On Rights
Haven't had any plans to post here, but thought this article could be of some use for some of you guys:
http://www.sidis.net/rights2.htm
http://www.sidis.net/rights2.htm
0
-
Leave it to me to only find this topic now.....
Sorry to hear you're leaving Rock. I hope we'll see you back again eventually.0 -
quote:I believe 99.9% of all laws on the books today which restrict/limit/ manage the RTKABA's are unconstitutional!! Those who believe 100% of these laws are unconstitutional call me and others with similar beliefs the 'enemy', how ridiculous is that????
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!!
Before you discount the fundamentalists .01 percent, just realize that the mantra of the American Revolution was not "A little taxation without representation is fine." They drew a line in the sand as we must. I honestly don't feel that anyone who has contributed here would feel that the 2nd Amendment applies to prisoners, the mentally ill, or minors. However, it must be important to note that the concern with the concessions given by the likes of the NRA are akin to my mention of the mantra of the American Revolution...we cannot concede an inch, because the preemptive and restrictive laws have been taking miles.
Best Regards,
Hutch0 -
quote:Originally posted by krazy4krags
quote:I believe 99.9% of all laws on the books today which restrict/limit/ manage the RTKABA's are unconstitutional!! Those who believe 100% of these laws are unconstitutional call me and others with similar beliefs the 'enemy', how ridiculous is that????
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!!
Before you discount the fundamentalists .01 percent, just realize that the mantra of the American Revolution was not "A little taxation without representation is fine." They drew a line in the sand as we must. I honestly don't feel that anyone who has contributed here would feel that the 2nd Amendment applies to prisoners, the mentally ill, or minors. However, it must be important to note that the concern with the concessions given by the likes of the NRA are akin to my mention of the mantra of the American Revolution...we cannot concede an inch, because the preemptive and restrictive laws have been taking miles.
Best Regards,
Hutch
You are wrong!! You are new here so you have not been a part this ONGOING discussion. There are some who state that ANY limits what so ever are unacceptable. I believe in VERY LIMITED controls, like you mentioned above and I am not extreme enough for many here. They are a very closed mined, unbending bunch, but I respect their right to believe this and I support their right to defend their beliefs. I do not support there attacks on EVERYONE who does completely agree with them. If they truly believe in the Constitution they would respect others views and their right to express them without attacking them personally!!!
Reference the question as by someone above exactly what limits do I support. I have stated this MANY times in past posts and I do not have time right now to go into detail, but generally I would support the restriction of 'crew served weapons' to certain people. I would support local laws which prohibit the 'carrying' of weapons by intoxicated people. And some other minor limits which I feel, after spending most of my life on the street in LE, would work to protect the community, but not overly restrict the individual.0 -
Taking up the NRA/trfox mantle of dishonesty, now, Jim Rau ? Going to forget your love of governmental restrictions on full-auto ?
I don't MIND you doing that..but SURELY you are man enough to openly ADMIT that you were wrong about it...ehhh ?
Oh..and just WHAT do you consider quote:And some other minor limits which I feel, after spending most of my life on the street in LE, would work to protect the community, but not overly restrict the individual.
Just one more thing ;
YOU..as an individual..are perfectly free to advocate that everybody has to wear pink tu-tu's on Thursdays.
You even get to vote for your leaders with that sick mindset. You..and your leaders..do NOT, however , get to change the Constitution just becuase you 'feel' something.
Get your ass in gear and CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION if you wanr restrictions. How about it ?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Taking up the NRA/trfox mantle of dishonesty, now, Jim Rau ? Going to forget your love of governmental restrictions on full-auto ?
I don't MIND you doing that..but SURELY you are man enough to openly ADMIT that you were wrong about it...ehhh ?
Oh..and just WHAT do you consider quote:And some other minor limits which I feel, after spending most of my life on the street in LE, would work to protect the community, but not overly restrict the individual.
Just one more thing ;
YOU..as an individual..are perfectly free to advocate that everybody has to wear pink tu-tu's on Thursdays.
You even get to vote for your leaders with that sick mindset. You..and your leaders..do NOT, however , get to change the Constitution just becuase you 'feel' something.
Get your ass in gear and CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION if you wanr restrictions. How about it ?
This is a perfect example of what I was saying about those who have nothing to add to the discussion so they personally attack those they can't discuss the issue with.
I am not a liar and HB knows that, but he just can't re fame from attacking me because he has no legitimate argument to support his opinion. Just human nature.
Get use to it if you do not get in 'lock step' with he and his followers you will be personally attacked!!!0 -
About the full autos, Jim ? 0 -
I guess "shall NOT be infringed" has a differernt meaning to those whom FEAR their fellow citizens.
