, and @Suppressed!
As for registration, as far as I'm concerned registration already exists at the level of the gun stores. And I don't care. Anyway, I'm done wrestling with that pig.
-
@Suppressed I'd make a quip about bangles and bracelets, but many have beaten me to it ;). Good job, @Cyber Liberty, @edpc, and @Suppressed!
As for registration, as far as I'm concerned registration already exists at the level of the gun stores. And I don't care. Anyway, I'm done wrestling with that pig.
Sorry, but there is a difference between filling out a Form 4473 and being required under penalty of law every firearm you own. Many have firearms which antedate the Gun Control Act of 1968, which have had no paperwork filled out on them, ever. Some were even bought by putting a check and an order form in the mail (that's how it was back when), and some were either handed down, gifts, or purchased privately. All lawfully acquired, lawfully owned, but NOT registered nor documented. While some of the more statist jurisdictions require that, and even permits to purchase a firearm, even today (thankfullly) there are some places in this country you can walk into a shop and walk out (Now, after filling out the Form 4473 and the NICS check) with the firearm. No paperwork nor documentation is required for private sales or gift transfers of ownership in those jurisdictions.
My point is that there are many firearms out there which have never been documented as they changed hands, and haven't been documented since they were shipped from the manufacturer to the store/dealer in the days when that was where the trail ended. It is no wonder that those command a premium over those which have, all else being equal.
-
@Jazzhead I really hope you're doing ok with your rehab. As you know, I agree with you and think you will eventually be proven right.
He is right like saying the Second Amendment is a 'flawed document'?
Am curious on what other portions of our Constitution you believe is also flawed.
Can you let us know, or is the entire document what you call 'that pig'??
-
@Jazzhead I really hope you're doing ok with your rehab. As you know, I agree with you and think you will eventually be proven right.
Hi @LauraTXNM ! :seeya:
My leg's still in a brace and I can't drive, but thanks to Philly's excellent public transportation system and invaluable support from Mrs. Jazz, I've been back at work for two weeks now!
I'm still not cleared for full-blown rehab, but I can now raise and lower the leg from a lying position, something that was impossible just a few days ago. And I can bend the knee about 35%.
Bottom line - so far so good. And thanks for the support!
-
Sometimes, they're impossible to hide, so no privacy.
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/BsuTU6N1gRaT0w9X67iAxQ--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0zNjA7dz00ODA-/https://i.ytimg.com/vi/drLl4iNCAYo/hqdefault.jpg.cf.jpg)
Exercising the right to bare arms!
-
Exercising the right to bare arms!
They ain't bare, they have anchors tattooed on 'em! 22222frying pan
-
@Jazzhead I really hope you're doing ok with your rehab. As you know, I agree with you and think you will eventually be proven right.
As an admitted Democrat.... and official Jazzhead approver....
you might want to prepare yourself for supreme disappointment. :silly:
-
Please by all means show us the long lists of places where registration hasn't lead to confiscation.
That right there is 100% pure blind and willful ignorance to the long list of countries you've been shown...not to mention a couple of states in the U.S. repeatedly...where registration has led to confiscation.
You guys are still beating this poor dead (or un-dead) cow with the resident leftie?
I'm amazed. How is it that we don't get bored with him and do the obvious.... ignore? Is it possible (nah)...
that we actually enjoy his presence here? :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
You guys are still beating this poor dead (or un-dead) cow with the resident leftie?
I'm amazed. How is it that we don't get bored with him and do the obvious.... ignore? Is it possible (nah)...
that we actually enjoy his presence here? :silly: :silly: :silly:
We have to make sure there is nothing left of the horse but a greasy spot on the ground.
-
You guys are still beating this poor dead (or un-dead) cow with the resident leftie?
If you have been following the news late, the drumbeat to eradicate our right to keep and bear weaponry is growing louder and more pronounced with actual actions being undertaken to strip the citizens of their guns, or face penalty and ruination.
I'd say combating the stupid shit our commie-lib-leftie is spouting is simply sparring practice for what we have to engage in out in the meat world.
-
He is right like saying the Second Amendment is a 'flawed document'?
Am curious on what other portions of our Constitution you believe is also flawed.
Can you let us know, or is the entire document what you call 'that pig'??
@IsailedawayfromFR
It seems pretty obvious to me, that the 2nd Amendment suffers from phrasing and/or punctuation which are less than optimal. Its structure has left it open to interpretation and will continue to do so. I haven't done all the research @Jazzhead has, but Justice Scalia did apparently stipulate that Heller was important to codify the right to weapons for self-defense.
I have loved stories about our Founding Fathers since watching Charlie Brown and "1776" when I was a little girl. Thomas Jefferson has always been my favorite; my son has always preferred George Washington. They were very human men touched with brilliance or even genius. But they weren't God, they certainly perfect, and neither were their creations.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
It seems pretty obvious to me, that the 2nd Amendment suffers from phrasing and/or punctuation which are less than optimal. Its structure has left it open to interpretation and will continue to do so. I haven't done all the research @Jazzhead has, but Justice Scalia did apparently stipulate that Heller was important to codify the right to weapons for self-defense...
I refer you to my answer here: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,311140.msg1652059.html#msg1652059 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,311140.msg1652059.html#msg1652059)
...I have loved stories about our Founding Fathers since watching Charlie Brown and "1776" when I was a little girl. Thomas Jefferson has always been my favorite; my son has always preferred George Washington. They were very human men touched with brilliance or even genius. But they weren't God, they certainly perfect, and neither were their creations.
I know it sounds silly to some, but some of us believe that the creation of this nation was divinely inspired. So, of course they were men and not God, but that is as meaningful as saying that they had arms and feet. Of course they did, but what does that have to do with this topic?
-
I refer you to my answer here: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,311140.msg1652059.html#msg1652059 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,311140.msg1652059.html#msg1652059)
I know it sounds silly to some, but some of us believe that the creation of this nation was divinely inspired. So, of course they were men and not God, but that is as meaningful as saying that they had arms and feet. Of course they did, but what does that have to do with this topic?
Hi, @Sanguine! I'd never call you silly, and I think you've hit the nail on the head -- I don't believe the Bible or the Constitution are divinely WRITTEN and thus literally true or infallible. I'd like to think divine inspiration played a role. But they are works of man, flawed and contradictory as we all are.
>>>I was responding to an earlier comment that questioned why I would see the Constitution as flawed.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
It seems pretty obvious to me, that the 2nd Amendment suffers from phrasing and/or punctuation which are less than optimal. Its structure has left it open to interpretation and will continue to do so. I haven't done all the research @Jazzhead has, but Justice Scalia did apparently stipulate that Heller was important to codify the right to weapons for self-defense.
I have loved stories about our Founding Fathers since watching Charlie Brown and "1776" when I was a little girl. Thomas Jefferson has always been my favorite; my son has always preferred George Washington. They were very human men touched with brilliance or even genius. But they weren't God, they certainly perfect, and neither were their creations.
...yes, and because of this ambiguity gun ownership has been in peril at the hands of gun grabbers and utopian socialists ever since they saw their first Scrabble game.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
It seems pretty obvious to me, that the 2nd Amendment suffers from phrasing and/or punctuation which are less than optimal. Its structure has left it open to interpretation and will continue to do so. I haven't done all the research @Jazzhead has, but Justice Scalia did apparently stipulate that Heller was important to codify the right to weapons for self-defense.
I have loved stories about our Founding Fathers since watching Charlie Brown and "1776" when I was a little girl. Thomas Jefferson has always been my favorite; my son has always preferred George Washington. They were very human men touched with brilliance or even genius. But they weren't God, they certainly perfect, and neither were their creations.
Anything inspired by God is most certainly not flawed, by definition.
It is man's interpretation only that is in error.
The Bible certainly needs no correction. Instead, it needs to be better understood.
Do you understand the difference here?
-
Hi, @Sanguine! I'd never call you silly, and I think you've hit the nail on the head -- I don't believe the Bible or the Constitution are divinely WRITTEN and thus literally true or infallible. I'd like to think divine inspiration played a role. But they are works of man, flawed and contradictory as we all are.
>>>I was responding to an earlier comment that questioned why I would see the Constitution as flawed.
Yes, I think that is one basic difference between leftists and conservatives. I see the language in an "it is what it is" way; leftists see it as containing flaws and therefore needing revision. Revision implies change. Conservatives don't think it needs changing, and going beyond that, it is the document that forms the basis for our nation, change it and the reason for the nation may well go away.
-
...yes, and because of this ambiguity gun ownership has been in peril at the hands of gun grabbers and utopian socialists ever since they saw their first Scrabble game.
Yes - and the natural right was never acknowledged as protected by the 2A until Heller. Heller finds protection for the right in the 2A, but the dissent did not. But the correct answer, IMO, is the natural right is protected as an un-enumerated right, as anticipated by the Ninth Amendment.
-
Anything inspired by God is most certainly not flawed, by definition.
It is man's interpretation only that is in error.
The Bible certainly needs no correction. Instead, it needs to be better understood.
Do you understand the difference here?
@IsailedawayfromFR
I definitely think I understand your comment. I just don't agree with you. As I said, my favorite Founding Father was Thomas Jefferson ;). If it helps, I was raised an "old-school" Episcopalian (definitely KJV and NOT the new prayerbook or hymnal) and have spent the last @15 years heavily involved with a Jewish day school. So my theology will probably seem confused to you ;).
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
I definitely think I understand your comment. I just don't agree with you. As I said, my favorite Founding Father was Thomas Jefferson ;). If it helps, I was raised an "old-school" Episcopalian (definitely KJV and NOT the new prayerbook or hymnal) and have spent the last @15 years heavily involved with a Jewish day school. So my theology will probably seem confused to you ;).
One tiny point: this isn't about theology. God transcends theology.
-
Yes, I think that is one basic difference between leftists and conservatives. I see the language in an "it is what it is" way; leftists see it as containing flaws and therefore needing revision. Revision implies change. Conservatives don't think it needs changing, and going beyond that, it is the document that forms the basis for our nation, change it and the reason for the nation may well go away.
Regarding the 2A, though, you side with the way libs tend to say statutes should be interpreted. Scalia essentially reached his conclusion by ignoring the predicate clause, declaring it merely prefatory and not intended to define or limit the scope of the protection. That's fine, but that's 360 degrees the opposite of how, say, Justice Thomas says a statute should be interpreted. The 2A "is what it is", and that means the predicate clause must be given due meaning. Prof. Epstein, for example, took it one step further and construed the function of the predicate clause by looking also at the Constitution's other statements regarding the militia. Sorry, but the purpose of the 2A was to protect state prerogatives, not individuals' natural rights.
Scalia was using "liberal" techniques of statutory interpretation to read out the predicate clause and declare the 2A protective of the natural right.
The problem is when the Scalia majority is gone, so is that interpretation of the 2A. To me, that's a real problem that we ought not be ostriches-in-the-sand about. The flaw in the 2A ought to be fixed.
-
@LauraTXNM One of the reasons this thread has gone over 700 posts and is 30 pages long is because of an argument that has had dozens of iterations, concerning the notion of gun registration. One fellow asserts we must register and insure guns to force responsibility on yahoos who waltz around with guns, while the other side gives dozens of examples that registration always leads to eventual confiscation. Confiscation that goes on right now in the USA.
In Hawaii, the government took it upon themselves to match the list of registered guns against the list of Medical Marijuana cardholders, and rounded up their firearms, at the point of a gun if necesary. In your state, vets who merely diagnose as PTSD at the VA are ordered to turn in all firearms, subject to search and seizure to attain the goal. These are only two examples, there are others like Maryland and Deerfield IL.
If you go back and read the 700 posts, you will see examples of one side providing example after example (as I listed above), while the other simply repeats "registration dosn't lead to confiscation" while never producing a single example of that, and assuring everybody that we can trust impartial Judges to see to it that our natural rights aren't violated. This leads to frustration on the part of many because instead of good, productive debate we have circular reasoning being applied, which doesn't win a lot of friends here.
As for me, my stance on whether I would register my weapons if asked to do so by the state is summed up at the right right of my signature line. There's no such thing as an "impartial" Federal Judge. They are, by design, political creatures that are nominated by Presidents and subjected to confirmation by a partisan Senate. It will take decades to undo the harm caused by Obama and Clinton appointees, on this and a variety of other issues.
-
One tiny point: this isn't about theology. God transcends theology.
I don't disagree; religion is an institution of man. Belief in God does not require adherence to religion.
-
Sorry, but the purpose of the 2A was to protect state prerogatives, not individuals' natural rights.
A government that does not recognize my natural rights, and does not trust me with liberty, is not a government that I recognize as having any legitimate authority.
It is a tyranny that imposes it's will by subjugating a people and making them defenseless against them.
Such an entity demands resistance - not obedience, because the end result of such a government are strewn with the mass graves of political dissidents.
We will not comply. We will resist.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Great post!!! (Though I don't think poor judicial appointments are limited to Democratic administrations -- look at last year's nominees alone.)
-
@Maj. Bill Martin , we may rarely agree but I always appreciate it when you respond to my posts.
Right -- and the problem is there is absolutely no plausible, remotely objective method for judges to identify those unenumerated rights.
Given that the Federal Government was supposed to be a government of strictly limited, enumerated powers only, it was barred from doing almost everything except those things for which it was granted express authority. So what are we supposed to do -- assume that everything it couldn't do from day one is an "unenumerated right?", then incorporate them as limitations on the states by the 14th Amendment? That clearly can't be the right answer, because then states couldn't really do anything. So what you end up with is judges deciding -- based on nothing more than their own personal morality -- what these unenumerated -- but "fundamental" -- legal rights are.
I think where we differ is that you appear to have never gotten comfortable with the 14th amendment. The 14th is the most significant amendment since the first ten, since it fundamentally altered the relationship of the States to the Federal Constitution.
Before the 14th, it is indeed true that the States could confiscate your guns, throw you in jail for criticizing the government, and deny you the practice of your religion. Putting aside for a moment the question of enumerated rights vs. unenumerated rights, the Federal Constitution was largely irrelevant to the States; it certainly placed no brakes on a State's denial of one's fundamental, natural liberties.
With the 14th, the States became obliged to protect the same rights as recognized by the Federal Constitution (and let's not forget, the 14th itself created a new enumerated right - the right to the due process of law.) As a lover of individual liberty, I view the 14th amendment as correcting the original Constitution's most significant flaw.
As for limiting the Constitution's protections to enumerated rights, I must disagree with you. The foundation of the Constitution's protection of un-enumerated rights derives directly from the Ninth Amendment and the concept, trumpeted by many on this board, that we have a slate of inalienable natural rights. Among these are the rights of individual self defense, individual self-determination, and individual privacy. The latter two have been found to be Constitutionally protected though un-enumerated, and the first one has been found to be Constitutionally protected by reading out of the 2A its predicate clause as merely prefatory.
The Constitution's protection of human liberty is its greatest achievement. That some of that protection has been affirmed by judges does not bother me in the slightest. There is always the Constitutional amendment process if the people want to codify the abrogation of their liberty. And I am not persuaded that protection of un-enumerated rights is dangerous because a judge could find a un-enumerated "affirmative" right to, say, a good education. That is a slippery slope argument that I decline to accept as a principle of debate. Moreover, and significantly, an affirmative right to a specific material commodity or outcome is fundamentally different than the right to have one's individual liberty/autonomy protected from the state. It's not a slippery slope, it's a different slope entirely.
ETA: I have to add here that the argument that the individual legal right should be found not in the Second Amendment, but as an "un-enumerated right" is just horrible as a basic matter of legal reasoning. We already have an Amendment, the Second, that deals squarely with the right to keep and bear arms. If you're going to assume that the Framers did not intend that Amendment to protect individual gun owners from the federal government, but rather only state militias, then you'd actually be going against their intention by deciding that they really meant to protect that right as an "unenumerated" right. The Second was the clear place to protect individual gun rights, so if it isn't there (which I think it is), then inventing it out of nothing can't be justified
Again, we disagree. Obviously Heller found the 2A protective of the natural right, but just as obviously the four dissenters disagreed. As I've noted before, traditional notions of conservative statutory interpretation would not ignore the predicate clause.
The issue for me is the fragility of the Heller decision, and what to do about it. It seems to me that it will be far easier to overturn Heller on the basis of a mistaken view of the predicate clause than it would be if Scalia had found the natural right to be protected by the Constitution without regard to the 2A. To me the natural right's protection is far better grounded as an un-enumerated right under the Ninth Amendment. That way, the right's protection isn't jeopardized by the Constitution's own flawed language.
-
That is a slippery slope argument that I decline to accept as a principle of debate.
That is your entire modus operandi of your posting history on this board. You decline to accept or acknowledge anything that deviates from your own twisted perversions of liberty and law into government-granted privileges and institutionalized corruption and tyranny. Anyone attempting to argue with you is wasting their time if persuasion is a goal.
You are an insufferable Leftist ideologue, applying tactics that all internet and discussion board trolls engage in. The only reason any of us bother responding to your nonsensical bullshit that you vomit forth here on this board, is because you regurgitate the same bullshit the tyrannical Marxists in the Democrat Party and government do. You simply provide us with combat and target practice as an overt enemy of everything this board stands for.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Great post!!! (Though I don't think poor judicial appointments are limited to Democratic administrations -- look at last year's nominees alone.)
You mean like Gorsuch?
I have a rule I usually follow when I see obviously unjust decisions come from a Federal Court. I look the Judge up on Google to get their Bio, and 90% of the time it's a Clinton or Obama appointee. I see Dem appointees make good decisions, and I see Rep appointees making bad decisions, but it seems, to my biased eyes, it's the Dem ones that err on the side of stomping peoples rights.
-
@LauraTXNM One of the reasons this thread has gone over 700 posts and is 30 pages long is because of an argument that has had dozens of iterations, concerning the notion of gun registration. One fellow asserts we must register and insure guns to force responsibility on yahoos who waltz around with guns, while the other side gives dozens of examples that registration always leads to eventual confiscation. Confiscation that goes on right now in the USA.
That is not accurate. The primary argument I have been making on this thread is the fragility of the Constitution's protection of the gun right given the Dems' opposition to Heller. In the course of the discussion, I reiterated my support for the registration of firearms as sound and efficacious public policy in a nation awash in gun violence, which has of course brought out the paranoics in great numbers, convinced that the reasonable and uncontroversial measure we require of motor vehicle ownership would lead to "confiscation" if applied to guns.
That is a slippery slope argument that I reject in the context of our Constitutional republic. There is no controversy whatsoever that, however one applies the 2A, gun ownership can be regulated regulated. The natural right is have the means to protect your home and family, not the right to hoard a dozen AR-15s in secret. Registration does not infringe on your right to protect your family. In our Republic, the peoples' elected representatives have the Constitutional authority, if they choose, to require that folks register their guns. And gun owners have the right to the Constitution's protections against the arbitrary seizure of private property and the right to the DUE PROCESS OF LAW. No, registration does NOT lead to arbitrary confiscation. Not in America, not withstanding the hysterics that we are a "tyranny". *****rollingeyes*****
These protections make it illigitimate, in my view, to oppose registration by announced lawlessness, whether by a self-centered refusal "to comply" or by threatening to turn one's guns on peace officers.
-
Regarding the 2A, though, you side with the way libs tend to say statutes should be interpreted. Scalia essentially reached his conclusion by ignoring the predicate clause, declaring it merely prefatory and not intended to define or limit the scope of the protection. That's fine, but that's 360 degrees the opposite of how, say, Justice Thomas says a statute should be interpreted. The 2A "is what it is", and that means the predicate clause must be given due meaning. Prof. Epstein, for example, took it one step further and construed the function of the predicate clause by looking also at the Constitution's other statements regarding the militia. Sorry, but the purpose of the 2A was to protect state prerogatives, not individuals' natural rights.
Scalia was using "liberal" techniques of statutory interpretation to read out the predicate clause and declare the 2A protective of the natural right.
The problem is when the Scalia majority is gone, so is that interpretation of the 2A. To me, that's a real problem that we ought not be ostriches-in-the-sand about. The flaw in the 2A ought to be fixed.
Whew! That's a major mishmash of misunderstandings.
-
Whew! That's a major mishmash of misunderstandings.
I try my best, Sangey. :seeya:
-
I try my best, Sangey. :seeya:
You are the best at what you are best at.
-
You mean like Gorsuch?
I have a rule I usually follow when I see obviously unjust decisions come from a Federal Court. I look the Judge up on Google to get their Bio, and 90% of the time it's a Clinton or Obama appointee. I see Dem appointees make good decisions, and I see Rep appointees making bad decisions, but it seems, to my biased eyes, it's the Dem ones that err on the side of stomping peoples rights.
I was actually thinking about some of the particularly awful nominees, some of whom were narrowly denied, like the creepy blogger and people who'd never tried a legal case, etc. I could go back to either Bush, if we wanted to; Republicans often complain about their judges' terrible decisions. But in short, people generally complain about decisions they don't like and blame these "bad" judgments on bad judges. It's bipartisan, crosses ideological lines, and unites Americans in mistrust of the fed judiciary.
-
These protections make it illigitimate, in my view, to oppose registration by announced lawlessness, whether by a self-centered refusal "to comply" or by threatening to turn one's guns on peace officers.
We intend to get much louder and more vociferous in our calls to oppose any registration and encourage this people to openly defy and refuse to comply with any so-called 'laws' that do so. We are also going to define people like you as tyrants that deserve our utter contempt with extreme prejudice.
We view a government that would attempt to impose your insanely stupid tyrannical ideas as wholly illegitimate. And yes, you will need to arm the agents of your perverted government to put their guns to our heads to force compliance with your suggestions for imposing tyranny.
Then, it's game on - and time to water the tree of liberty.
-
That is your entire modus operandi of your posting history on this board. You decline to accept or acknowledge anything that deviates from your own twisted perversions of liberty and law into government-granted privileges and institutionalized corruption and tyranny. Anyone attempting to argue with you is wasting their time if persuasion is a goal.
You are an insufferable Leftist ideologue, applying tactics that all internet and discussion board trolls engage in. The only reason any of us bother responding to your nonsensical bullshit that you vomit forth here on this board, is because you regurgitate the same bullshit the tyrannical Marxists in the Democrat Party and government do. You simply provide us with combat and target practice as an overt enemy of everything this board stands for.
@INVAR
As far as I can tell, 1) many of the disagreements with @Jazzhead don't actually respond to the points he makes. They are less an argument than a slap-fight.
And 2) from my understanding, this board stands for open dialogue and argumentation without insults and personal attacks. Your above post is one of many that violates this site's "civil contract".
-
I was actually thinking about some of the particularly awful nominees, some of whom were narrowly denied, like the creepy blogger and people who'd never tried a legal case, etc. I could go back to either Bush, if we wanted to; Republicans often complain about their judges' terrible decisions. But in short, people generally complain about decisions they don't like and blame these "bad" judgments on bad judges. It's bipartisan, crosses ideological lines, and unites Americans in mistrust of the fed judiciary.
I didn't care for those appointees, wither, reinforced a lot of bad feelings I have about Mr. Trump.
But it is a fact that Federal Judges are partisan animals that cannot be trusted to keep their own desires for how society should be out of their decisions of law. They need to be treated as such, and should be ridiculed when they make claims of being "unbiased" when they have obvious conflicts, as Sotomayor did in deciding Obamacare. As a solicitor she had actually argued cases on this topic before the court (!), yet insisted in participating in the decision, giving assurances she would be unbiased when she rendered her pro-Obamacare decision.
It's not that these people are stupid that is galling...it's how stupid they think the rest of us are.
-
@INVAR
As far as I can tell, 1) many of the disagreements with @Jazzhead don't actually respond to the points he makes. They are less an argument than a slap-fight.
And 2) from my understanding, this board stands for open dialogue and argumentation without insults and personal attacks. Your above post is one of many that violates this site's "civil contract".
If they seem like they don't go to his points, it's because he makes the same ridiculous points over and over. But, as I've watched this thread develop, they certainly do respond to his points, but he doesn't like the answers, and then makes the same assertions you do that they aren't responding.
As for your second point, insults are subjective and in the eye of the beholder, and I'm glad I don't have to make the Mod Calls. Calling somebody a "poopy head" is probably an insult. Saying somebody is espousing a "poopy head" idea is not. YMMV. :shrug:
-
My leg's still in a brace and I can't drive, but thanks to Philly's excellent public transportation system and invaluable support from Mrs. Jazz, I've been back at work for two weeks now!
@Jazzhead Glad to hear! And you're right about SEPTA...for the most part.
-
@INVAR
As far as I can tell, 1) many of the disagreements with @Jazzhead don't actually respond to the points he makes. They are less an argument than a slap-fight.
And 2) from my understanding, this board stands for open dialogue and argumentation without insults and personal attacks. Your above post is one of many that violates this site's "civil contract".
Go report me to the Mods then if your sensibilities of how I respond to someone advocating tyranny are so fragile.
-
But it is a fact that Federal Judges are partisan animals that cannot be trusted to keep their own desires for how society should be out of their decisions of law.
That is not a "fact", that is merely your opinion. It is fact that all judges are human beings; my experience is that most Federal judges do their level best to be objective, to rule on the basis of the law and the facts, and arrive as best they can at a just result. It is the nature of litigation that there must be a winner and a loser. But to extrapolate from that reality the blanket slander that Federal judges are partisan animals cannot go without my due objection.
-
If they seem like they don't go to his points, it's because he makes the same ridiculous points over and over. But, as I've watched this thread develop, they certainly do respond to his points, but he doesn't like the answers
I always like INVAR's nutjob answers; they're evidence I'm doing a good job. :patriot:
-
We intend to get much louder and more vociferous in our calls to oppose any registration and encourage this people to openly defy and refuse to comply with any so-called 'laws' that do so. We are also going to define people like you as tyrants that deserve our utter contempt with extreme prejudice.
We view a government that would attempt to impose your insanely stupid tyrannical ideas as wholly illegitimate. And yes, you will need to arm the agents of your perverted government to put their guns to our heads to force compliance with your suggestions for imposing tyranny.
Then, it's game on - and time to water the tree of liberty.
@INVAR
Ok, good! When someone actually SHOWS UP to take your guns, please do what you feel you must.
-
You are the best at what you are best at.
I could say exactly the same thing about Obama.
-
I always like INVAR's nutjob answers; they're evidence I'm doing a good job.
Exactly what we expect a TROLL would say.
At least you've admitted yet another attribute of your presence here.
-
Go report me to the Mods then if your sensibilities of how I respond to someone advocating tyranny are so fragile.
@INVAR
Nah, no worries. They obviously already know about your insults. I guess you're part of the spice in the gumbo ;).
-
@INVAR
Ok, good! When someone actually SHOWS UP to take your guns, please do what you feel you must.
Oh gee thanks.. I didn't realize I needed your permission.
-
I was actually thinking about some of the particularly awful nominees, some of whom were narrowly denied, like the creepy blogger and people who'd never tried a legal case, etc. I could go back to either Bush, if we wanted to; Republicans often complain about their judges' terrible decisions. But in short, people generally complain about decisions they don't like and blame these "bad" judgments on bad judges. It's bipartisan, crosses ideological lines, and unites Americans in mistrust of the fed judiciary.
the lens you appear looking thru is Democrats vs Republicans.
The correct way to look is liberals vs conservatives.
The Republicans you reference are not conservatives.
-
What is the topic of this thread again?
-
the lens you appear looking thru is Democrats vs Republicans.
The correct way to look is liberals vs conservatives.
The Republicans you reference are not conservatives.
@IsailedawayfromFR
I thought of Bush Jr. as a religious conservative -- didn't he qualify?
But I agree with your larger point. We spend a lot of time confusing the differences between political parties and ideologies. I have seen that with Republicans for a long time; it's beginning to arise with Democrats.
-
What is the topic of this thread again?
What is the aggregate price of tea produced by China?
-
You are the best at what you are best at.
Ain't that the truth!
-
Ain't that the truth!
Everybody's special, with their own unique gifts for the world ;).
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
I thought of Bush Jr. as a religious conservative -- didn't he qualify?
But I agree with your larger point. We spend a lot of time confusing the differences between political parties and ideologies. I have seen that with Republicans for a long time; it's beginning to arise with Democrats.
No, GWB was not conservative, and certainly not fiscally so. Just claiming to be religious does not make one a conservative - think Bill Clinton with his big Bible.
-
No, GWB was not conservative, and certainly not fiscally so. Just claiming to be religious does not make one a conservative - think Bill Clinton with his big Bible.
The white zipper one he made a point of flashing about every Easter and Christmas? Yeah, I remember that. I had always imagined he actually had pages carved out of it to hold a little flask of the stuff that made his nose red over the years. What a pose it would have made if Obama had been more honest and flashed his Koran about....
-
What is the topic of this thread again?
How @Jazzhead still hasn't provided the list of the "MANY" places which have required firearm registration which has not led to confiscation of those same registered firearms, at least in part.
We're waiting. (and waiting and waiting and waiting......)
-
How @Jazzhead still hasn't provided the list of the "MANY" places which have required firearm registration which has not led to confiscation of those same registered firearms, at least in part.
We're waiting. (and waiting and waiting and waiting......)
He's not going to. He is going to continue to regurgitate his Commie-tyrant talking points about how Registration and Licensure is not going to result in confiscation and that anyone who thinks that is paranoid.
He employs the tactic of telling a lie over and over again, with the expectation that if he repeats it enough, we're going to be stupid enough to accept it.
The calls to repeal the 2nd Amendment along with actions like Deerfield, IL are just beginning. What our resident Commie-lib-tyranny advocate is doing, is attempting to get us to accept their efforts to turn an inalienable right into a government-granted privilege.
We're past the point or reasoning with such people. People like him are an overt and clear enemy of our liberties and they are going to continue to chant their tyrannical mantras regardless of what evidence you offer to the contrary. They simply need to know what the consequences are going to be for what they are pushing for.
They think we're just going to roll over and subjugate ourselves to their tyranny under the color of law. They will have bought themselves a war.
-
I thought of Bush Jr. as a religious conservative -- didn't he qualify?
@LauraTXNM
Oh, heck no! Neither religious nor conservative. Lip service, and nothing more. **nononono*
-
He's not going to. He is going to continue to regurgitate his Commie-tyrant talking points about how Registration and Licensure is not going to result in confiscation and that anyone who thinks that is paranoid.
He employs the tactic of telling a lie over and over again, with the expectation that if he repeats it enough, we're going to be stupid enough to accept it.
The calls to repeal the 2nd Amendment along with actions like Deerfield, IL are just beginning. What our resident Commie-lib-tyranny advocate is doing, is attempting to get us to accept their efforts to turn an inalienable right into a government-granted privilege.
We're past the point or reasoning with such people. People like him are an overt and clear enemy of our liberties and they are going to continue to chant their tyrannical mantras regardless of what evidence you offer to the contrary. They simply need to know what the consequences are going to be for what they are pushing for.
They think we're just going to roll over and subjugate ourselves to their tyranny under the color of law. They will have bought themselves a war.
Unless we can defeat them with words. For now, that is how we must fight.
-
Unless we can defeat them with words. For now, that is how we must fight.
That's what we are doing here.
However, that said - it is correct to note that ideologues like our resident Commie-Lib-Leftie are not listening to us. What I hear from them is the advocacy of overt tyranny.
Nothing our words say is dissuading them, all while they double down on their efforts to turn rights into privileges and disparage us as 'haters' and 'selfish' for refusing to accept their ideas.
I do not think our words are going to defeat them. Tyrants are not moved by common sense or logic.
At minimum, they will have no excuse to say they had no idea what the consequences were going to be if their ideas are implemented, because our words have given them fair warning of what they will engender.
-
That's what we are doing here.
However, that said - it is correct to note that ideologues like our resident Commie-Lib-Leftie are not listening to us. What I hear from them is the advocacy of overt tyranny.
Nothing our words say is dissuading them, all while they double down on their efforts to turn rights into privileges and disparage us as 'haters' and 'selfish' for refusing to accept their ideas.
I do not think our words are going to defeat them. Tyrants are not moved by common sense or logic.
At minimum, they will have no excuse to say they had no idea what the consequences were going to be if their ideas are implemented, because our words have given them fair warning of what they will engender.
Ironically, King George III had the same problem, yet out of that we had a Republic.
-
We're past the point or reasoning with such people. People like him are an overt and clear enemy of our liberties and they are going to continue to chant their tyrannical mantras regardless of what evidence you offer to the contrary. They simply need to know what the consequences are going to be for what they are pushing for.
They think we're just going to roll over and subjugate ourselves to their tyranny under the color of law. They will have bought themselves a war.
M
@INVAR which is exactly why I have encouraged him to have the stones to volunteer to lead those confiscations which will inevitably result.
EITHER he is right that there are MANY examples where his premise can be shown to be true OR he needs to not be spineless and be willing to lead those raids and not send others in his tyrranical stead.
There are no other options that would otherwise lead us to possibly consider his ridiculous assertions.
-
Ironically, King George III had the same problem, yet out of that we had a Republic.
If we could keep it.
And words alone do not keep such things from the hands of tyrants who are not moved or persuaded by our admonitions.
-
How @Jazzhead still hasn't provided the list of the "MANY" places which have required firearm registration which has not led to confiscation of those same registered firearms, at least in part.
We're waiting. (and waiting and waiting and waiting......)
@Smokin Joe
I'm not @Jazzhead, but I would imagine Switzerland and Israel would count. Also Canada, though it's a provincial rather than national registry.
-
Gun utopias? Firearm access and ownership in Israel and Switzerland
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267868/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267868/)
Compared with the US, Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership and stricter gun laws, and their policies discourage personal gun ownership.
There is no clear right to bear arms under Israeli law. In accordance with Israel’s Firearms Law, 5709-1949 (the Law)[1] activities involving firearms, including the manufacture, trade, possession and use of firearms, require authorization. Accordingly, any act involving firearms for civilian use requires a special license issued by the Ministry of Public Security and approved by the police. Activities involving firearms for Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) use require authorization by the Minister of Defense.[2] The issuance of a license or authorization for firearms is based on restrictive criteria established by the relevant Ministry.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/israel.php (https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/israel.php)
-
@Smokin Joe
I'm not @Jazzhead, but I would imagine Switzerland and Israel would count. Also Canada, though it's a provincial rather than national registry.
Canadians didn't react very well when they attempted to create a registry.
-
How @Jazzhead still hasn't provided the list of the "MANY" places which have required firearm registration which has not led to confiscation of those same registered firearms, at least in part.
We're waiting. (and waiting and waiting and waiting......)
Nor has he explained why he is not advocating the registration and required insurance for owning knives, which kill many times the people than do rifles.
Waiting and waiting.
-
LauraTXNM
@Jazzhead
@INVAR
As far as I can tell, 1) many of the disagreements with @Jazzhead don't actually respond to the points he makes. They are less an argument than a slap-fight.
And 2) from my understanding, this board stands for open dialogue and argumentation without insults and personal attacks. Your above post is one of many that violates this site's "civil contract".
I respectfully beg to differ, Laura--at least, in the case of my own interactions with Jazzhead. I have maintained my position pretty stridently, to be sure, but it has been no slap-fight--so, I cannot apologize. My goodness, I believe my friend (?) Jazzhead has responded to only one of my posts--which post was endorsed by other TBR members as presenting fairly weighty arguments--and it would also appear that Jazzhead has not bothered to look up my references to Eugene Volokh's important discoveries concerning the role of prefatory clauses in the colonists' legal documents.
(Worst of all, when I sought to appeal to Jazzhead via private messaging, I discovered that he has blocked me from contacting him privately.)
Scalia nailed it, as would be more or less expected. He noticed from the historical context that the prefatory clause does not narrow the second clause as to its own force.
Four other Justices went along with Scalia, even though Jazzhead suggests that some of them did not buy wholeheartedly into Scalia's reasoning. Their confusion seems to have been centered in strict constructionism (as is seen in Justice Thomas's confusion). The problem is that strict constructionism--which is primarily exegetical--is an utterly inadequate approach in many cases. This is why Scalia has said that he is not a strict constructionist, but an originalist.
Anyone who scoffs at originalism is not competent to be handling the Constitution. The Framers' original, bottom-line intent is EVERYTHING. And it ordinarily CAN be determined. Most importantly for our discussion, the Framers CLEARLY intended to enshrine individual gun rights in the 2nd Amendment.
-
@Smokin Joe
I'm not @Jazzhead, but I would imagine Switzerland and Israel would count. Also Canada, though it's a provincial rather than national registry.
In switzerland and Israel, the countries have a far more integral military than the USA. The arms are combat issue weapons. Ordinary hunting rifles and such (which are not full-auto capable) are in private hands and frequently not registered in Swizerland. I can't speak to the rules in Israel.
In Canada, a long gun registry was attempted. After years of wholesale noncompliance, enormous cost overruns, and only a small fraction of those guns registered (Canadians IGNORED the law, en masse and refused to comply) the government threw in the towel and repealed the law.
Those countries do not have our 2nd Amendment, nor is their history comparable to our own in the sense that our country won its independence with the very privately owned arms our 2nd Amendment protects the right to own--arms as capable as those in the hands of any soldier in the world, or more so.
The list of places which have had registration which led to or facilitated confiscation is long, including such totalitarian notables as Imperial Japan, China, Russia, all of the East Bloc nations under communism, England, Australia, Germany (which also enabled the Nazi regime), and even California, New York and others.