Tell us Jim, how infringing on our fundimental rights has made the citizenry safer?
Good things those laws are in place to stop the criminal elements.
Ya, that banning felons ditty sure STOPS those inclined to recommit crimes, don't it?
Jim, you are intellectually dishonest. You won't explain your stance because you think you have another poster on your side.
It is your acceptance of laws, that are unconstitutional, that makes YOU the extremeist, not us.0 -
quote:but generally I would support the restriction of 'crew served weapons' to certain people. I would support local laws which prohibit the 'carrying' of weapons by intoxicated people. And some other minor limits which I feel, after spending most of my life on the street in LE, would work to protect the community, but not overly restrict the individual.
The prohibition of carry to those who have disregarded the laws or the public safety is reactionary to their choice to be intoxicated, etc. A law that preempts your choice violates your freedoms. Thus, I would ask you to delineate which laws do not "overly restrict the individual" that aren't preemptive strikes at the individual's liberty?
BTW, crew served weapons in the hands of only the authorized, say, a military junta, may not be the best way to regulate this type of armament either. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Best Regards,
Hutch0 -
quote:Originally posted by freemind
I guess "shall NOT be infringed" has a differernt meaning to those whom FEAR their fellow citizens.
Tell us Jim, how infringing on our fundimental rights has made the citizenry safer?
Good things those laws are in place to stop the criminal elements.
Ya, that banning felons ditty sure STOPS those inclined to recommit crimes, don't it?
Jim, you are intellectually dishonest. You won't explain your stance because you think you have another poster on your side.
It is your acceptance of laws, that are unconstitutional, that makes YOU the extremeist, not us.
James,
If you think that I am the 'other poster' who is on his side reference his Amendment II views, it sure isn't me.[;)]
Jim is a man that I came to respect for the strong convictions he displayed and that he stood on in his personal and professional life.
Jim indeed stepped up and did what few would do, that being to put his career, his reputation and his retirement on the line, due to his open and public stance on gun rights and his open and public opposition to anti-gun programs and proposals in his PD/City.
That said, Jim is wrong, right where it matters, on Amendment II's simple text, its easily researched and discernible intent and in his desire to concede power and authority to the government that it clearly does not have, nor was it ever authorized to have.
His position on this issue is flat wrong and as some have challenged....if one doesn't like the Constitution, or its strict limitations on government, there is an established process to make those changes constitutionally; that being, the amendment process.
Positions such as Jim advocates, are simply more of the same ol', same ol' in a long and sordid line of perversions and erosions of the Constitution itself and of the Republic that it established.
It is as simple as that.0 -
If you're going to argue from the point of strict interpretation of the Second Amendment as justification for being able to own anything that goes bang which causes a projectile to fly out from barrel, just know that there are other ways to strictly interpret the Second Amendment which aren't so beneficial to gun ownership. Like someone intent on limiting gun rights could say that at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, a gun was a flintlock or similar, so that and that alone is what you get to bear without infringement; everything else would then be not covered so therefore not legal to own.
Just saying that the strategy of being a rules lawyer can be a double-edged sword.0 -
quote:Redoubtable
Junior Member
Please shut down your computer and back away from it slowly.
There is NO First Amendment Right for you to be using it Nor the Internet...since NEITHER were even the VAGUEST notions of the Founders.
Oh..yeah.
Go ahead..ban everything except single shots. We shall soon see whom has bigger balls.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by freemind
I guess "shall NOT be infringed" has a differernt meaning to those whom FEAR their fellow citizens.
Tell us Jim, how infringing on our fundimental rights has made the citizenry safer?
Good things those laws are in place to stop the criminal elements.
Ya, that banning felons ditty sure STOPS those inclined to recommit crimes, don't it?
Jim, you are intellectually dishonest. You won't explain your stance because you think you have another poster on your side.
It is your acceptance of laws, that are unconstitutional, that makes YOU the extremeist, not us.
James,
If you think that I am the 'other poster' who is on his side reference his Amendment II views, it sure isn't me.[;)]
Jim is a man that I came to respect for the strong convictions he displayed and that he stood on in his personal and professional life.
Jim indeed stepped up and did what few would do, that being to put his career, his reputation and his retirement on the line, due to his open and public stance on gun rights and his open and public opposition to anti-gun programs and proposals in his PD/City.
That said, Jim is wrong, right where it matters, on Amendment II's simple text, its easily researched and discernible intent and in his desire to concede power and authority to the government that it clearly does not have, nor was it ever authorized to have.