With such an overwhelming number of instances where registration has led to confiscation, and so few where it has not (yet), I am not willing to trust my property nor my country (not to mention my liberty) to the good nature of those in office. We have seen how much can change in a few years just recently, from social experimentation in the military to the sweeping changes which left many Americans who had had health insurance without (I am one of those whose health insurance no longer exists--the company stopped offering it.), along with other changes which I find deleterious in a mere 8 years.
An old rule is that one never grants power or authority to a governmental entity which has the potential to be used for ill, because it is almost guaranteed it will be. So while some advocate registration, I WILL NOT COMPLY, and I know many others who will not either. This widespread civil disobedience (by many of the 80 million firearm owners in the US) can be easily avoided, along with the Wacos and other inevitable incidents perpetrated by those seeking to 'make examples' to cow others into compliance. Just say no.
No registration scheme, follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and leave the tens of millions of currently law abiding gun owners alone--OR--create the largest criminal class in the nation's history and incite or produce incidents which will inevitably lead to bloodshed.
I find it almost amusing that some would have US register our weapons when those from the last administration who facillitated the sale (actually, ordered those sales to go through) of firearms to known straw buyers for Cartels, street gangs, and other criminal enterprises, under the guise of running a 'sting' operation when there was NO CONCEIVABLE WAY those weapons would ever be recovered, except at future crime scenes, remain unmolested.
Clean up the scumbags who, as members of our own government, and members of 'law enforcement' who would be tasked with imposing this type of scheme on Americans first. Then we can have this conversation again. (The answers won't change, but we can talk).
To what purpose would the Government create an entire class of criminals, knowing full well there will be widespread noncompliance, when it has plenty of things on its own plate? Is this a distraction? Let''s get back to the Border, to the Wall, to prosecution of those who acted illegally under color of law or broke their oaths of office to do deals with Iran and other hostile powers, just for starters. There are far more important fish to fry, rather than try to incite domestic violence and hostility between law enforcement and those who should be able to support it rather than end up in conflict.
No way 5 million AR-15s (alone) have been purchased, often at great relative expense, by individuals for those same individuals to meekly turn around and give up their property. That, mind you is just one of the over 100 flavors of firearms that the 'assault weapon bans' have sought to remove from gun cabinets across the USA, That does not count those built from partly finished receivers, nor other homemade guns, some of which are quite sophisticated. If you consider Pakistanis working with rudimentary tools can build a copy of any firearm made in the world, imagine what Americans can do with some engineering know-how and some really decent power tools in a home shop. Then, too, receivers have been 3D printed using that technology. In other words, you are not going to be able to register them all (an estimated 9 firearms for every 10 people in the US), you can't track them all, you can't keep track of those being made privately, and any attempt to do so will brutally violate all the other civil rights enumerated in the Constitution. So, in a word, NO.
Consider the Canadians projected a 2 million dollar cost to register all long guns in the nation, and spent 1 Billion before giving up, imagine the cost overruns for such a scheme here, with likely even less success.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#419f26bd5a1b (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#419f26bd5a1b)
-
(Worst of all, when I sought to appeal to Jazzhead via private messaging, I discovered that he has blocked me from contacting him privately.)
Just more evidence he is a troll with an agenda, and not interested in discussion as he claims to be.
He's here to infect us with his particular brand of Commie-Lib-Socialism that he insists is 'Conservative', but almost everyone on this board sees through his bullshit and has either called him out on it, or ignores him.
I am just grateful he presents his stupid arguments and all his moronic posts which we can then use as our practice kick-bag and shred the middle of his arguments as we would a bullseye on paper marksman target.
His argumentations to register and license firearms needs to be rejected in the strongest language possible with clear warnings as to the consequences. His silly arguments about codifying Heller as well as anything he has to opine about the Constitution and our rights should be dismissed out of hand with the same kind of skepticism and prejudice you would have if Harvey Weinstein asked you if he can take your daughter out on a date.
-
(Worst of all, when I sought to appeal to Jazzhead via private messaging, I discovered that he has blocked me from contacting him privately.)
Absolutely untrue. I have never blocked any member from contacting me by PM. Hell, I've never placed another member on ignore, period. You likely tried to PM me when I was under a temporary ban.
Just more evidence he is a troll with an agenda.
I have almost 7,000 posts on this board. I am who I say I am - an old school Republican with a bum leg.
Scalia nailed it, as would be more or less expected. He noticed from the historical context that the prefatory clause does not narrow the second clause as to its own force.
Four other Justices went along with Scalia, even though Jazzhead suggests that some of them did not buy wholeheartedly into Scalia's reasoning. Their confusion seems to have been centered in strict constructionism (as is seen in Justice Thomas's confusion). The problem is that strict constructionism--which is primarily exegetical--is an utterly inadequate approach in many cases. This is why Scalia has said that he is not a strict constructionist, but an originalist.
Fair comment. My beef is not with with the result in Heller, which is of course correct. But Scalia's basing the protection of the natural right on the 2A places it at risk, IMO, because the conclusion that the predicate clause is merely prefatory was rejected by four Justices, and it easy to anticipate that view being adopted by a majority given the changes in the Court that are coming over the next several years and the likelihood that the Dems will take back the White House in 2020.
To me, basing the Constitution's protection on the finding of an un-enumerated natural right as anticipated by the Ninth Amendment would probably have strengthened the Heller opinion and made it harder to overturn. It takes balls to reverse the Constitution's protection of a natural right; it is far less controversial to correct a prior Court's "mistake".
As it is, I believe the Heller ruling needs to be reinforced by codification. It is uniquely vulnerable because the flaw in the 2A's plain language remains.
-
Nor has he explained why he is not advocating the registration and required insurance for owning knives, which kill many times the people than do rifles.
Waiting and waiting.
I understand your point. And I agree knives kill more people worldwide. But, the nut in Las Vegas could not have killed so many from his perch atop the building had he only a knife. Besides, knives are ubiquitous and necessary in everyone’s daily life, so it’s too simplistic to compare the two in terms of intended use and lethality. Liberals will never buy that argument.
-
Liberals will never buy that argument.
Nor will anyone with common sense.
-
I understand your point. And I agree knives kill more people worldwide. But, the nut in Las Vegas could not have killed so many from his perch atop the building had he only a knife. Besides, knives are ubiquitous and necessary in everyone’s daily life, so it’s too simplistic to compare the two in terms of intended use and lethality. Liberals will never buy that argument.
Tell that to the TSA the next time you board. Or pay the fee for checked baggage so you can have one when you get where you are going. Grrrrr (not to mention nail clippers).
There are parts of the country where firearms are ubiquitous, too, and much like knives, seen as tools. In urban environments perhaps not so much, but in rural ones, definitely.
The nut in Las Vegas, the school shooters, and other mass murderers who fall in the category of "terrorist" (often religiously motivated), all are anomalies in our culture. In range parlance, "Maggie's Drawers"--not even on the paper. Unfortunately, those who own these firearms which also have the capability to use them defensively, even against the terrorists, are in the target, in the crosshairs of those who would use these still relatively rare instances of mass murder to attempt to disarm those who would not commit such a crime.
It has been widely predicted that any such attempt in earnest will cause the very outcome it is ostensibly intended to avoid--widespread bloodshed, becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy, which is what I believe those out to disarm and eventually subjugate this country fully intend.
If we look at the Liberal mindset, as evidenced by their actions,
They want freedom of speech--as long as you say what they want to hear. Others must be silenced.
They are using the boycott threat to push Conservatives off the air even now. Effectively trying to silence Conservatism, and even going back to Political Correctness, the entire effort has been to squelch thoughts they do not agree with by making them unutterable. If they cannot be expressed, no one can disagree.
If Liberals would do this to the mere expression of thoughts, what would they do with the expression of force? Seek a monopoly, on that as well.
The Founders saw the corruption of humans in general, in fact, the Constitution indicates an fundamental understanding of human nature when it comes to power. For that reason it sought to limit and compartmentalize that power at the governmental level and reserve it to the people, to guarantee as much as possible their ability to determine the best course of action for themselves. No monopoly of power in History remains untainted (Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely), so the diffusion of the ability to effectively resist that power is paramount to retaining all other rights. As it is, every American not prohibited by virtue of their lack of virtue or mental competence can effectively resist and own the tools to do so, provided they have not abdicated that Right to some local jurisdiction.
To say the 2nd Amendment is the protection of the Right that protects all others is no exaggeration. Had the Las Vegas shooter been a 'freedom fighter' in some past moment fighting an invading army, his capability would have been roundly cheered. Unfortunately, that individual, for whatever motivation (still not understood), turned that capability against civilians. Regardless of that independent event, of that one individual separate from the millions who own such capability, the idea that millions should be punished by deprivation of their property or the right to acquire such for the actions of one person flies in the face of every principle of American jurisprudence. That day over 5,000,000 such rifles were NOT used to commit a crime. His was 0.00002% of that number.
Expressed as a fraction, that's 1/50,000 and of the number of firearms estimated to be in the country, 1/60th of that. In the parlance of epidemiological 'rates per 10,000', we're looking at 0.2 (of the AR type rifles in civilian hands, and perhaps even less), a number that doesn't even come up on the radar. But as we all know, Liberals aren't interested in facts. Emotions, optics, and panic are the tools of their trade.
-
I understand your point. And I agree knives kill more people worldwide. But, the nut in Las Vegas could not have killed so many from his perch atop the building had he only a knife. Besides, knives are ubiquitous and necessary in everyone’s daily life, so it’s too simplistic to compare the two in terms of intended use and lethality. Liberals will never buy that argument.
Not so. The 9/11 terrorists killed many more with box cutters.
-
Not so. The 9/11 terrorists killed many more with box cutters.
To my thinking, your point is a non sequitur. It’s an outlier to the 2nd amendment debate.
Probably a point better belonging under a discussion of airport security rather than the constitutional right to own a gun for self defense.
-
To my thinking, your point is a non sequitur. It’s an outlier to the 2nd amendment debate.
Probably a point better belonging under a discussion of airport security rather than the constitutional right to own a gun for self defense.
It falls directly under the "we have to regulate assault weapons" argument.
-
To my thinking, your point is a non sequitur. It’s an outlier to the 2nd amendment debate.
Probably a point better belonging under a discussion of airport security rather than the constitutional right to own a gun for self defense.
Trying to introduce knives into this discussion is a non sequitur as well.
Just sayin.
-
It falls directly under the "we have to regulate assault weapons" argument.
A box cutter is not an “assault weapon.†Unless we mean to register and regulate handymen.
-
Trying to introduce knives into this discussion is a non sequitur as well.
Just sayin.
We're pushing 800 posts here. I'm surprised "Kitchen Sinks" haven't been introduced...
-
If a box cutter is used in an assault, isn't it an assault weapon?
assault
make a physical attack on.
weapon
a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
-
A box cutter is not an “assault weapon.†Unless we mean to register and regulate handymen.
I guess that depends on how one defines "Assault Weapon," doesn't it. It's a good thing Mirriam-Webster was kind enough to change the definition last week to mean "Scary looking gun," no? Like magic.
-
We're pushing 800 posts here. I'm surprised "Kitchen Sinks" haven't been introduced...
Give it time. Because technically if I beat you to death with my MacBook Pro laptop THAT is an "assault weapon"...can't wait to see calls for registration...insurance and age limits for the purchase and ownership of Apple Laptops.
-
If a box cutter is used in an assault, isn't it an assault weapon?
assault
make a physical attack on.
weapon
a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
Newly revised definition on Mirriam-Webster:
Definition of assault rifle
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire
Like magic, "Poof!" The leftist definition is now in the Dictionary of Record.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle)
-
Since currently there is no national assault weapon law in effect, I don't believe that there are any "assault weapon" definitions that apply any longer,as well.
-
I think this thread should be locked. Everything that can be said and more has been said over and over and over....
Can I get a second?
If you all agree, I will
-
A box cutter is not an “assault weapon.†Unless we mean to register and regulate handymen.
Neither is a passenger airplane generally considered thus. Yet the body count from the use of AR-15 type rifle in a nonmilitary context pales in comparison to that from just four passenger airplanes.
Frankly, I prefer 'sport-utility rifle' to "assault weapon" because that is more the purpose of mine.
How about registering penises. some 1.3 million people in the US alone are dying of or at least have (pretty much the same thing, because there's no cure) a lethal disease commonly spread using that 'weapon'. You gonna register the owners and regulate them?
Next question: This debate has all been had before. The answer hasn't changed, at least as far as the owners of the rifles are concerned. Not only "No." but "Hell No!". Molon Labe!
Now, what is this smokescreen kerfuffle hiding? What nefarious stuff that has been ferreted out about the "Deep State" is being buried behind the trigger debate over the RKBA? The Dems hid the Nunes Memo behind a MSmedia wall of crap about a "Government shutdown", so what are they hiding now?
-
I think this thread should be locked. Everything that can be said and more has been said over and over and over....
Can I get a second?
Okay, time's up. Now what? Two seconds? A minute? If you don't want to read it, there are other threads to click on.
-
A box cutter is not an “assault weapon.†Unless we mean to register and regulate handymen.
Of course it is - isn't an assault weapon a weapon used in an assault? What else would an assault weapon be?
-
If you all agree, I will
Why not Rename it "The 2nd Amendment Lounge" and lock it once a year?
-
For those playing at home. 786 replies. Nothing new has been added to the conversation.
Chive on.
Hey, I added box-cutters!
-
Ah the old "There are other threads to click on response" How droll.
Yep. It's how we droll. :tongue2:
-
I think this thread should be locked. Everything that can be said and more has been said over and over and over....
Can I get a second?
Why? This argument IS NOT GOING TO G AWAY simply because you decide to shut down and lock a thread.
Next week it will be another township or judge that decides the Second Amendment is irrelevant and outdated and needs to be repealed and we will have this argument all over again.
Shutting down a thread with a high level of activity on it over a fundamental natural right is stupid. If you're retired of the debate and arguments, don't click on the thread.
-
Why not Rename it "The 2nd Amendment Lounge" and lock it once a year?
Will there be coffee and donuts? I'm not maintaining a second Bar so @Frank Cannon can keep raiding it with his lockpicks.
-
As soon as the people who run this site come up with a way to let a guy not see it and let us remove it from "New reply's to your thread" I will follow your sage advice. Till then ....STFU.
Oh. The old "I'm tired of this thread so YOU shut up gambit. " Sheesh.
-
As soon as the people who run this site come up with a way to let a guy not see it and let us remove it from "New reply's to your thread" I will follow your sage advice.
Did you really need to use the last sentence...see it still works without it.
When/if I can raise enough money to hire a programmer to redo our software this is what we got!
-
If you all agree, I will
I second. There is plenty of new gun stories everyday. Why in the Rochester let a thread drone on for weeks, especially since it isn't informative or even the slight bit interesting.
-
As soon as the people who run this site come up with a way to let a guy not see it and let us remove it from "New reply's to your thread" I will follow your sage advice. Till then ....STFU.
So you are saying you have no self-control there Wingy? You need management to remove the threads you are tired of reading so you don't click on them to read?
-
Oh. The old "I'm tired of this thread so YOU shut up gambit. " Sheesh.
How about you give us one interesting direction that this thread can go? So far it is the same shit being said over and over. You think if you have one more long winded screed you will be able to change Jazzy's mind? I would like to see it.
-
It is what Jazzy would do.
Yes. Yes it is.
First we would get a lecture about the legal penumbras and emanations from the ether of the text that say management has a legal right to reasonably regulate your reading material.
-
Shutting down a thread with a high level of activity on it over a fundamental natural right is stupid. If you're retired of the debate and arguments, don't click on the thread.
INVAR is right.
-
Yes. Yes it is.
First we would get a lecture about the legal penumbras and emanations from the ether of the text that say management has a legal right to reasonably regulate your reading material.
Technically, it would be your "commenting material" since you can still read it even if it's closed.
-
It is what Jazzy would do.
WTF?
-
The 5 of you still fighting this out in a circle jerk is so entertaining to us all.
Carry on.
88devil
-
INVAR is right.
Ha!!!!
-
Ha!!!!
I never thought I'd see the day. I'm going to whip out my red Sharpie and mark this right down on my calendar.... :patriot:
-
This thread is beginning to remind me of the controversial 1983 season 4 episode of The Facts Of Life where Mrs. Garrett's cooking instructor from Paris visits Eastland. Meanwhile, the girls try to deal with a squirrel who got into their bedroom. I hope everyone here takes a moment to reflect on that.
(https://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQ5NTExNTA5OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzEzNzEyMjE@._V1_.jpg)
-
This thread is beginning to remind me of the controversial 1983 season 4 episode of The Facts Of Life where Mrs. Garrett's cooking instructor from Paris visits Eastland. Meanwhile, the girls try to deal with a squirrel who got into their bedroom. I hope everyone here takes a moment to reflect on that.
(https://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQ5NTExNTA5OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzEzNzEyMjE@._V1_.jpg)
Yes, I am frequently tormented by that one.
-
How about you give us one interesting direction that this thread can go? So far it is the same shit being said over and over. You think if you have one more long winded screed you will be able to change Jazzy's mind? I would like to see it.
I doubt he has even read one or he'd have provided that list of MANY places where guns have been registered and it didn't lead to confiscation. As far as it being the same shit being said over and over, these same arguments were used against gun owners and for the NFA of '34, they've just been updated with some new victims. So, you DO get it. The effort to disarm Americans has been going on all my lifetime, and it won't go away. But, like I said to @Wingnut, you don't have to read it, you don't have to click on it. There are other threads to disrupt and take off topic by whining about them. It's a common tactic here. Have at 'em!
-
As far as it being the same shit being said over and over, these same arguments were used against gun owners and for the NFA of '34, they've just been updated with some new victims. So, you DO get it. The effort to disarm Americans has been going on all my lifetime, and it won't go away.
Exactly. The clever argumentation to repeal the 2nd Amendment, ban 'assault weapons' and punish gun owners is entering a new and frightening phase.
Fighting about this now from keyboards is necessary to arm up Conservatives with knowledge and understanding of our rights so they can take the fight and counter the insipid arguments from the despots. At the same time, we're attempting to give tyrants and their advocates serious pause to consider what their actions are going to cause in terms of bloodshed should they do as they are saying they will.
-
I doubt he has even read one or he'd have provided that list of MANY places where guns have been registered and it didn't lead to confiscation.
I'm not here to do homework assignments, SJ. It is a simple matter to google the number of jurisdictions in America (which cover somewhat less than half of the population) that have some variety of gun registration. New York requires the registration of handguns, for example. A number of places have restrictions on certain "assault" weapons, and have grandfathered in prior owners as documented by registration. I presume in those jurisdictions registration has not led to confiscation. If you care to cite exceptions, go ahead. The rest support my point.
But we have in this nation a couple of pillars that I choose to rely on before grabbing my AR-15 and threatening to shoot peace officers. One is the Constitution, and not just because of the flawed but nevertheless currently-protected status of gun ownership under the 2A. The other is the rule of law and the right to due process. Yes, guns can be confiscated from someone who is, say, adjudged to be mentally unsound. But that requires that he receive due process. I applaud the NRA's opposition to laws that might short-circuit due process rights.
But licensure and registration seems like common sense to me, and I haven't the slightest desire to take your guns away. I just want you to accept and practice responsibility, just as you do with your car.
-
(http://oxfordjunior.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Deja-Vu-Post.png)
-
(http://oxfordjunior.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Deja-Vu-Post.png)
Have you contributed in any substantive way to this discussion?
-
A box cutter is not an “assault weapon.†Unless we mean to register and regulate handymen.
You just stated the absurdity of gun control.
Assault weapons are indeed those which can used for the assault on people and can take any number of examples, from knives to guns to box cutters to hammers.
To demand one be controlled and not the others is the whole point that is being made in these threads: it does not work as something else will take its place.
Why are policemen, always allowed to carry gun not more frequently mass-murderers? Because it is NOT the weapon which causes harm, it is the one carrying it.
You need to change your way of thinking and direct it towards the individual, not an inanimate object.
-
I presume...
That's your problem. You presume. You already had members who listed places in this country where registration led directly to confiscation - and you ignored them wholesale in order to keep pushing your insipid ideas.
Yes, guns can be confiscated from someone who is adjudged to be mentally unsound. But that requires that he receive due process.
I think Trump has stated that they should 'grab the guns now, due process later'. And of course 'due process' is a joke and sickening farce in this country. Unless you got wads of cash to burn in legal fees and court costs - your chances of getting justice are about the same as a snowflake in a blast furnace. You have to 'pay' for justice - as we learned firsthand when dealing with a corrupt court and law enforcement system.
The reality of 'due process' in this country today - is that unless you have a SJW jury and you are the right ethnicity - you are guilty of whatever charges are levied until you prove your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. And even then, when exonerated and charges dropped, miraculously the charges are still on your record and you have pay more big bucks to supposedly have them stricken from your record. And yet, it is amazing that even after that - if a cop punches in the info from one or both of my daughters, the charges still show up on his computer in his squad car.
But licensure and registration seems like common sense to me
It will be regarded as confiscation and subjugation to us. You have to decide if you really want to go there, because the consequences will be very real.
-
But licensure and registration seems like common sense to me
And it flies in the face of over 100 years of history showing that one leads to the other.
I'm sure it was pitched as "common sense" to the people that allowed their weapons to be registered...then confiscated in the a countries (ad two U.S. states so far) where registration led almost immediately to confiscation.
-
I'm not here to do homework assignments, SJ. It is a simple matter to google the number of jurisdictions in America (which cover somewhat less than half of the population) that have some variety of gun registration. New York requires the registration of handguns, for example. A number of places have restrictions on certain "assault" weapons, and have grandfathered in prior owners as documented by registration. I presume in those jurisdictions registration has not led to confiscation. If you care to cite exceptions, go ahead. The rest support my point.
But we have in this nation a couple of pillars that I choose to rely on before grabbing my AR-15 and threatening to shoot peace officers. One is the Constitution, and not just because of the flawed but nevertheless currently-protected status of gun ownership under the 2A. The other is the rule of law and the right to due process. Yes, guns can be confiscated from someone who is, say, adjudged to be mentally unsound. But that requires that he receive due process. I applaud the NRA's opposition to laws that might short-circuit due process rights.
But licensure and registration seems like common sense to me, and I haven't the slightest desire to take your guns away. I just want you to accept and practice responsibility, just as you do with your car.
Let me put it this way. You made the assertion, this isn't about me assigning something to you, it is about you putting up the information you claim to have for review.
There is a salient and significant difference between that and someone dispatching you to find something you don't claim to know. So, this isn't about homework, it is about proving your point that registration does not lead to confiscation.
In your example, New York, yes, registration has led to confiscation, as cited earlier in this thread by another poster. In another Liberal American bastion, California, registration led to confiscation as well. Even on these shores, confiscation is the outcome (and likely purpose) of registration schemes. In California, the rifles were registered under the State's registration scheme before it was decided they were no longer legal and had to be confiscated or destroyed (they could not legally be sold out of State, so the owners who had registered their lawful firearms, in good faith, woke up one morning deprived of their property without compensation under color of law).
You have failed to support your statement that there are MANY places which have registration which have not confiscated weapons. Thank you for at least (finally) addressing the issue.
What seems like common sense is often deceptive for those who have incomplete or flawed information.
A study of the matter would indicate that registration is not common sense, but a prelude to confiscation.
We did your homework for you.
-
If you all agree, I will
Only if we ban @Jazzhead from posting to all 2A threads because he pollutes all of them with the same tired talking points...register and insure...blah, blah, blah. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum
:chairbang:
:rolling:
-
The other is the rule of law and the right to due process. Yes, guns can be confiscated from someone who is, say, adjudged to be mentally unsound. But that requires that he receive due process.
I think you and I have different ideas about what constitutes "due process." The California rule permitting the weapons of Veterans to be seized can be done by a Prosecutor and Judge with the defendant not present to defend himself. That's not "due process," that's "Star Chamber."
The case of Hawaii, confiscating the guns of people who appear on both Registered Guns and Medical Marijuana lists don't even have a Judge deciding, just bureaucrats.
-
I think you and I have different ideas about what constitutes "due process." The California rule permitting the weapons of Veterans to be seized can be done by a Prosecutor and Judge with the defendant not present to defend himself. That's not "due process," that's "Star Chamber."
So you are saying that you do not trust the government?
Why... that's unAmerican and a profound insult to our magnificent system!
-
So you are saying that you do not trust the government?
Why... that's unAmerican and a profound insult to our magnificent system!
Indeed it is, and I will gladly insult it again when I want to.
-
You just stated the absurdity of gun control.
Assault weapons are indeed those which can used for the assault on people and can take any number of examples, from knives to guns to box cutters to hammers.
To demand one be controlled and not the others is the whole point that is being made in these threads: it does not work as something else will take its place.
Why are policemen, always allowed to carry gun not more frequently mass-murderers? Because it is NOT the weapon which causes harm, it is the one carrying it.
You need to change your way of thinking and direct it towards the individual, not an inanimate object.
If you look you’ll see I haven’t taken a position on this gun control debate other than to agree we need to bulletproof the second amendment from people who want to limit it to militias instead of where it belongs, as an individual right to keep and bear arms.
-
Only if we ban @Jazzhead from posting to all 2A threads because he pollutes all of them with the same tired talking points...
"The same tired talking points" pretty much applies to all sides of the gun debate.
Now if a new strategy should break through .... this would be interesting.
-
"The same tired talking points" pretty much applies to all sides of the gun debate.
Now if a new strategy should break through .... this would be interesting.
@Right_in_Virginia
New strategy? Make murder illegal? Make criminals illegal? Removing sin from humanity?
The reality is we don't have a gun problem. We have a problem in a very small % of this country where criminals run amok. Nearly all murders occur in about 3% of the counties in this country.
-
"The same tired talking points" pretty much applies to all sides of the gun debate.
Now if a new strategy should break through .... this would be interesting.
That's what we're all waiting for, and is probably why the thread is not going to be locked.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
New strategy? Make murder illegal? Make criminals illegal? Removing sin from humanity?
The reality is we don't have a gun problem.
The reality is we have a messaging problem ... we're preaching to the choir.
-
That's what we're all waiting for, and is probably why the thread is not going to be locked.
LOL. So you're anticipating this thread continuing through the end of the millennium. Good to know. :laugh:
-
LOL. So you're anticipating this thread continuing through the end of the millennium. Good to know. :laugh:
Pretty much. I heard somebody suggest Stevens is going to kick the bucket before we give this one a wrap. :laugh:
-
Absolutely untrue. I have never blocked any member from contacting me by PM. Hell, I've never placed another member on ignore, period. You likely tried to PM me when I was under a temporary ban.
My apologies for thinking you had blocked me. (That's what the pop-up said next to your name in the address block, though.)
-
INVAR is right.
Aaarrrggghhh! It's the end of the world.
-
Only if we ban @Jazzhead from posting to all 2A threads because he pollutes all of them with the same tired talking points...register and insure...blah, blah, blah. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum
:chairbang:
:rolling:
Why not just ban 2A threads altogether? None of you all ever say anything new ;).
-
@the_doc
Trust but verify. Send him a test PM and see if he responds. I sent him one a while back checking on his rehab. Got a similar message. I figured I was blocked too. We ain't exactly what you would call "Buds"
This the message I get. Someone has some splaining to do.
User 'Jazzhead' has blocked your personal message.
@Jazzhead @Wingnut I receive the same message, too. I think there's something wrong with Jazz's PMs.
-
Why not just ban 2A threads altogether? None of you all ever say anything new ;).
Nobody has for hundreds of posts, @LauraTXNM. Be fair.
-
Nobody has for hundreds of posts, @LauraTXNM. Be fair.
@Cyber Liberty Absolutely! That's what I meant ;). Not taking sides here.
-
@Cyber Liberty Absolutely! That's what I meant ;). Not taking sides here.
I'm glad to hear that. This thread is a tar-baby. But that PM thingy is a bit of a curiosity...
-
@Jazzhead @Wingnut I receive the same message, too. I think there's something wrong with Jazz's PMs.
I bet it's a selection on his Message Preferences
-
@Jazzhead @Wingnut I receive the same message, too. I think there's something wrong with Jazz's PMs.
Nope..just checked..his pm's work
-
And it flies in the face of over 100 years of history showing that one leads to the other.
I'm sure it was pitched as "common sense" to the people that allowed their weapons to be registered...then confiscated in the a countries (ad two U.S. states so far) where registration led almost immediately to confiscation.
To what extent does man have a natural or God-given right to self-preservation and protection of his property? This question has been bandied about for thousands of years, and that issue, not guns (which are an instrument of self-preservation), is at the heart of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The United States is the only nation in the annals of mankind to be established on the basis of a political and social philosophy centered on natural, or God-given, rights. Among these are self-preservation and property. Property rights are the bedrock of the American political system; without that foundation, there is no freedom. The Founders held that property rights encompass not just physical property, but also one's life, labor, speech, and livelihood, as individuals own their own lives; therefore, they must own the products of those lives, which can be traded in free exchange with others. Further, as there is a natural right of self-preservation, man has the right and duty to defend himself against transgressors, including the state, who would deny, abrogate, or unlawfully seize his property.
However, over the past 150 years, the statists, including the current iteration of the American left, have marched in lockstep to what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels espoused in their Communist Manifesto: "The Theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." They contended that one's labor or livelihood (and by extension, one's life) is not private property and is thus subordinate to the common good as determined by the state. Therefore, the individual has no God-given and unconstrained right of self-defense, as that right can be utilized to counter or oppose the common good.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,311287.msg1653016.html#msg1653016 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,311287.msg1653016.html#msg1653016)
-
Well that could be or he is just anti-social and is blocking everyone.
Myst's PM came through. I have no idea what the problem is.
-
Myst's PM came through. I have no idea what the problem is.
You had your settings on receiving pm's from Admin only...changed it to *all members* now so you can all pm Jazz..lol
-
Have you contributed in any substantive way to this discussion?
No less than anyone else on this snoozefest.
-
No less than anyone else on this snoozefest.
Quite honestly your meme was the most exciting thing to happen to this thread in 28 pages.
-
Many responses on Canadian, Israeli, and Swiss gun ownership, so I'll answer them here.
Canada: From 1995 to 2012, provinces had registries of "non-restricted" guns. All have ended the registries but Quebec, which is continuing to strengthen its system. THERE WERE AND HAVE BEEN NO CONFISCATIONS.
Switzerland: For purchase from a shop or private party transfer or transaction, information is kept by the canton bureau.
Israel: Harder to get a license, yes. But handguns are registered.
Czech Republic: An interesting case, because they are very pro-ownership after the Nazi/USSR gun prohibitions and would never come close to confiscation. Self-defense is a principle, permits are shall-issue, etc., etc. But they still have registration of handguns, etc.
We could go on.
-
Quite honestly your meme was the most exciting thing to happen to this thread in 28 pages.
:thumbsup:
-
Many responses on Canadian, Israeli, and Swiss gun ownership, so I'll answer them here.
Canada: From 1995 to 2012, provinces had registries of "non-restricted" guns. All have ended the registries but Quebec, which is continuing to strengthen its system. THERE WERE AND HAVE BEEN NO CONFISCATIONS.
Switzerland: For purchase from a shop or private party transfer or transaction, information is kept by the canton bureau.
Israel: Harder to get a license, yes. But handguns are registered.
Czech Republic: An interesting case, because they are very pro-ownership after the Nazi/USSR gun prohibitions and would never come close to confiscation. Self-defense is a principle, permits are shall-issue, etc., etc. But they still have registration of handguns, etc.
We could go on.
The citizens of the countries you list are, with the exception of Canada (who, notably, refused to comply with registration of their long guns), are in Europe with a tradition of being "subjects." The US has a grand tradition of not trusting the government, and no level of cajoling and shaming is going to change that.
-
The citizens of the countries you list are, with the exception of Canada (who, notably, refused to comply with registration of their long guns), are in Europe with a tradition of being "subjects." The US has a grand tradition of not trusting the government, and no level of cajoling and shaming is not going to change that.
The United States is the only nation in the annals of mankind to be established on the basis of a political and social philosophy centered on natural, or God-given, rights. Among these are self-preservation and property. Property rights are the bedrock of the American political system; without that foundation, there is no freedom. The Founders held that property rights encompass not just physical property, but also one's life, labor, speech, and livelihood, as individuals own their own lives; therefore, they must own the products of those lives, which can be traded in free exchange with others. Further, as there is a natural right of self-preservation, man has the right and duty to defend himself against transgressors, including the state, who would deny, abrogate, or unlawfully seize his property.
-
Ooops! I gacked my grammar, and didn't see it until @Elderberry quoted it....
-
Quite honestly your meme was the most exciting thing to happen to this thread in 28 pages.
***blushing***
-
The United States is the only nation in the annals of mankind to be established on the basis of a political and social philosophy centered on natural, or God-given, rights. Among these are self-preservation and property. Property rights are the bedrock of the American political system; without that foundation, there is no freedom. The Founders held that property rights encompass not just physical property, but also one's life, labor, speech, and livelihood, as individuals own their own lives; therefore, they must own the products of those lives, which can be traded in free exchange with others. Further, as there is a natural right of self-preservation, man has the right and duty to defend himself against transgressors, including the state, who would deny, abrogate, or unlawfully seize his property.
Shut up and register your guns like the nice Europeans. And get on this cattle car over here.....
-
Shut up and register your guns like the nice Europeans. And get on this cattle car over here.....
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSs2_lwv45Bz8tT4hw5ew_VWkgVvAXD9D66R6VJInxsgx4PVhDneA)
-
The citizens of the countries you list are, with the exception of Canada (who, notably, refused to comply with registration of their long guns), are in Europe with a tradition of being "subjects." The US has a grand tradition of not trusting the government, and no level of cajoling and shaming is going to change that.
The point is my statement has been confirmed - there are many examples of gun registration regimes that have not led to confiscation.
-
The point is my statement has been confirmed - there are many examples of gun registration regimes that have not led to confiscation.
If you say so. I'm not impressed with that SHORT list, so I still won't comply.
We're not dum dums. Obviously somebody could come up with a few examples. I find it hysterical it wasn't you to do it. Maybe somebody tried to send it to you in a PM?
-
The point is my statement has been confirmed - there are many examples of gun registration regimes that have not led to confiscation.
I don't know if a couple or even a few is Many.
Israel proves the NRA's arguments
In reality, Israel's gun policy is living proof of the arguments the American gun lobby has been making for years.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21714 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21714)
"In Israel, gun ownership is a privilege rather than a right," wrote Public Radio International in November. "There is no such thing as a right to bear arms in Israel," the Huffington Post preached after the 2016 shooting in an Orlando nightclub that left 50 dead.
Newsweek praised Israel for obligating its citizens to "show genuine cause to carry a firearm, such as self-defense or hunting". The message is clear: Israel has the right approach in curtailing access to firearms, and the United States would be well advised to tread the same path.
In reality, Israel's gun policy is living proof of the arguments the American gun lobby has been making for years.
Gun rights advocates contend that the way to stop mass shootings is by ensuring that there are always well-armed citizens present who can neutralize the shooter. As NRA chairman Wayne Lapierre always says, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". A bedrock of the NRA's philosophy is that criminals will always acquire guns illegally, and draconian gun laws only render law-abiding citizens defenseless.
Enter Israel: When the knife intifada erupted in September 2015, the Israeli government's response was to ease the process for the civilian populace to obtain weapons. After a particularly bloody Jerusalem shooting attack that killed four, then-Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan drastically changed the gun laws in order to significantly raise the number of armed civilians on the streets. Instantly, graduates of Special Forces units and IDF officers with the rank of Lieutenant and above were permitted to purchase guns at their will, security guards were allowed to bring their guns home after work, and the minimum age for a license was reduced from 21 to 18.
Erdan explained that "civilians well trained in the use of weapons provide reinforcement in the struggle against terrorism", while Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat called for every resident to carry a gun, and was even photographed traveling the city carrying a Glock 23.
In addition, the overwhelming majority of terror attacks in Israel are stopped by armed civilians, not law enforcement. For example, the terrorists in the 2016 Sarona market attack were stopped by armed passersby. A pistol-carrying tour guide put an end to the 2017 ramming attack in Arnona that left four soldiers dead.
In Israeli eyes, guns are a valuable deterrent against terrorism. In fact, terrorists have told the Shin Bet internal security service that they often target haredi Jews due to the high likelihood that they are unarmed.
-
Shut up and register your guns like the nice Europeans. And get on this cattle car over here.....
I don't know. A train trip through Europe sounds nice.
-
THERE WERE AND HAVE BEEN NO CONFISCATIONS.
We could go on.
No, you really can't. the obvious operative is 'there have been no confiscations YET'. Socialism, or 3rd-way socialism in those countries has only been in power for what, 50 years? Hardly a generation.
Watch and see.
-
I don't know if a couple or even a few is Many.
Israel proves the NRA's arguments
...
Very interesting, @Elderberry!
-
The citizens of the countries you list are, with the exception of Canada (who, notably, refused to comply with registration of their long guns), are in Europe with a tradition of being "subjects." The US has a grand tradition of not trusting the government, and no level of cajoling and shaming is going to change that.
@Cyber Liberty
The Czech Republic's example speaks directly to the point you are making. They have known confiscation under two different regimes and are determined not to repeat it.
-
If you say so. I'm not impressed with that SHORT list, so I still won't comply.
We're not dum dums. Obviously somebody could come up with a few examples. I find it hysterical it wasn't you to do it. Maybe somebody tried to send it to you in a PM?
Seriously, @Cyber Liberty? Would you like me to keep going? The Czechs alone should be highly instructive and relevant to the point. Please give me a number -- how many examples do you need? 10? 50? Will any number satisfy?