His position on this issue is flat wrong and as some have challenged....if one doesn't like the Constitution, or its strict limitations on government, there is an established process to make those changes constitutionally; that being, the amendment process.
Positions such as Jim advocates, are simply more of the same ol', same ol' in a long and sordid line of perversions and erosions of the Constitution itself and of the Republic that it established.
It is as simple as that.
No Jeff I DO NOT advocate 'same ol' in any way shape or form. I advocate 'reality' in the application and interpretation of our Constitution. Do you not see the likeness in your and the CA's mentally and thought process to the current administration of IDEALISTS who do not give a damn about 'We The People'??? They are elitists who 'know what is best for us' regardless of what 'We The People' want, just like you folks!!! You are entitled to your opinions of how things should be done, and how we should be governed, but so are the rest of us!! The Founders were not so close minded as to have the same position as those here. They would, without a doubt, tell you and those like minded "YOU ARE WRONG"!
As pointed out above, this is NOT the same world it was when the Constitution was framed!!! Does it still apply, BY ALL MEANS IT DOES!!
But it , like ALL laws was not intended to be applies 'to the word'. There are to many medicating and aggravating circumstances in this ever changing world. You of all people should be aware of this due to your chosen profession.
But back to the problem at hand. You did not personally attack me, you simply pointed out the fact that you do not agree with me. Calling me 'wrong' is not a personal attack. You are not the one(s) whom I address the complaint to, but you are guilt of egging those who do on by agreeing with their personal attacks.[;)]
As I have said, I respect your views, and WISH we could achieve them, BUT THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THIS WORLD!!![V]0 -
quote:They are elitists who 'know what is best for us' regardless of what 'We The People' want, just like you folks!!! You are entitled to your opinions of how things should be done, and how we should be governed, but so are the rest of us!! The Founders were not so close minded as to have the same position as those here. They would, without a doubt, tell you and those like minded "YOU ARE WRONG"!
Funny, that.
For nearly those PRECISE WORDS are the unending song of those of us wanting GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS !!
The Founders TOLD us...in SIMPLE language..what they demanded of us. What WE are trying to do is GET YOU AND YOU TORTURED OPINIONS OUT OF OUR LIVES !!!
Restore the Republic and slink away with your twisted views of the world...THAT is what we ask. If regaining freedom is too strenuous for you...leave the country for a few years...we Americans will clean up the streets so you can feel safe again.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball They are elitists who 'know what is best for us' regardless of what 'We The People' want, just like you folks!!! You are entitled to your opinions of how things should be done, and how we should be governed, but so are the rest of us!! The Founders were not so close minded as to have the same position as those here. They would, without a doubt, tell you and those like minded "YOU ARE WRONG"!
Funny, that.
For nearly those PRECISE WORDS are the unending song of those of us wanting GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS !!
The Founders TOLD us...in SIMPLE language..what they demanded of us. What WE are trying to do is GET YOU AND YOU TORTURED OPINIONS OUT OF OUR LIVES !!!
Restore the Republic and slink away with your twisted views of the world...THAT is what we ask. If regaining freedom is too strenuous for you...leave the country for a few years...we Americans will clean up the streets so you can feel safe again.
[/quote
You seen to forget, the only way to achieve your gaols is have
TOTAL power over "We the people", in other words our Republic would not allow you to do as you advocate!!! You advocate tyranny of your own right, like all idealists do, it has been tried by MANY and it has NEVER lasted, because We the people will not support this for long, only the hungry and afraid will follow you and then only until they see the error of your ways.0 -
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!0 -
quote:I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
The Constitution is designed PRECISELY TO ADDRESS THIS EXACT SITUATION !!
It is designed to protect the MINORITY from the tyranny of the majority.
You weak-kneed government lovers are in power today. Enjoy it...that sort of thing never lasts very long.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
No one is telling them they have to own them. Just don't restrict others from owning them. If a person behaves in a responsible manner and does not infringe on the rights of others? Those that do not behave in a responsible manner or cause harm to others can be dealt with harshly.
Jim, your argument appears to hinge on the belief that if I owned some large piece of very destructive artillary I would use it to harass society. The number of people who behave irresponsibly and cause harm to others is small in comparison to those who do not. Unrestricted ownership of weapons would not substantially change this ratio of good to bad behavior.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
The Constitution is designed PRECISELY TO ADDRESS THIS EXACT SITUATION !!
It is designed to protect the MINORITY from the tyranny of the majority.
You weak-kneed government lovers are in power today. Enjoy it...that sort of thing never lasts very long.
A point that seems to be lost on that very majority today, HB. Well stated.