-
@Cyber Liberty
The Czech Republic's example speaks directly to the point you are making. They have known confiscation under two different regimes and are determined not to repeat it.
Its only talk at this point.
We don't want to disarm our citizens at a time when the security situation in Europe is getting worse… Show me a single terrorist attack in Europe perpetrated using a legally-owned weapon.†According to Prague.tv, Member of the Chamber of Deputies Jana ÄŒernochová correctly pointed out, “forbidding legal ownership of guns is a tactic often used by undemocratic and totalitarian regimes.â€
The Czech Republic’s forward-thinking recognition that armed citizens can play an important role in combatting terrorist violence stands in stark contrast with much of Europe. On May 24, the European Union finalized changes to the political bloc’s European Firearms Directive that restrict lawful firearm ownership in the union’s 28 member states. The changes were expedited in response to the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and include a ban on the civilian possession of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and onerous new licensing and registration provisions.
Under Czech legislative procedure, the proposed constitutional amendment now moves to the Senate, where a three-fifth’s majority is required for passage. Should the amendment pass the Senate, it will then go to Czech President Milos Zeman for his consideration.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170630/czech-lower-house-approves-gun-rights-constitutional-amendment (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170630/czech-lower-house-approves-gun-rights-constitutional-amendment)
-
I for one do not want to use Europe as a model. Unless it's croissants, wine or cheese they have screwed up everything they've touched for centuries. That's why we left the old country and made this new country. With few exceptions they have shown themselves perfectly willing to give everything to the govt.
-
Many responses on Canadian, Israeli, and Swiss gun ownership, so I'll answer them here.
Canada: From 1995 to 2012, provinces had registries of "non-restricted" guns. All have ended the registries but Quebec, which is continuing to strengthen its system. THERE WERE AND HAVE BEEN NO CONFISCATIONS.
Switzerland: For purchase from a shop or private party transfer or transaction, information is kept by the canton bureau.
Israel: Harder to get a license, yes. But handguns are registered.
Czech Republic: An interesting case, because they are very pro-ownership after the Nazi/USSR gun prohibitions and would never come close to confiscation. Self-defense is a principle, permits are shall-issue, etc., etc. But they still have registration of handguns, etc.
We could go on.
Pray do. Canada is just up the road from my house, and the reason the "registry" was ended is that it never was implemented fully. There was a little compliance in the far east and west, but the rest of Canadians REFUSED TO COMPLY. They quit trying to invoke it when the anticipated 1 million dollar cost ballooned into a Billion dollar tab, and they were not even half way done. In short, because Canadians wouldn't do it, the government gave up.
You have seen the lengthy sets of examples, some in this country, of jurisdictions which have used registration as a confiscation tool. It is by no means a complete list, but the bottom line is that there are more than enough examples of registries being used to round up guns that concern is prudent and warranted.
No. I will not register one damned thing. Those who push such a scheme will have blood on their hands if they succeed.
-
Pray do. Canada is just up the road from my house, and the reason the "registry" was ended is that it never was implemented fully. There was a little compliance in the far east and west, but the rest of Canadians REFUSED TO COMPLY. They quit trying to invoke it when the anticipated 1 million dollar cost ballooned into a Billion dollar tab, and they were not even half way done. In short, because Canadians wouldn't do it, the government gave up.
You have seen the lengthy sets of examples, some in this country, of jurisdictions which have used registration as a confiscation tool. It is by no means a complete list, but the bottom line is that there are more than enough examples of registries being used to round up guns that concern is prudent and warranted.
No. I will not register one damned thing. Those who push such a scheme will have blood on their hands if they succeed.
You're speaking of the long gun registry, not the provincial ones. But never mind.
-
Seriously, @Cyber Liberty? Would you like me to keep going? The Czechs alone should be highly instructive and relevant to the point. Please give me a number -- how many examples do you need? 10? 50? Will any number satisfy?
Do what you want. I still will not be shamed into behaving like Euroweenies.
-
Do what you want. I still will not be shamed into behaving like Euroweenies.
@Cyber Liberty I understand your statement to mean, that you're not interested in further examples, whether European or elsewhere. Is that correct?
-
@Cyber Liberty I understand your statement to mean, that you're not interested in further examples, whether European or elsewhere. Is that correct?
No, it means I don't care what you have to say. Sometimes a dropping mask is a very unpretty sight.
-
No, it means I don't care what you have to say. Sometimes a dropping mask is a very unpretty sight.
@Cyber Liberty Could you tell me what you mean by a "dropping mask"?
-
@Cyber Liberty Could you tell me what you mean by a "dropping mask"?
Does not take hints well.
-
@Cyber Liberty Could you tell me what you mean by a "dropping mask"?
No. Maybe in a few days. /Magic Eight Ball
-
No, it means I don't care what you have to say. Sometimes a dropping mask is a very unpretty sight.
What 'they' do elsewhere is irrelevant.
This is our country, and we have done things differently from any country in the world.
While other systems have had some limited success, our culture is unique and has bailed out much of the free world at one time or another, militarily.
We have our Constitution, and despite our government of late ignoring it as much as possible, many of us have not, and we intend to keep it--and our Rights--as intended by those very wise men who wrote it.
It was intentionally a different system from any that had been in practice in Europe, simply because the nations of Europe regularly went through serious upheavals.
They have their systems, their governments, and if people think that is so much better, then leave, with our blessings.
Why would we want to emulate that which we left, why go back to systems doomed to failure when we already have a workable system?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It isn't the Second Amendment nor the right to own a firearm that needs to be fixed, it is a culture which has other people problems, and taking away one tool (because aside from a make-work project on the order of the WPA for clerks and door-kickers, that is the aim of a gun registry) will only force those problem people to find creative, new, and even more hideous ways to do their dastardly deeds.
There are other, even more effective ways to harm people besides guns.
-
LOL. I have finally found something interesting on this shit thread. Another gun grabber and someone who I knew was a Commie troll faking it as a Right winger has finally been outed. HOW EXCITING!!!!
-
LOL. I have finally found something interesting on this shit thread. Another gun grabber and someone who I knew was a Commie troll faking it as a Right winger has finally been outed. HOW EXCITING!!!!
Whose been faking it ?
-
Whose been faking it ?
I can't say any more than vagaries. I don't want to get my ticket punched.
All I can say is that there is an actual Dem Plant and they have a name.
-
What 'they' do elsewhere is irrelevant.
This is our country, and we have done things differently from any country in the world.
While other systems have had some limited success, our culture is unique and has bailed out much of the free world at one time or another, militarily.
We have our Constitution, and despite our government of late ignoring it as much as possible, many of us have not, and we intend to keep it--and our Rights--as intended by those very wise men who wrote it.
It was intentionally a different system from any that had been in practice in Europe, simply because the nations of Europe regularly went through serious upheavals.
They have their systems, their governments, and if people think that is so much better, then leave, with our blessings.
Why would we want to emulate that which we left, why go back to systems doomed to failure when we already have a workable system?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It isn't the Second Amendment nor the right to own a firearm that needs to be fixed, it is a culture which has other people problems, and taking away one tool (because aside from a make-work project on the order of the WPA for clerks and door-kickers, that is the aim of a gun registry) will only force those problem people to find creative, new, and even more hideous ways to do their dastardly deeds.
There are other, even more effective ways to harm people besides guns.
@Smokin Joe Hey there! To be clear, I have NOT been advocating more registration than we currently have with gun stores. I was just answering the perennial question, about countries that's have registration without confiscation.
I agree and have said from almost my first post, that I believe in the US and in us as Americans. And I think we should be able to come up with perhaps uniquely American solutions to any problems we have. I strongly believe in people's right to own guns. Anyway....
-
I can't say any more than vagaries. I don't want to get my ticket punched.
All I can say is that there is an actual Dem Plant and they have a name.
@Frank Cannon If by some chance you're referring to me, I've always been completely open about who I am and why I'm here. Although I'm emphatically in favor of Americans owning guns. And no one "planted" me here; I just thought you all were interesting.
-
@Frank Cannon If by some chance you're referring to me, I've always been completely open about who I am and why I'm here. Although I'm emphatically in favor of Americans owning guns. And no one "planted" me here; I just thought you all were interesting.
That is not true. I never use names or even hint and any active members in my posts. I do not want my ticket punched.
BTW who are you and why are you here?
-
That is not true. I never use names or even hint and any active members in my posts. I do not want my ticket punched.
BTW who are you and why are you here?
I'm just a kitten with a whip. 8888spinning cat
-
I'm just a kitten with a whip. 8888spinning cat
What's you hourly rate and are you any good?
-
What's you hourly rate and are you any good?
Oh, I'm a lot of fun, especially when my friend and I bring along our toys. I don't know if you'd want to pay the airfare, though.
888heartkitty
-
Oh, I'm a lot of fun, especially when my friend and I bring along our toys. I don't know if you'd want to pay the airfare, though.
888heartkitty
I think there was an article posted here about you not too long ago.
-
Oh, I'm a lot of fun, especially when my friend and I bring along our toys. I don't know if you'd want to pay the airfare, though.
888heartkitty
Don't worry about that. I took in trade for back rent some Braniff airline tickets that the tenants swore were still good.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/-~MAAOSws5pZHx8O/s-l300.jpg)
-
Don't worry about that. I took in trade for back rent some Braniff airline tickets that the tenants swore were still good.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/-~MAAOSws5pZHx8O/s-l300.jpg)
Ooh, I've always wanted to travel in style!
-
I think there was an article posted here about you not too long ago.
The one about the enterprising co-eds?
-
Aha, here it is: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309657.msg1643457.html#msg1643457 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309657.msg1643457.html#msg1643457)
-
Aha, here it is: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309657.msg1643457.html#msg1643457 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309657.msg1643457.html#msg1643457)
Oh. Well if the poster is Lady Sophia I'm out. I don't have time for some lazy Millennial Dominatrix. Valley Girl accents turn me off as well.
-
Oh. Well if the poster is Lady Sophia I'm out. I don't have time for some lazy Millennial Dominatrix. Valley Girl accents turn me off as well.
Well, we're more of the Main Line school, if that works for you. With a strong background in feminist theory ;).
-
No, it means I don't care what you have to say. Sometimes a dropping mask is a very unpretty sight.
Lol! And sometimes.... even a mask cannot hide the ideology underneath (been there, done that, seen it too many times before). Words convey that quite well, however.
Late to the party, but welcome.... ^-^.
-
@Cyber Liberty I understand your statement to mean, that you're not interested in further examples, whether European or elsewhere. Is that correct?
@LauraTXNM , thanks for the information you provided. I hadn't been aware of the Czech example; it is interesting to see a nation with a history of gun bans under totalitarian regimes embrace a gun-friendly regime that still incorporates licensure and registration. Without confiscation.
But I knew from the start what the reaction would be to @Smokin Joe 's invitation to go snipe hunting. If you provide examples of registration without confiscation, it is never enough, and besides, there's no confiscation "yet". And if you provide European examples, they're invalid because, after all, we're special and different. *****rollingeyes*****
-
@LauraTXNM , thanks for the information you provided. I hadn't been aware of the Czech example; it is interesting to see a nation with a history of gun bans under totalitarian regimes embrace a gun-friendly regime that still incorporates licensure and registration. Without confiscation.
But I knew from the start what the reaction would be to @Smokin Joe 's invitation to go snipe hunting. If you provide examples of registration without confiscation, it is never enough, and besides, there's no confiscation "yet". And if you provide European examples, they're invalid because, after all, we're special and different. *****rollingeyes*****
I really don't have a dog in this fight, so I just started reading as an interesting exercise. And I agree, the Czechs came closer to the American viewpoint than any other country I've heard of. I've never heard another modern nation-state explicitly support individual arms for protection against the government!
-
Aha, here it is: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309657.msg1643457.html#msg1643457 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309657.msg1643457.html#msg1643457)
Good grief, a thousand ways to please a man, and not one requires a plan. But if you have to be the planning type, a gift card to the local gun shop will suffice. ^-^
@LauraTXNM @RoosGirl
-
I for one do not want to use Europe as a model. Unless it's croissants, wine or cheese they have screwed up everything they've touched for centuries. That's why we left the old country and made this new country. With few exceptions they have shown themselves perfectly willing to give everything to the govt.
Only one political mindset in the U.S. wants us to be more like Europe.
Surprised it took this long for the disguise to come off.
-
@LauraTXNM , thanks for the information you provided. I hadn't been aware of the Czech example; it is interesting to see a nation with a history of gun bans under totalitarian regimes embrace a gun-friendly regime that still incorporates licensure and registration. Without confiscation.
But I knew from the start what the reaction would be to @Smokin Joe 's invitation to go snipe hunting. If you provide examples of registration without confiscation, it is never enough, and besides, there's no confiscation "yet". And if you provide European examples, they're invalid because, after all, we're special and different. *****rollingeyes*****
We are special and different, in case you didn't notice.
Most Conservative Americans believe that, and History bears it out. I believe in American Exceptionalism, born of our inherent love for freedom from unnecessary government meddling in our lives, and the freedom to innovate, secure in our person, papers, and effects (including the means to defend them). Unlike other countries which have had 50 or fewer years of domestic peace, despite our little civil incidents we haven't been invaded since the Mexicans did in the early 1900s. Few nations on Earth can claim that century of relative security. The Swiss can, but they are armed to the teeth, with full-auto capable rifles stored by legal mandate in the homes along with enough ammo to fight their way to the local armory---something we don't even have. Other nations are rediscovering the RKBA, but following a generally more American model, yet in the UK they are discussing knife control....I guess there is no real threat there of bringing one to a gun fight.
We saved Europe's bacon twice, in WWI AND WWII--not only the breadbasket of the free world, but the 'Arsenal of Democracy' as well. Part of that arsenal was effective enough during that era, for 'behind every blade of grass' there would be a rifle waiting for any invading force. We exist, as a nation by force of arms and preserved that union through the same force, whatever one makes of that event. Yet it has remained fundamental from the Battles of Lexington and Concord (instigated by British troops moving to confiscate arms and ammunition from the colonists) that Americans are, and will remain so long as there is a recognizable America, Armed.
As for registration schemes, we have laws which usurp power as it is: One administration stops a pipeline, one lets it be completed, the political winds blow spuriously and from different directions depending on which Party is in control, and sometimes they do not blow nearly hard enough along the reciprocal course.
On the issue of firearms, though, the list of infringements on the Right is long, has ever grown, each time with yet another scheme which will make the world safe, the birds sing, the sun shine and enable your children to walk through the worst part of town at night safely. Only that fiction that was used to justify yet another layer of onerous infringements on the Rights of firearm owners still fails to be realized, and yet another proposed. Note, if you will, the Clinton Era "Assault Weapons Ban" which had little to no effect on crime.
Note that the NFA of 1934 was going to make everyone safe by limiting access to entire classes of firearms and devices. Well, that didn't work, so double down, and after a significant war, a couple of assassinations, and a good dose of the 'red scare' another act was passed in 1968 which reqired a bunch of paperwork to get a firearm. Then NICS checks and th prohibition of newly manufactured fully automatic arms being acquired by any but military, LEOs, or licensed dealers of machine and submachine guns. (The effect of that, while technically not keeping someone from the general public who went through the paperwork, background checks, paid the transfer tax, etc. was that the AK-47, the select fire most common combat rifle in the world went in price from the $300 it costs elsewhere in the world to nearly 10K--if you can find one which has not been worn out, because if it was manufactured after 1982, you, average person, can't have it.
Did that make the streets any safer? No. Because criminals won't comply with that law either. Breaking laws is how they roll, and one more doesn't mean jack to them.
Those NICS provisions (and other, later ones) were thwarted, most notoriously, not by hardened criminals, but BY THE VERY AGENCIES TASKED WITH ENFORCING THEM in a scheme known as "Fast and Furious" or operation gunwalker, which effectively facilitated the transfer of semiautomatic firearms to street gangs and drug cartel straw buyers, in quantities which would have tripped flags for the average person (take delivery on two identical firearms in one day and you may well get a 'visit' to verify you bought them for you, if the purchase isn't denied, too).
At least according to some sources, the purpose of that operation (which had no chance of tracing those firearms until they were recovered from crime scenes or as a result of searches after an arrest) was to flood the Mexican market with 'legally' purchased weapons which would be likely to be used in crimes so the statistics could come a little closer to reflecting the media meme that American sold firearms were part and parcel of the Cartel crime wave in Mexico, for the further purpose of imposing further restrictions on the RKBA of American gun owners, done by the Obama Administration.
It isn't just the Obama Administration at play, here but Federal Agency bureaucratic mindsets which have persisted for decades and are easily revived when the Administration is favorable to such.
You want me to trust the architects and purveyors of such incidents as the M.O.V.E. fire bombing in Philadelphia, the Ruby Ridge incident, the Waco Massacre (parts I and II), and numerous other incidents which indicate a fundamental distrust of the government agencies which are supposed to be holding our Rights inviolate is a good thing. Under the Clintons, after the passage of the act requiring background checks through the NICS system, the BATF was compiling a database (registry) of background checks, rather than disposing of that information within 24 hours as required by law.
With the amount of surveillance being conducted on telecommunications, who knows what the government has illegally compiled using the destination numbers of the NICS system to do so?
When a government has proven itself to be less than trustworthy with such information, I, for one, am not about to sanction it collecting such data--nor the fees which it will inevitably charge for the 'service'. As a taxpayer, you, too, will have to shell out for the staff and equipment to keep such a scheme going, and there is no guarantee that that information would be secure. For the enterprising, databases of who owns what sorts of firearms in a given area could be marketable information for those interested in making a living off of larceny, not just the Government agencies who want to kick some doors and ass to work off their roid rage.
I have a solution. Just say "No.". Save the money, the incidents, the hostility, and the creation of a huge criminal class of non compliant but otherwise law abiding firearm owners. Save the lives lost or destroyed by inevitable conflict.
Note, too, that none of the above measures have really been credited for reducing crime so much as the continuing increase in the number of Americans who carry concealed. Rules on paper don't matter to a criminal, but the general uncertainty of confronting a target who might well be carrying the lethal means of self-defense is a consideration that is up close and personal, and a true deterrent.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Great post!!! (Though I don't think poor judicial appointments are limited to Democratic administrations -- look at last year's nominees alone.)
2 words: Ninth Circuit.
edited for spelling
-
@Maj. Bill Martin , we may rarely agree but I always appreciate it when you respond to my posts.
Same here. @Jazzhead
I think where we differ is that you appear to have never gotten comfortable with the 14th amendment. The 14th is the most significant amendment since the first ten, since it fundamentally altered the relationship of the States to the Federal Constitution.
Before the 14th, it is indeed true that the States could confiscate your guns, throw you in jail for criticizing the government, and deny you the practice of your religion. Putting aside for a moment the question of enumerated rights vs. unenumerated rights, the Federal Constitution was largely irrelevant to the States; it certainly placed no brakes on a State's denial of one's fundamental, natural liberties.
With the 14th, the States became obliged to protect the same rights as recognized by the Federal Constitution.... As a lover of individual liberty, I view the 14th amendment as correcting the original Constitution's most significant flaw.
To this point, I have zero disagreement. But I would point out that what the 14th was intended to do was to take some of their power away from the states, and give more to the Federal government. Specifically, the power to prevent the states from engaging in behaviors from which the federal government itself was barred. Do we agree on that?
I would add only that the 14th still did not do everything I would like to have seen done. The Constitution was still (and is still) an imperfect document. And we should be interpreting it in that manner, as occasionally still requiring Amendment as desired by citizens.
(and let's not forget, the 14th itself created a new enumerated right - the right to the due process of law.)
Quite right. It required that states have the same procedural protections as did the federal government -- so all the parts of the Fourth, Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendments dealing with that process. Requirements for warrants, non-self incrimination, speedy trial, etc.. Pretty straight-forward.
As for limiting the Constitution's protections to enumerated rights, I must disagree with you. The foundation of the Constitution's protection of un-enumerated rights derives directly from the Ninth Amendment and the concept, trumpeted by many on this board, that we have a slate of inalienable natural rights. Among these are the rights of individual self defense, individual self-determination, and individual privacy.
I'm trying to figure out how to do this without taking up too much space.... I suppose I'll start by saying that the Framers were very smart guys - many of them were lawyers who understood the need for clarity/certainty in legal documents, which is what the Constitution most certainly is. Yet, they never used the phrase "natural rights" anywhere in the Constitution, very likely because they no doubt recognized the inherent ambiguity/vagueness of the phrase. The structure of having a very limited federal government certainly is consistent with an aspirational desire to protect generally such rights, but that is different from using such a vague term in drafting a document intended to have specific legal effects.
Likewise, the text of the 14th also does not include any mention of the phrase "natural rights". Had the drafters of that Amendent wanted to say that no state could violate the "natural rights" of any citizen, and chose to leave the interpretation of that phrase open to courts, they could and would have done so. But again -- lawyers. They didn't want to draft something as powerful as a Constitutional Amendment without everyone knowing exactly what it would mean when written. So, they didn't hand the courts a blank check, and didn't include that phrase as something that was constitutionally protected.
Additionally:
1. Haven't you pointed out to others here that there is a difference between "natural rights", and legal rights? To the extent someone believes in "natural rights", they exist independent of government. Whether or not a right is legally enforceable is a different question from whether or not it is a "natural right". In other words, "natural rights", by their vary nature, cannot be changed by the decision of any court.
2. I have asked you repeatedly what is the standard for determining which un-enumerated rights are so "fundamental" or "natural" that they are covered by the Constitution as currently drafted, and you haven't answered. And that, really, is the key question that illuminates this entire debate: Who should decide what is a natural right entitled to legal protection, and what is their basis for making that determination?
3. Here's the core of what I think is wrong with the "un-enumerated rights" interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and it is suggested by the only possible answer you can have to point 2): The 14th Amendment was intended to changed the balance of power between the Federal Government and the States. It was not intended to change the balance of power between the elected Congress/the President on one hand, and unelected judges on the other. I think if anyone would have suggested that the 14th Amendment was intended to achieve such a fundamental rebalancing of the Constitution's balance of powers, it would have been rejected out of hand.
-
@LauraTXNM , thanks for the information you provided. I hadn't been aware of the Czech example; it is interesting to see a nation with a history of gun bans under totalitarian regimes embrace a gun-friendly regime that still incorporates licensure and registration. Without confiscation.
But I knew from the start what the reaction would be to @Smokin Joe 's invitation to go snipe hunting. If you provide examples of registration without confiscation, it is never enough, and besides, there's no confiscation "yet". And if you provide European examples, they're invalid because, after all, we're special and different. *****rollingeyes*****
I think you are reversing the correct burden of proof on the issue of confiscation. The question should not be "you have to prove that registration will definitely lead to confiscation", but rather your side should have to prove that won't lead to confiscation. Now, proving a negative is not easy, but things like the inexorable zero are perfectly fine. If confiscation following registration was truly rare, and hadn't been attempted in this country at all, I think you'd have a decent argument that concerns about confiscation are unreasonable. But it should be up to you to put forth facts showing that concerns about confiscation are not reasonable, and you really haven't tried to do that as far as I can tell.
Honestly, I don't think it is possible to do that. There are simply far too many people in this country openly advocating for broad classes of guns -- not just "assault weapons" -- to be illegal to own. Some even argue that private gun ownership should be illegal for the vast majority of private citizens. So I think it would be a pretty tall order to claim that fears of eventual confiscation after registration would be unreasonable.
-
I think you are reversing the correct burden of proof on the issue of confiscation. The question should not be "you have to prove that registration will definitely lead to confiscation", but rather your side should have to prove that won't lead to confiscation. Now, proving a negative is not easy, but things like the inexorable zero are perfectly fine. If confiscation following registration was truly rare, and hadn't been attempted in this country at all, I think you'd have a decent argument that concerns about confiscation are unreasonable. But it should be up to you to put forth facts showing that concerns about confiscation are not reasonable, and you really haven't tried to do that as far as I can tell.
Honestly, I don't think it is possible to do that. There are simply far too many people in this country openly advocating for broad classes of guns -- not just "assault weapons" -- to be illegal to own. Some even argue that private gun ownership should be illegal for the vast majority of private citizens. So I think it would be a pretty tall order to claim that fears of eventual confiscation after registration would be unreasonable.
@Maj. Bill Martin
How is registration supposed to reduce gun crime?
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
How is registration supposed to reduce gun crime?
I don't support registration, but are you asking me to play Devil's Advocate? I mean, I know the arguments, and they aren't terrible. It's just that the downside to me isn't worth it.
-
I think you are reversing the correct burden of proof on the issue of confiscation. The question should not be "you have to prove that registration will definitely lead to confiscation", but rather your side should have to prove that won't lead to confiscation. Now, proving a negative is not easy, but things like the inexorable zero are perfectly fine. If confiscation following registration was truly rare, and hadn't been attempted in this country at all, I think you'd have a decent argument that concerns about confiscation are unreasonable. But it should be up to you to put forth facts showing that concerns about confiscation are not reasonable, and you really haven't tried to do that as far as I can tell.
Honestly, I don't think it is possible to do that. There are simply far too many people in this country openly advocating for broad classes of guns -- not just "assault weapons" -- to be illegal to own. Some even argue that private gun ownership should be illegal for the vast majority of private citizens. So I think it would be a pretty tall order to claim that fears of eventual confiscation after registration would be unreasonable.
It isn't possible to prove that negative, because contrary evidence exists, right here on our own shores. Even here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=122091 (https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=122091) , it has been noted that some SKS rifles which had been registered as legal were deemed later to be "assault weapons" illegal under California law, and that registry was used to confiscate them and check compliance. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=195 (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=195)
Note also, the discussion in the piece at the second link about CT confiscation law as well.
Nope, no reason to trust that any registry would not be used to confiscate firearms, with mere changes in definition or a list or even just the whim of those deciding what was and wasn't legal--all in strict violation of "...shall not be infringed."
Consider, too, the thought of those registries falling into the hands of a military invader or criminal elements, and all that has been done is create a database of people to round up or rob. No thanks.
-
It isn't possible to prove that negative, because contrary evidence exists, right here on our own shores. Even here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=122091 (https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=122091) , it has been noted that some SKS rifles which had been registered as legal were deemed later to be "assault weapons" illegal under California law, and that registry was used to confiscate them and check compliance. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=195 (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=195)
Note also, the discussion in the piece at the second link about CT confiscation law as well.
Nope, no reason to trust that any registry would not be used to confiscate firearms, with mere changes in definition or a list or even just the whim of those deciding what was and wasn't legal--all in strict violation of "...shall not be infringed."
Consider, too, the thought of those registries falling into the hands of a military invader or criminal elements, and all that has been done is create a database of people to round up or rob. No thanks.
I agree. I'm just saying that asking @Jazzhead to name one time when it hasn't happened is letting him off too easy. If he and others believe that law-abiding gun owners should support registration, then proving that confiscation might not happen isn't nearly good enough. They should have to convince us that our worries are unreasonable/not realistic, and....they can't. The facts show that it has happened in the U.S., at least on the local level, and that there are plenty of more people advocating for it right now.
-
I agree. I'm just saying that asking @Jazzhead to name one time when it hasn't happened is letting him off too easy. If he and others believe that law-abiding gun owners should support registration, then proving that confiscation might not happen isn't nearly good enough. They should have to convince us that our worries are unreasonable/not realistic, and....they can't. The facts show that it has happened in the U.S., at least on the local level, and that there are plenty of more people advocating for it right now.
When one weighs the relative inconvenience of enforcement agencies having to have probable cause to search for weapons versus a ready shopping list, in instances where other crimes are involved (which only makes it more likely that firearms laws have otherwise been ignored as well) against the downside, especially as evidenced in post-Weimar Germany and in other instances of governmental change, the very purpose and intent of the Second Amendment comes into play.
It was not enumerated to protect 'stuff', but to keep governments from having a monopoly on the ability to use force against an unarmed populace, including, but not limited to, our own government.
Considering that the Constitution is the compact by which power, limited in scope and strength was ceded by a willing people to the Federal Government, all other rights and powers not specifically granted to the government remain with the people, save those they specifically granted to their respective States.
Bottom line is that power, those Rights belong to us, not to the Government, which has been specifically denied the power to take them in this instance. Anything which would facilitate that removal of power, by force and under color of law, from the people must be resisted.
-
I agree. I'm just saying that asking @Jazzhead to name one time when it hasn't happened is letting him off too easy. If he and others believe that law-abiding gun owners should support registration, then proving that confiscation might not happen isn't nearly good enough. They should have to convince us that our worries are unreasonable/not realistic, and....they can't. The facts show that it has happened in the U.S., at least on the local level, and that there are plenty of more people advocating for it right now.
He and his new partner have a trust of the government I neither understand nor share. I will not comply with a demand to register.
-
He and his new partner have a trust of the government I neither understand nor share. I will not comply with a demand to register.
I won't either, and most of the other gun owners I know laugh at the belief that they would.
Government aside, I personally believe that depriving a citizen of the ability to defend effectively themselves and their family from criminal intruders is fundamentally immoral. For literally thousands of years, ordinary people feared becoming prey for the strong and the vicious, because they didn't have the ability to protect themselves from physically stronger and/or more numerous raiders. The police/constabulary simply cannot provide the instant response necessarily to protect most people from those kind of animals. Guns finally gave the ordinary, peaceful citizens -- including women, the elderly, and the weak/infirm, the ability to protect/deter, because you don't have to be a physical match for an intruder to shoot them.
I'll never give up mine, nor will I facilitate the potential confiscation of mine by registering them with a government that cannot reasonably be trusted never to use that information for confiscation.
-
Only one political mindset in the U.S. wants us to be more like Europe.
Surprised it took this long for the disguise to come off.
@txradioguy
I agree with you. There's a reason we're Americans. The Europeans (and Canadians) like to criticize us, but we have dealt with many problems including integration far better than they do. My Canadian MIL criticizes our immigration policy, and I have a hard time not calling her a hypocrite.
-
I won't either, and most of the other gun owners I know laugh at the belief that they would.
Government aside, I personally believe that depriving a citizen of the ability to defend effectively themselves and their family from criminal intruders is fundamentally immoral. For literally thousands of years, ordinary people feared becoming prey for the strong and the vicious, because they didn't have the ability to protect themselves from physically stronger and/or more numerous raiders. The police/constabulary simply cannot provide the instant response necessarily to protect most people from those kind of animals. Guns finally gave the ordinary, peaceful citizens -- including women, the elderly, and the weak/infirm, the ability to protect/deter, because you don't have to be a physical match for an intruder to shoot them.
I'll never give up mine, nor will I facilitate the potential confiscation of mine by registering them with a government that cannot reasonably be trusted never to use that information for confiscation.
@Maj. Bill Martin
I think your attitude makes sense and is shared by (obviously) a lot of people. The "registration" at gun stores seems perfectly adequate to me. Do you think gun stores keeping records is a problem?
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
I think your attitude makes sense and is shared by (obviously) a lot of people. The "registration" at gun stores seems perfectly adequate to me. Do you think gun stores keeping records is a problem?
Depends on the gun store owner, IMO. I have only purchased weapons from stores where I knew the owner and trusted him. I trust... that if or when TSHTF.... those records will axedentally be burned in a terrible fire. :whistle:
-
Depends on the gun store owner, IMO. I have only purchased weapons from stores where I knew the owner and trusted him. I trust... that if or when TSHTF.... those records will axedentally be burned in a terrible fire. :whistle:
The LGS I use in Louisville is run by former LEO's...I know beyond a doubt any records they have will die in a fire if any kind of registration is implemented.
-
I don't support registration, but are you asking me to play Devil's Advocate? I mean, I know the arguments, and they aren't terrible. It's just that the downside to me isn't worth it.
@Maj. Bill Martin
I was really looking for any real argument FOR registration. There really isn't a valid argument for it that I can see. The one argument they use is that it will reduce crime? How will it reduce crime? How will forcing every law abiding citizen to register their firearms reduce crime? Where registration has been implemented the gun crime rate has not been reduced.
If someone argues for it they need to provide real reasons why it would help. No its about control and as we can see from england it will not stop with guns. Throughout history govts have tried to ban the peasants from possessing weapons.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
I think your attitude makes sense and is shared by (obviously) a lot of people. The "registration" at gun stores seems perfectly adequate to me. Do you think gun stores keeping records is a problem?
Well...yes and no. Yes, they have a record of who bought guns. But because there is no requirement that sales between non-dealers be recorded, they can't use the fact that you bought the gun from a dealer as legal proof that you still own it. That's what they'd need to do if they intended to do confiscation by fine/penalty.
-
Depends on the gun store owner, IMO. I have only purchased weapons from stores where I knew the owner and trusted him. I trust... that if or when TSHTF.... those records will axedentally be burned in a terrible fire. :whistle:
@XenaLee
In every recent mass shooting the ATF/FBI has been able to track down the history of the firearm within a day or two. There is no way to do that if all you have is the firearm.
I have no doubt they have a record of every recent firearm purchase and it isn't limited to the paper records in the gun store.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
I was really looking for any real argument FOR registration. There really isn't a valid argument for it that I can see. The one argument they use is that it will reduce crime? How will it reduce crime? How will forcing every law abiding citizen to register their firearms reduce crime? Where registration has been implemented the gun crime rate has not been reduced.
Well, I can see a few arguments, some of which have some validity at least on the margins. First, start with the presumption that most criminals commit more than one crime -- recidivism is quite high. So, here are some arguments.
1) When a criminal is arrested, you can then confiscate any weapons they own, and you'll know they have them because of registration. That may make it more difficult for at least some of them to have a weapon with which to commit a future crime.
2) If someone is adjudicated (not just reported/diagnosed) as having a mental illness or condition that actually makes them dangerous to others, you can then check to see if they own any weapons, and confiscate those. That, also, may prevent them from having easy access to weapons in the future. If they are not locked up, you can make it a condition of them being free (same with felons) that they also may not live with anyone who owns a weapon. So, if you want a nutcase who is dangerous to live in your house, you can't have guns they might access.
There are issues with both of those, but I don't doubt that if it was implemented, you'd probably prevent at least some gun related crimes. But again, I don't believe that the burden registration places on law-abiding citizens is worth it.
-
@XenaLee
In every recent mass shooting the ATF/FBI has been able to track down the history of the firearm within a day or two. There is no way to do that if all you have is the firearm.
I have no doubt they have a record of every recent firearm purchase and it isn't limited to the paper records in the gun store.
Well then, there's always the backup plan.... all my guns got lost in a terrible boating axedent. It's been years since I purchased another one .... and I've slept since then.... so I forget the details of that boating axedent. Oh well....
And... I don't plan on being involved in any mass shooting. I specifically mentioned if or when TSHTF... meaning if big government ever starts demanding all gun records from gun owners, with confiscation as their motive.
-
Well, I can see a few arguments, some of which have some validity at least on the margins. First, start with the presumption that most criminals commit more than one crime -- recidivism is quite high. So, here are some arguments.
1) When a criminal is arrested, you can then confiscate any weapons they own, and you'll know they have them because of registration. That may make it more difficult for at least some of them to have a weapon with which to commit a future crime.
2) If someone is adjudicated (not just reported/diagnosed) as having a mental illness or condition that actually makes them dangerous to others, you can then check to see if they own any weapons, and confiscate those. That, also, may prevent them from having easy access to weapons in the future. If they are not locked up, you can make it a condition of them being free (same with felons) that they also may not live with anyone who owns a weapon. So, if you want a nutcase who is dangerous to live in your house, you can't have guns they might access.
There are issues with both of those, but I don't doubt that if it was implemented, you'd probably prevent at least some gun related crimes. But again, I don't believe that the burden that places on law-abiding citizens is worth it.
@Maj. Bill Martin
#1 is easily refuted. Most violent crimes (~80%) are committed by people previously convicted of a felony, usually another violent crime. Its already illegal for them to own or possess a firearm.
#2 is equally a false sense of security. If a court revokes someones 2nd amendment rights they could easily search that persons home. Having a gun registered doesn't prevent someone from hiding a gun at another location. Nor does it prevent them from having a multitude of other types of weapons.
The only reason for registration is to apply further controls on law abiding citizens. Making it harder to own them, more expensive and creating a new class of criminals for those who break the registration law. Thereby reducing the population of legal owners.
No more compromise. Conservatives and gun owners have compromised for decades and all its gotten us is more calls for compromise.
-
Well then, there's always the backup plan.... all my guns got lost in a terrible boating axedent. It's been years since I purchased another one .... and I've slept since then.... so I forget the details of that boating axedent. Oh well....
And... I don't plan on being involved in any mass shooting. I specifically mentioned if or when TSHTF... meaning if big government ever starts demanding all gun records from gun owners, with confiscation as their motive.
@XenaLee
Over the last few years there have been numerous cases of military training taking place in small towns. The stated goal was to train our troops for combat in urban areas.
Every single time the mission included going after drug dealers, weapons dealers, and other wanted persons.
-
1) When a criminal is arrested, you can then confiscate any weapons they own,
So in accepting such a premise, we then say 'the hell with due process' and waiting until there is a conviction before the State acts to simply confiscate weapons from someone charged.
I do not think it would be long after that we start accepting the notion of 'pre-crime' being an actionable and approved policy.
-
The LGS I use in Louisville is run by former LEO's...I know beyond a doubt any records they have will die in a fire if any kind of registration is implemented.
Yep. And the really good friends that are gun store owners... will alert their customers if or when government comes knocking for those records. It's nice to have time to line up an alibi for what terrible tragedy occurred re: your gun collection...lol.
-
@XenaLee
Over the last few years there have been numerous cases of military training taking place in small towns. The stated goal was to train our troops for combat in urban areas.