Pure and unadulterated abject democracy is the goal of that majority; the ultimate tyranny of Mob Rule.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
No one is telling them they have to own them. Just don't restrict others from owning them. If a person behaves in a responsible manner and does not infringe on the rights of others? Those that do not behave in a responsible manner or cause harm to others can be dealt with harshly.
Jim, your argument appears to hinge on the belief that if I owned some large piece of very destructive artillary I would use it to harass society. The number of people who behave irresponsibly and cause harm to others is small in comparison to those who do not. Unrestricted ownership of weapons would not substantially change this ratio of good to bad behavior.
I guess, as I have said all along, you try to deny reality!!!
I spent 26 years on the street. I have VAST experience with both the good and bad guys in this country. The good guys, of which make up about 99.9% of the population, will not allow their government to give totally unrestricted access to ALL arms to everyone. And they are correct in their 'right' to prevent this. The bad guys will arm themselves to the teeth and go to 'war' with each other and the government. Can you say collateral damage like you see in an war torn country. This is not the same as the prediction made by the anti gunners when the CCW permits are issued. You would allow ALL people the same access to WMD's, the bad guys will take advantage of this and victimize 'We the people' just as they are now in countries like Somalia. You are true 'idealist' just like the progressives in power today. You don't care about people, only your 'ideals'!!![V]0 -
I think you are overestimating the bad guys and underestimating the good guys. As you stated the 99.9% are good, therefore out number the bad, by more than a little. You seem to think that only the bad guys would be armed to the teeth. If the bad guys were to do something as this they would be crushed by the overwhelming numbers of the good guys who would be armed well enough. Your example of Somalia only works in a situation where only the chosen good guys and the chosen bad guys get to be armed. The general population of Somalia does not appear to be allowed to be armed.
My example would be of an America where everyone can be armed if they choose. Since we have agreed that 99.9% are good then I believe that the bad guys would be held in check, knowing that they are outnumbered and possibly outgunned. If they chose to test the good guys then they would be wiped out as an example to others who would agress towards the good guys.
I care enough about people to leave them alone. I do not tell them what is best for them unless they ask. I do not try to take from them what they own, and I do not infringe upon thier lives unless they infringe upon mine.
Now why do we need these restrictions and management you speak of?0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Now why do we need these restrictions and management you speak of?
Because for some strange, hoplophobic reason, it helps those who are ferfraid of everything, sleep.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Now why do we need these restrictions and management you speak of?
Because for some strange, hoplophobic reason, it helps those who are ferfraid of everything, sleep.
That would appear to be the case.
How ya doing out there Jeff?0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Now why do we need these restrictions and management you speak of?
Because for some strange, hoplophobic reason, it helps those who are ferfraid of everything, sleep.
That would appear to be the case.
How ya doing out there Jeff?
Been better. You'll get an earful when I get back.0 -
Jim,
You keep going on about how it would be, if everyone were armed.
(Let's leave out the big guns....just for a minute, this is more about the "ideals" being discussed)
That same kind of talk, blood in the streets, criminals taking over, etc. went on back in the early 80s. Despite the dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence, the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST, when a little town in Georgia MADE IT A LAW that requiring each head of household (with a few exceptions added later) to own and maintain a firearm.
The crime rate in 1981, before the law was passed, WAS (4,332 per 100,000)
MUCH MORE than the national average that year of (3,899 per 100,000)
After the law was passed requiring ownership of firearms, the crime rate went down immediately, and leveled off about (2,027 per 100,000) in 2005. WELL BELOW the national average, while the population GREW 6 TIMES what it was before passage of the law.
This town is PROUD of the fact that there were NO MURDERS IN OVER 25 YEARS. It is not like this is a remote little village, it is considered to be a suburb of Atlanta, who has a crime rate (in 2006) of (8,965 per 100,000) almost double the national crime rate of (4479 per 100,000)
Why did the crime rate GO DOWN, and the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST?
Hmmmmm.........more guns..........less crime?
I am sure you have heard of this town.
All the ANTI-gunners have as well, and HATE the statistics this town produces.
Kennesaw Georgia.
Now, add the big guns back in.
Why would it be any different, than what these FACTS say?
Statistical facts prove that the good guys WON in Georgia.
*********
(Disclaimer, For those who might find a different number from a different site, these crime rates are from a few different sights. May or may not be the same as other sites. I did NOT check all 22,000,000 sites)0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
You can only force a people "if" you have a well paid or indoctrinated "force" to do your bidding, in the absence of of such a force people are free..