Every single time the mission included going after drug dealers, weapons dealers, and other wanted persons.
You mean... the mission was to go after legitimate gun store owners? Got a link for that? Cause I've heard of the military training ... but I haven't heard of them going after gun stores or gun store owners.
-
Depends on the gun store owner, IMO. I have only purchased weapons from stores where I knew the owner and trusted him. I trust... that if or when TSHTF.... those records will axedentally be burned in a terrible fire. :whistle:
That makes sense. As far as I was aware, gun store records are only kept to help if a gun is used in a crime. That's correct, isn't it?
-
The LGS I use in Louisville is run by former LEO's...I know beyond a doubt any records they have will die in a fire if any kind of registration is implemented.
Yeah, unless the FBI land upon the store in the dark of night, break in and confiscate them. Like Trump's lawyer.
-
The LGS I use in Louisville is run by former LEO's...I know beyond a doubt any records they have will die in a fire if any kind of registration is implemented.
@txradioguy Do the LEOs you know think gun store records are useful for any reason? Or do they think it's a waste of time?
P.S. Sorry -- I just read your later post, and you may have answered the question (?).
-
@txradioguy Do the LEOs you know think gun store records are useful for any reason? Or do they think it's a waste of time?
I doubt that records on gun store computers are relevant. I assume that the State governments and likely the feds as well already have all of the registration records.
-
That makes sense. As far as I was aware, gun store records are only kept to help if a gun is used in a crime. That's correct, isn't it?
Yes, as far as I know, that's accurate.
-
@txradioguy Do the LEOs you know think gun store records are useful for any reason? Or do they think it's a waste of time?
P.S. Sorry -- I just read your later post, and you may have answered the question (?).
Waste of time.
-
I doubt that records on gun store computers are relevant. I assume that the State governments and likely the feds as well already have all of the registration records.
Are gun store owners routinely required to turn over those records to the feds? If so, then this story doesn't make any sense....
http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/12/gun-store-owner-halts-federal-raid/ (http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/12/gun-store-owner-halts-federal-raid/)
-
Are gun store owners routinely required to turn over those records to the feds? If so, then this story doesn't make any sense....
http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/12/gun-store-owner-halts-federal-raid/ (http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/12/gun-store-owner-halts-federal-raid/)
@XenaLee That's an interesting story. I'm glad the store owner is fighting the records seizure.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
#1 is easily refuted. Most violent crimes (~80%) are committed by people previously convicted of a felony, usually another violent crime. Its already illegal for them to own or possess a firearm.
No, it isn't. First, as soon as you use a word like "most" you're conceding that there are some instances where your argument doesn't apply. Second, it dodges the point. It being merely illegal to purchase or posses a gun is precisely the problem -- illegality probably won't stop them because under current law, because 1) there is no way to know if they already owned a weapon that the cops don't know about, and 2) it is much easier to acquire a weapon from a private seller when there are no requirements for private registration. The purpose of registration and tracking of weapons is to make it harder for them to acquire those weapons even if they want to. Now surely, many -- maybe even most of them -- will acquire a gun anyway. But at least some won't. That's just reality.
Making flawed arguments against registration -- such as "it will never prevent a single gun crime -- simply draws attention away from all the much better arguments we actually have.
#2 is equally a false sense of security. If a court revokes someones 2nd amendment rights they could easily search that persons home. Having a gun registered doesn't prevent someone from hiding a gun at another location. Nor does it prevent them from having a multitude of other types of weapons.
They could -- but they generally don't conduct a massive search of an entire house every time they nab someone. Especially in the case of someone who is mentally disturbed, there isn't any probable cause for doing so in the absent of registration records. The cops simply can't bust into the parents home and start searching the entire house in the off chance there is a weapons there. However, if guns were registered to someone living at that home, they could require them to be surrendered before the nutbag was allowed to live there.
I don't like that solution, but the reality is that in at least some cases, you might prevent a shooting. And again, arguing that "no, this could never, ever prevent another shooting" simply makes no sense. The real point to argue is that any marginal benefit that comes from registration places an intolerable burden on law-abiding gun owners even if it sometimes works.
-
You mean... the mission was to go after legitimate gun store owners? Got a link for that? Cause I've heard of the military training ... but I haven't heard of them going after gun stores or gun store owners.
@XenaLee
They weren't going after gun store owners. The troops were going door to door, the press release said they were training to go after "weapons dealers" not gun store owners.
It was in the stories that covered the training exercises but I can't find the story right now.
-
No, it isn't. First, as soon as you use a word like "most" you're conceding that there are some instances where your argument doesn't apply. Second, it dodges the point. It being merely illegal to purchase or posses a gun is precisely the problem -- illegality probably won't stop them because under current law, because 1) there is no way to know if they already owned a weapon that the cops don't know about, and 2) it is much easier to acquire a weapon from a private seller when there are no requirements for private registration. The purpose of registration and tracking of weapons is to make it harder for them to acquire those weapons even if they want to. Now surely, many -- maybe even most of them -- will acquire a gun anyway. But at least some won't. That's just reality.
Making flawed arguments against registration -- such as "it will never prevent a single gun crime -- simply draws attention away from all the much better arguments we actually have.
They could -- but they generally don't conduct a massive search of an entire house every time they nab someone. Especially in the case of someone who is mentally disturbed, there isn't any probable cause for doing so in the absent of registration records. The cops simply can't bust into the parents home and start searching the entire house in the off chance there is a weapons there. However, if guns were registered to someone living at that home, they could require them to be surrendered before the nutbag was allowed to live there.
I don't like that solution, but the reality is that in at least some cases, you might prevent a shooting. And again, arguing that "no, this could never, ever prevent another shooting" simply makes no sense. The real point to argue is that any marginal benefit that comes from registration places an intolerable burden on law-abiding gun owners even if it sometimes works.
@Maj. Bill Martin You are bringing up the question I have -- is it worth it to be able to temporarily remove weapons from people who are adjudicated mentally ill? That is one of the only areas where I think we have a problem.
-
@XenaLee
They weren't going after gun store owners. The troops were going door to door, the press release said they were training to go after "weapons dealers" not gun store owners.
It was in the stories that covered the training exercises but I can't find the story right now.
Military troops going "door to door" looking for anything would be a scary event. I didn't hear a thing about that. Wonder why.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin You are bringing up the question I have -- is it worth it to be able to temporarily remove weapons from people who are adjudicated mentally ill? That is one of the only areas where I think we have a problem.
Yeah, it's a valid concern, and I think we look dishonest if we don't acknowledge it. I mean, we all agree that those adjudicated mentally unstable and dangerous shouldn't be able to buy weapons, but we don't bother checking to see if they actually own one already. Which kind of defeats the purpose. And the reality is that hearings, etc., are usually scheduled weeks or even months in advance. So let's say the morning before the hearing, the guy walks into a gun store and buys a gun. There is not yet an order, so he's clean. That afternoon, an order is issued putting him on the no-buy list. But too late -- the gun we don't want him to have is one he just bought that morning, and we have no means of tracking that.
Registration might help with that, but as I said, the other problems with it make that unacceptable to me. So, we need to think of other ways to address that problem. I'd suggest two things that could be done legislatively:
1) Many of these people are younger people who live with parents or relatives. Some are minors, some aren't. In either case, the other people in the home must certify that they do not have any weapons in the home. If they refuse, then the person cannot live there. Alternatively, maybe you have some kind of approved system to ensure that the crazy person cannot get the gun. For example, an alarm on wherever they are stored that triggers the cops. If the law-abiding people want to take their gun out, they should notify the cops ahead of time that it is an authorized user. Obviously, for home defense, you'd just use it and explain later.
2) For those who do not live at home, such orders come with the person certifying that they do not own any guns, and that their home will be searched for guns. It will be considered a felony if they are subsequently discovered to have a weapon that they didn't declare.
I don't think that's a perfect solution, but it's the type of thing that would minimize the risk without infringing on the rights of law-abiding (and sane) citizens.
-
Yeah, it's a valid concern, and I think we look dishonest if we don't acknowledge it. I mean, we all agree that those adjudicated mentally unstable and dangerous shouldn't be able to buy weapons, but we don't bother checking to see if they actually own one already. Which kind of defeats the purpose. And the reality is that hearings, etc., are usually scheduled weeks or even months in advance. So let's say the morning before the hearing, the guy walks into a gun store and buys a gun. There is not yet an order, so he's clean. That afternoon, an order is issued putting him on the no-buy list. But too late -- the gun we don't want him to have is one he just bought that morning, and we have no means of tracking that.
Registration might help with that, but as I said, the other problems with it make that unacceptable to me. So, we need to think of other ways to address that problem. I'd suggest two things that could be done legislatively:
1) Many of these people are younger people who live with parents or relatives. Some are minors, some aren't. In either case, the other people in the home must certify that they do not have any weapons in the home. If they refuse, then the person cannot live there. Alternatively, maybe you have some kind of approved system to ensure that the crazy person cannot get the gun. For example, an alarm on wherever they are stored that triggers the cops. If the law-abiding people want to take their gun out, they should notify the cops ahead of time that it is an authorized user. Obviously, for home defense, you'd just use it and explain later.
2) For those who do not live at home, such orders come with the person certifying that they do not own any guns, and that their home will be searched for guns. It will be considered a felony if they are subsequently discovered to have a weapon that they didn't declare.
I don't think that's a perfect solution, but it's the type of thing that would minimize the risk without infringing on the rights of law-abiding (and sane) citizens.
@Maj. Bill Martin Right, I think "minimization of risk" is maybe the "American" solution. Convincing everyone that that *doesn't preclude gun ownership* is the difficulty. I spent some time talking with @roamer_1 before about extending background checks to private sales, because that is the other area that concerns me.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin Right, I think "minimization of risk" is maybe the "American" solution. Convincing everyone that that *doesn't preclude gun ownership* is the difficulty. I spent some time talking with @roamer_1 before about extending background checks to private sales, because that is the other area that concerns me.
The problem is that if you extend background checks to private sales, you enable complete tracing of weapons, which could be used for confiscation.
The only way I could see that potentially working is if private checks did not include the serial number or identification of the weapon in question, and that nobody could keep a copy of that check except (optionally) the seller. That way, a person could not be legally presumed to still have a gun they purchased from a dealer, and so you couldn't take legal action against them based on the presumption that they still have the gun.
-
The problem is that if you extend background checks to private sales, you enable complete tracing of weapons, which could be used for confiscation.
The only way I could see that potentially working is if private checks did not include the serial number or identification of the weapon in question, and that nobody could keep a copy of that check except (optionally) the seller. That way, a person could not be legally presumed to still have a gun they purchased from a dealer, and so you couldn't take legal action against them based on the presumption that they still have the gun.
I'm all for background checks if we check voter registration before issuing the firearm. (If we could keep Dems from shooting people, we could reduce gun homicides by about 90%.)
:smokin:
-
The problem is that if you extend background checks to private sales, you enable complete tracing of weapons, which could be used for confiscation.
The only way I could see that potentially working is if private checks did not include the serial number or identification of the weapon in question, and that nobody could keep a copy of that check except (optionally) the seller. That way, a person could not be legally presumed to still have a gun they purchased from a dealer, and so you couldn't take legal action against them based on the presumption that they still have the gun.
There was an idea I shared a while ago, from maybe NC or SC, where private parties could go to the Sheriff's office to do the background check. There was no paperwork kept; the Sheriff just verified that the person could buy the gun. I don't believe there was any "registration" at all. The other possibility I'd seen, is that private parties would go to a gun store to process the background check. I guess the gun store would keep a record of sale.
I thought the Sheriff option sounded good; no registration, just making sure the buyer wasn't an illegal alien or whatever. What do you think of that idea?
-
@XenaLee
In every recent mass shooting the ATF/FBI has been able to track down the history of the firearm within a day or two. There is no way to do that if all you have is the firearm.
I have no doubt they have a record of every recent firearm purchase and it isn't limited to the paper records in the gun store.
The NICS data is required to be destroyed (on successful purchases) within 24 hours, as a provision of the law that formed the system. The BATF(E) under Clinton was caught amassing a database and ordered to destroy it (but no one was prosecuted, as they should have been). There have been no prosecutions I know of after refusals, at least some of which would (at a minimum) indicate perjury on the Form 4473. Others might be in error, but, for instance a convicted Felon filling out the form and signing it, they would have sworn by that signature under penalty of prosecution that they were not a Felon and prohibited from purchasing the firearm. I guess there are a lot of strippers to investigate, and I don't mean clips.
-
There was an idea I shared a while ago, from maybe NC or SC, where private parties could go to the Sheriff's office to do the background check. There was no paperwork kept; the Sheriff just verified that the person could buy the gun. I don't believe there was any "registration" at all. The other possibility I'd seen, is that private parties would go to a gun store to process the background check. I guess the gun store would keep a record of sale.
I thought the Sheriff option sounded good; no registration, just making sure the buyer wasn't an illegal alien or whatever. What do you think of that idea?
I'm guessing you have never bought a firearm. You have to fill out a Form 4473 at the FFL dealer. You identify yourself, your address, etc. and attest that you are an American Citizen, have no felonies, are not currently charged with any crime, etc. Then you sign it, under penalty of prosecution for providing false information on the form.
You produce identification (even if they know you, to prove you are who you say you are on the form and residency in the state for a handgun purchase), and the dealer checks the form against your identification and calls in the NICS check. When you are okayed, the transaction may continue. You pay for your firearm.
Depending on your local jurisdiction, if you possess a valid CCW permit, the process is streamlined a little, or you may experience a waiting period. In some of the more hoplophobic jurisdictions, you have to first obtain a permit to purchase the firearm, for each firearm purchased. (I don't live in one of those, and refuse to do so). If you have a CCW, the local chief of police and/or the sheriff have likely signed off on your application to approve it before the State issued it.
With a private purchase, you exchange money or an item in trade for the firearm. Period. Usually these are conducted among people who know each other because no one wants to buy a stolen gun, or wants to sell one that will be used in a crime. Some folks, when they buy a gun from someone they don't know, will have the serial numbers through NCIC first to make sure the firearm has not been reported stolen.
-
There was an idea I shared a while ago, from maybe NC or SC, where private parties could go to the Sheriff's office to do the background check. There was no paperwork kept; the Sheriff just verified that the person could buy the gun. I don't believe there was any "registration" at all. The other possibility I'd seen, is that private parties would go to a gun store to process the background check. I guess the gun store would keep a record of sale.
I thought the Sheriff option sounded good; no registration, just making sure the buyer wasn't an illegal alien or whatever. What do you think of that idea?
I think that's great. No reason a private citizen selling to someone they don't know shouldn't want a background check. But again, there can't be any recording of serial numbers, or even if the transfer was actually consummated. I've actually done that at a gun show.
Now, if I'm selling to a buddy or relative whhm I know, then we just do the sale.
-
@XenaLee
In every recent mass shooting the ATF/FBI has been able to track down the history of the firearm within a day or two. There is no way to do that if all you have is the firearm.
I have no doubt they have a record of every recent firearm purchase and it isn't limited to the paper records in the gun store.
It can be done. Go to the manufacturer, with the serial number. they trace it to the distributor using shipping records, who traces it to a dealer (same way) who pulls the Form 4473 for that firearm as part of a legitimate criminal investigation, which yields the lawful purchaser. If that purchaser isn't the perp, either a record of the firearm being stolen, or the purchaser's account of a sale of the firearm would fill in the blanks.
-
The NICS data is required to be destroyed (on successful purchases) within 24 hours, as a provision of the law that formed the system. The BATF(E) under Clinton was caught amassing a database and ordered to destroy it (but no one was prosecuted, as they should have been). There have been no prosecutions I know of after refusals, at least some of which would (at a minimum) indicate perjury on the Form 4473. Others might be in error, but, for instance a convicted Felon filling out the form and signing it, they would have sworn by that signature under penalty of prosecution that they were not a Felon and prohibited from purchasing the firearm. I guess there are a lot of strippers to investigate, and I don't mean clips.
The Form 4473 has to be retained by the store at least 20 years.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/how-long-are-licensees-required-maintain-atf-forms-4473 (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/how-long-are-licensees-required-maintain-atf-forms-4473)
How long the NICS retains the computer record created by your FFL dealer calling in, I dunno.
-
It can be done. Go to the manufacturer, with the serial number. they trace it to the distributor using shipping records, who traces it to a dealer (same way) who pulls the Form 4473 for that firearm as part of a legitimate criminal investigation, which yields the lawful purchaser. If that purchaser isn't the perp, either a record of the firearm being stolen, or the purchaser's account of a sale of the firearm would fill in the blanks.
@Smokin Joe
If you believe thats how they are doing it then I have beachfront land in Arizona to sell you.
-
I think that's great. No reason a private citizen selling to someone they don't know shouldn't want a background check. But again, there can't be any recording of serial numbers, or even if the transfer was actually consummated. I've actually done that at a gun show.
Now, if I'm selling to a buddy or relative whhm I know, then we just do the sale.
@Maj. Bill Martin
If someone isn't safe to own a firearm, perhaps, now this is crazy, but perhaps they shouldn't be on the street. There are a myriad of other weapons available to that person, assuming of course they dont get an illegal weapon.
What other Constitutional rights do you think should be restricted and constrained?
-
@Smokin Joe
If you believe thats how they are doing it then I have beachfront land in Arizona to sell you.
I said that it could be done that way. For all I know, the DOJ hasn't stopped giving firearms to criminals, and not just those with official IDs. All these 'events' seem to happen at what are strangely opportune times for the enemies of the RKBA. I do believe they are ever ready with their fill in the blank spiels, bills to throw in the hopper, etc. in the event of such an occurrence, and that is how they whip that stuff out so quickly.
(As an aside,, you'd think the GOP could have followed that concept for general legislation to fulfill their promises when they got control of both houses of Congress, but no.)
-
I said that it could be done that way. For all I know, the DOJ hasn't stopped giving firearms to criminals, and not just those with official IDs. All these 'events' seem to happen at what are strangely opportune times for the enemies of the RKBA. I do believe they are ever ready with their fill in the blank spiels, bills to throw in the hopper, etc. in the event of such an occurrence, and that is how they whip that stuff out so quickly.
(As an aside,, you'd think the GOP could have followed that concept for general legislation to fulfill their promises when they got control of both houses of Congress, but no.)
@Smokin Joe
I don't think the GOP has more than 2 or 3 Congress critters that have an ounce of integrity. I think they are all owned by special interests or people with blackmail material.
In short, Congress does not work for the American public.
-
There was an idea I shared a while ago, from maybe NC or SC, where private parties could go to the Sheriff's office to do the background check. There was no paperwork kept; the Sheriff just verified that the person could buy the gun. I don't believe there was any "registration" at all. The other possibility I'd seen, is that private parties would go to a gun store to process the background check. I guess the gun store would keep a record of sale.
I thought the Sheriff option sounded good; no registration, just making sure the buyer wasn't an illegal alien or whatever. What do you think of that idea?
@LauraTXNM
It would also make it convenient to arrest the person since trying to buy a firearm if you are prohibited is a crime.
Just curious, what other constitutional rights should we have to go down to the sheriff and get their permission before exercising? What about the sheriff who doesn't want anyone to own a firearm?
Heck when I got my fingerprints taken for my CCW the police dept screwed up 5 times. The ONLY reason they didn't keep going was because Florida law limits them to 5 attempts to get good fingerprints.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
What other Constitutional rights do you think should be restricted and constrained?
I'm going to end this conversation because it is apparent you don't bother reading what I wrote.
I said at the outset that I did not favor registration, and asked if you wanted me to play Devil's Advocate. You said you just wanted to understand what those argument are, so I laid them out. While explicitly stating for the second time that I did not support registration.
Now, apparently unable to think of anything else, you get pissy and ask me what other Constitutional rights I think should be constricted and constrained. After I at least twice specifically said I don't support registration.
You are either slow, ignorant, or a troll. And I don't have discussions with any of those if I can help it. I'm putting you on ignore as of now so I don't have to witness more of your drivel.
-
I'm going to end this conversation because it is apparent you don't bother reading what I wrote.
I said at the outset that I did not favor registration, and asked if you wanted me to play Devil's Advocate. You said you just wanted to understand what those argument are, so I laid them out. While explicitly stating for the second time that I did not support registration.
Now, apparently unable to think of anything else, you get pissy and ask me what other Constitutional rights I think should be constricted and constrained. After I at least twice specifically said I don't support registration.
You are either slow, ignorant, or a troll. And I don't have discussions with any of those if I can help it. I'm putting you on ignore as of now so I don't have to witness more of your drivel.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Yes you said that, and then on multiple posts agreed there was basis for it.
Guess you don't like getting called on it.
-
I spent some time talking with @roamer_1 before about extending background checks to private sales, because that is the other area that concerns me.
@LauraTXNM
The problem with extending background checks to private sales is non-compliance and enforcement - getting a guy like me (and about everyone I know) to do that is the impossibility. I will not comply. I buy cash, using private sales, specifically because there is no record. That will not change.
I will not stop that behavior. What uncle nanny don't know can't hurt me.
-
@LauraTXNM
It would also make it convenient to arrest the person since trying to buy a firearm if you are prohibited is a crime.
Just curious, what other constitutional rights should we have to go down to the sheriff and get their permission before exercising? What about the sheriff who doesn't want anyone to own a firearm?
Heck when I got my fingerprints taken for my CCW the police dept screwed up 5 times. The ONLY reason they didn't keep going was because Florida law limits them to 5 attempts to get good fingerprints.
Seriously, they couldn't get clear fingerprints??? Was their equipment defective?
I brought up the Sheriff example in the context of private sale background checks. It was a different idea I haven't seen elsewhere. I don't care if it's done by LEO, gun stores, whomever. I understand some of you all don't approve f background checks.
-
Seriously, they couldn't get clear fingerprints??? Was their equipment defective?
I brought up the Sheriff example in the context of private sale background checks. It was a different idea I haven't seen elsewhere. I don't care if it's done by LEO, gun stores, whomever. I understand some of you all don't approve f background checks.
@LauraTXNM
No their equipment was fine. The people taking my finger prints 1) smudged 2) smudged again, 3) put them in the wrong box on the card, 4) smeared, 5th attempt was the last time. They were still blurry but the state accepted them. They were the ones who notified me that they were still bad but per the law they were prohibited from asking me to redo it. And no I have never been arrested and had no prior interaction with the police to make them hate me.
My point is that the 2nd amendment is treated different then every other Constitutionally protected right. We just accept that and its wrong.
-
Seriously, they couldn't get clear fingerprints??? Was their equipment defective?
I brought up the Sheriff example in the context of private sale background checks. It was a different idea I haven't seen elsewhere. I don't care if it's done by LEO, gun stores, whomever. I understand some of you all don't approve f background checks.
Background checks aren't the problem, it is requiring a private sale to be documented which is. As you may have read, the BATFE was ordered to destroy the NICS information they had been compiling for months (although the law required it to be destroyed within 48 hours). I have no faith that some agency has not continued to compile such data, in violation of their own law. Consider it a matter of trust violated. (Once bitten twice shy, if you will.) If I want to hand someone some money for anything--be it a car, a watch, a firearm, a box of books, whatever, I should not have to go to the government begging their permission to buy it. I know I am an upstanding citizen not given to murder and mayhem, and that's enough.
As @roamer_1 said, what they don't know I have, they won't know to look for if it comes to that. If it isn't in a record somewhere, the chances of that record being misused or compromised, whether under color of law or not, are nil if no record exists.
-
@LauraTXNM
The problem with extending background checks to private sales is non-compliance and enforcement - getting a guy like me (and about everyone I know) to do that is the impossibility. I will not comply. I buy cash, using private sales, specifically because there is no record. That will not change.
I will not stop that behavior. What uncle nanny don't know can't hurt me.
@roamer_1 Yep, I remember ;). You did say you have LEO friends who help you do an unofficial "check", didn't you?
-
Background checks aren't the problem, it is requiring a private sale to be documented which is.....If it isn't in a record somewhere, the chances of that record being misused or compromised, whether under color of law or not, are nil if no record exists.
Exactly. It's the documentation of the weapon being sold that is the issue. When I'm at a gun show, and selling in a purely non-dealer transaction, I've always asked to have it run for the guy who is buying if I don't know him. There's no record kept of the transaction or weapon exchanged, so it doesn't worry me.
It is important to have the "out" of "I sold that gun to a guy in a private sale, and don't remember his name", because that's the basis for the government not knowing that you still have the weapon. if every sale was traceable, confiscation just becomes a matter of searching databases and imposing huge fines for those who don't comply.
-
Background checks aren't the problem, it is requiring a private sale to be documented which is. As you may have read, the BATFE was ordered to destroy the NICS information they had been compiling for months (although the law required it to be destroyed within 48 hours). I have no faith that some agency has not continued to compile such data, in violation of their own law. Consider it a matter of trust violated. (Once bitten twice shy, if you will.) If I want to hand someone some money for anything--be it a car, a watch, a firearm, a box of books, whatever, I should not have to go to the government begging their permission to buy it. I know I am an upstanding citizen not given to murder and mayhem, and that's enough.
As @roamer_1 said, what they don't know I have, they won't know to look for if it comes to that. If it isn't in a record somewhere, the chances of that record being misused or compromised, whether under color of law or not, are nil if no record exists.
I get what you're saying. I just think it's creepy that a stranger could buy a gun privately with nobody checking that they're not crazy or something. I don't care about registration.
-
I get what you're saying. I just think it's creepy that a stranger could buy a gun privately with nobody checking that they're not crazy or something. I don't care about registration.
You can sell a car the same way to anyone you want. It may not be registered, but that is not the seller's problem is it?
-
@roamer_1 Yep, I remember ;). You did say you have LEO friends who help you do an unofficial "check", didn't you?
@LauraTXNM
Sure - if the transaction makes me itchy... If the transaction is bad, I will always walk away. If the transaction is good, I'll just buy. It's only when it feels good, but throws a few warning flags that I might consult a LEO to be sure.
Exactly the same as with cars, or smalls of significant value, or anything else.
See?
I do not run every transaction through a LEO. heck, I doubt I run 1 in 10 or 20.
-
Gun Sales in North Carolina
Private Sales
A background check is required for private handgun sales but not for long guns. To purchase a handgun a person must present either a pistol purchase permit or concealed carry permit and be at least 18 years old. The pistol permit can only be obtained from the local sheriffs office in the county the applcant resides in. Before issuing the permit the sheriffs office will conduct a background check on the person requesting the permit.
The conditions can vary between the 100 or so counties in North Carolina with some requiring waiting periods, proof of moral character, a reason the permit is required (self defense, hunting, collecting or target shooting) or a limit on the number of permits applied for. A fee of around $5 is usually charged for the permit.
Purchase permits were originally introduced as a way to prevent minorities from obtaining handguns and are a relic of the past which has never been removed from the law books.
Dealer Sales
Handgun sales through dealers are the same as above with a pistol permit or concealed carry permit being required. The main difference is you would need to be at least 21 years old to buy a handgun. You can still purchase a rifle or shotgun if at least 18 years old from a licensed dealer.
-
Gun Sales in North Carolina
Private Sales
A background check is required for private handgun sales but not for long guns. To purchase a handgun a person must present either a pistol purchase permit or concealed carry permit and be at least 18 years old. The pistol permit can only be obtained from the local sheriffs office in the county the applcant resides in. Before issuing the permit the sheriffs office will conduct a background check on the person requesting the permit.
The conditions can vary between the 100 or so counties in North Carolina with some requiring waiting periods, proof of moral character, a reason the permit is required (self defense, hunting, collecting or target shooting) or a limit on the number of permits applied for. A fee of around $5 is usually charged for the permit.
Purchase permits were originally introduced as a way to prevent minorities from obtaining handguns and are a relic of the past which has never been removed from the law books.
Dealer Sales
Handgun sales through dealers are the same as above with a pistol permit or concealed carry permit being required. The main difference is you would need to be at least 21 years old to buy a handgun. You can still purchase a rifle or shotgun if at least 18 years old from a licensed dealer.
We don't have to have a permit to purchase here. If you pass NICS at the dealer, you're good. If you have a CCW, you're good. Nothing required by law for a private sale (except the age thing), but If someone seems sketchy, I won't do the deal.
-
Gun Sales in North Carolina
Private Sales
A background check is required for private handgun sales but not for long guns. To purchase a handgun a person must present either a pistol purchase permit or concealed carry permit and be at least 18 years old. The pistol permit can only be obtained from the local sheriffs office in the county the applcant resides in. Before issuing the permit the sheriffs office will conduct a background check on the person requesting the permit.
The conditions can vary between the 100 or so counties in North Carolina with some requiring waiting periods, proof of moral character, a reason the permit is required (self defense, hunting, collecting or target shooting) or a limit on the number of permits applied for. A fee of around $5 is usually charged for the permit.
Purchase permits were originally introduced as a way to prevent minorities from obtaining handguns and are a relic of the past which has never been removed from the law books.
Dealer Sales
Handgun sales through dealers are the same as above with a pistol permit or concealed carry permit being required. The main difference is you would need to be at least 21 years old to buy a handgun. You can still purchase a rifle or shotgun if at least 18 years old from a licensed dealer.
@Elderberry Thank you! I had forgotten all the details. The history is interesting.
-
Did you see where a reason for the permit is required in NC?
a reason the permit is required (self defense, hunting, collecting or target shooting) or a limit on the number of permits applied for.
Here in Texas, if you have have a CHL, no background check is required.
-
Did you see where a reason for the permit is required in NC?
a reason the permit is required (self defense, hunting, collecting or target shooting) or a limit on the number of permits applied for.
Here in Texas, if you have have a CHL, no background check is required.
@Elderberry Maybe the process for a concealed-carry license could be all that's needed? Then whenever you go to purchase a weapon, your license is all you need? It sounds like that's kind of the case in many states already.
P.S. I thought it said some counties might ask for a reason. If everybody was "shall-issue" with a background check, that would make sense.
-
The states should all go to CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.
-
but, for instance a convicted Felon filling out the form and signing it, they would have sworn by that signature under penalty of prosecution that they were not a Felon and prohibited from purchasing the firearm. I guess there are a lot of strippers to investigate, and I don't mean clips.
@Smokin Joe Cam Edwards occasionally talks about this on his show. I don't remember the exact numbers but he says there were several thousand 4473s filled out by felons which should result in an automatic 10 year sentence but only 40 or so of those cases were actually procecuted in 2016. Further, the "felon in possession" charge is almost always plead away by prosecutors. This shows pretty convincingly once again that the application of the law is completely subjective depending upon who's applying it at any given time. All the more reason to not register guns IMO.
-
The states should all go to CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.
I think they should too. I like that rule here in AZ. If I want to carry, I put it in my pocket and I'm good to go, with no by-your-leave from some bureaucrat.
-
@Elderberry Maybe the process for a concealed-carry license could be all that's needed? Then whenever you go to purchase a weapon, your license is all you need? It sounds like that's kind of the case in many states already.
P.S. I thought it said some counties might ask for a reason. If everybody was "shall-issue" with a background check, that would make sense.
When I got my concealed weapons permit, I put down "convenience and self defense". Otherwise I would have had to drag along a locking case. Not one vehicle I drove had a trunk or locking compartment in it (motorcycles and vans). I got my permit.
The nice part of that is that I am the only person who can decide what is convenient for me.
-
The states should all go to CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.
North Dakota has, for residents not prohibited from owning a firearm. The permit is advantageous in that it shows you have been background checked and cleared, it is an official document, and is accepted in some other states (reciprocity) as a CCW permit. No permit, the reciprocity part goes away in states which do not have Constitutional carry. Being able to produce a CCW permit also streamlines the purchase of a firearm, rendering the background check unnecessary (although many dealers will do the NICS check anyway.
-
The states should all go to CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.
@Elderberry Is that different from 'shall issue" permitting?
-
@Elderberry Is that different from 'shall issue" permitting?
Much, much so.
-
North Dakota has, for residents not prohibited from owning a firearm. The permit is advantageous in that it shows you have been background checked and cleared, it is an official document, and is accepted in some other states (reciprocity) as a CCW permit. No permit, the reciprocity part goes away in states which do not have Constitutional carry. Being able to produce a CCW permit also streamlines the purchase of a firearm, rendering the background check unnecessary (although many dealers will do the NICS check anyway.
@Smokin Joe That sounds great!
-
@Elderberry Is that different from 'shall issue" permitting?
It means you don't have to request a permit from the state because you have the Natural Right to Bear Arms. The right, the Second Amendment states: Shall Not be Infringed.
-
@Smokin Joe That sounds great!
Essentially, it is Constitutional carry, (no permit required), but the advantages of a permit are still there if you want one. I have had one for decades, now, and mine includes 'other dangerous weapons', so knucks, a baton, sap gloves, a gravity knife, etc. fall under that If I want to carry them instead/in addition to a firearm, in ND--rules vary elsewhere.
-
Essentially, it is Constitutional carry, (no permit required), but the advantages of a permit are still there if you want one. I have had one for decades, now, and mine includes 'other dangerous weapons', so knucks, a baton, sap gloves, a gravity knife, etc. fall under that If I want to carry them instead/in addition to a firearm, in ND--rules vary elsewhere.
In AZ, no permit required to carry, either concealed or open, in the state. CCW permits are available for those who want to carry in states that have reciprocity. Notably, CA does not allow reciprocity. A CCW permit also gets you the ability to purchase without the NICS check.
-
I understand your point. And I agree knives kill more people worldwide. But, the nut in Las Vegas could not have killed so many from his perch atop the building had he only a knife. Besides, knives are ubiquitous and necessary in everyone’s daily life, so it’s too simplistic to compare the two in terms of intended use and lethality. Liberals will never buy that argument.
Apparently, liberals bought that argument in London, in spite of the 'ubiquitous and necessary in everyone’s daily life' of knives.
-
This article reinforces what several people on this thread said regarding the 2nd Amendment. It is all about inalienable rights
How to Defend the Second Amendment
according to the Founders, repealing the Second Amendment would not get rid of our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. No action by government can overturn an unalienable right. An unalienable right remains no matter how a government moves against it. That's what "unalienable" means. Repealing the Second Amendment would not in put an end to the right it was designed to protect; it would only put an end to the government's claim to legitimacy.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/how_to_defend_the_second_amendment.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/how_to_defend_the_second_amendment.html)
-
This article reinforces what several people on this thread said regarding the 2nd Amendment. It is all about inalienable rights
How to Defend the Second Amendment
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/how_to_defend_the_second_amendment.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/how_to_defend_the_second_amendment.html)
That's well put.
-
That's well put.
No such things as inalienable rights. All right are up for grabs in the courts. If they are not, then they are designated "not enumerated," thus subject to the next contrary decision to come down the pike. This is what I learned from this and similar threads. However, the right to force an unwilling baker to bake a cake is iron-clad law.
-
No such things as inalienable rights. All right are up for grabs in the courts. If they are not, then they are designated "not enumerated," thus subject to the next contrary decision to come down the pike. This is what I learned from this and similar threads. However, the right to force an unwilling baker to bake a cake is iron-clad law.
And our Founders ignited the fuse of war over a 3% tax on tea.
We are disposed to suffer the evil and tyranny that we have become accustomed and lie to ourselves that we are a free people in a Republic.
No we're not.
It's a facade and a lie we tell ourselves so we do not have to deal with the truth of the tyranny we are grown comfortable living under.
-
And our Founders ignited the fuse of war over a 3% tax on tea.
We are disposed to suffer the evil and tyranny that we have become accustomed and lie to ourselves that we are a free people in a Republic.
No we're not.
It's a facade and a lie we tell ourselves so we do not have to deal with the truth of the tyranny we are grown comfortable living under.
It's been argued repeatedly by your nemesis on these these threads that we are not to be allowed to choose the laws under which we are to be governed...that is the divine right of Judges and Kings.
-
It's been argued repeatedly by your nemesis on these these threads that we are not to be allowed to choose the laws under which we are to be governed...that is the divine right of Judges and Kings.
Our own history proves his notions bogus and, regardless of what he insists - tyranny is not limited to king and parliament. It is just as easily be imposed via president, court and congress.
The Founders understood the basest attributes of human nature and power and made sure that the State had no power to *reasonably regulate* an inalienable right. They directed government that our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. Our nemesis says that they can and dumps dissents and court opinions as some kind of evidence that they have a moral and legal right to do so.
They have none, and all he has done is illustrate himself a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
That we have surrendered so much because we were deceived into believing this government is benevolent and we prefer dependency to liberty does not eliminate our need to defy and resist the continuing measures and efforts these pretend countrymen evince to render us under absolute despotism.
-
Our own history proves his notions bogus and, regardless of what he insists - tyranny is not limited to king and parliament. It is just as easily be imposed via president, court and congress.
The Founders understood the basest attributes of human nature and power and made sure that the State had no power to *reasonably regulate* an inalienable right. They directed government that our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. Our nemesis says that they can and dumps dissents and court opinions as some kind of evidence that they have a moral and legal right to do so.
They have none, and all he has done is illustrate himself a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
That we have surrendered so much because we were deceived into believing this government is benevolent and we prefer dependency to liberty does not eliminate our need to defy and resist the continuing measures and efforts these pretend countrymen evince to render us under absolute despotism.
You will note, I hope, that I am not disagreeing with you...the courts and presidents have arrogated too much power unto themselves, to the applause of many who are too chickenshit to pass the laws they desire themselves.
-
You will note, I hope, that I am not disagreeing with you...
Nope. Quite the contrary.
We're reiterating fundamental truths and principles that clever and evil men seek to undermine and abolish if they could.