The forces that be have lead to the perpetual cycle of social entrophy that has lead this country to the brink of a communist police state.. You might be a big fan of such forces, but I'm not.[:)]
I am a big fan of enforced laws, When they make sense. [:)]
when a Murderer under arrest has more rights the the average citizen, something is wrong.
Who Enforces all of that? Highball?
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
Maybe, But things change.. Conformed masses of idiots will believe whatever someone with a good hairdo and suit tells em too.[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Jim,
You keep going on about how it would be, if everyone were armed.
(Let's leave out the big guns....just for a minute, this is more about the "ideals" being discussed)
That same kind of talk, blood in the streets, criminals taking over, etc. went on back in the early 80s. Despite the dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence, the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST, when a little town in Georgia MADE IT A LAW that requiring each head of household (with a few exceptions added later) to own and maintain a firearm.
The crime rate in 1981, before the law was passed, WAS (4,332 per 100,000)
MUCH MORE than the national average that year of (3,899 per 100,000)
After the law was passed requiring ownership of firearms, the crime rate went down immediately, and leveled off about (2,027 per 100,000) in 2005. WELL BELOW the national average, while the population GREW 6 TIMES what it was before passage of the law.
This town is PROUD of the fact that there were NO MURDERS IN OVER 25 YEARS. It is not like this is a remote little village, it is considered to be a suburb of Atlanta, who has a crime rate (in 2006) of (8,965 per 100,000) almost double the national crime rate of (4479 per 100,000)
Why did the crime rate GO DOWN, and the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST?
Hmmmmm.........more guns..........less crime?
I am sure you have heard of this town.
All the ANTI-gunners have as well, and HATE the statistics this town produces.
Kennesaw Georgia.
Now, add the big guns back in.
Why would it be any different, than what these FACTS say?
Statistical facts prove that the good guys WON in Georgia.
*********
(Disclaimer, For those who might find a different number from a different site, these crime rates are from a few different sights. May or may not be the same as other sites. I did NOT check all 22,000,000 sites)
Negative my good man, simply put, there are more 'good' people in this world than 'bad' people by a VAST majority. So if EVERONE would except the responsibility to arm themselves and defend themselves crime would be all but non existent. BUT this again is an 'ideal' situation which reality/human nature will not allow to occur.
If you look back in our history a few years you will see I am right about the 'criminal element' taking advantage of the 'unrestricted right' to own the full auto arms. After WWI there were little to know restriction on the 'new' technology of full auto. Did the 'average' citizen run out and get them to protect us from a 'tyrannically government', no they did not. Did the criminal element take advantage of this 'right' to arm themselves and wage war against each other and LEO, yes they did.
Wise men learn from their mistakes, wiser men learn form their mistakes and the mistakes of others, and the wisest men learn from their mistakes, the mistakes of others, and and HISTORY!!![;)]0 -
Most of that criminal element you are talking about stole their machine guns from State military bases or converted sporting arms jim, that boat dont hold much water.[;)]
Alittle research yup.
The crime n general was caused by the folstead act. It was the worst depression this country ever experianced, most people couldnt afford food little on a a Thomson or BAR.
You have a way of bending the facts to fit your argument..0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Negative my good man, simply put, there are more 'good' people in this world than 'bad' people by a VAST majority. So if EVERONE would except the responsibility to arm themselves and defend themselves crime would be all but non existent. BUT this again is an 'ideal' situation which reality/human nature will not allow to occur.
If you look back in our history a few years you will see I am right about the 'criminal element' taking advantage of the 'unrestricted right' to own the full auto arms. After WWI there were little to know restriction on the 'new' technology of full auto. Did the 'average' citizen run out and get them to protect us from a 'tyrannically government', no they did not. Did the criminal element take advantage of this 'right' to arm themselves and wage war against each other and LEO, yes they did.
Wise men learn from their mistakes, wiser men learn form their mistakes and the mistakes of others, and the wisest men learn from their mistakes, the mistakes of others, and and HISTORY!!![;)]
And yet, Jim, your suggestion is to remove and/or reduce the current restrictions the current restrictions on magazine fed full auto arms.
Was Scar-face Al using a belt-fed 1921?
Did Bonny and Clyde use a belt-fed 1918?
Hmmmm.... I guess I better check my history.
The point, obviously, has nothing to do with the specifics of the 1934 weapons law or even your 'realistic' approach to restriction. The point is that sculpting restrictions based upon emotion at any specific point in time allows for modification, strengthening, or loosening, at any time in the future based on any future emotion.
Yes, a broken record I am, but the only Constitutional way for you to get those restrictions you want actually codified into a legitimate and fixed law is to pursue the Constitutional Amendment you protest that you do not want.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Negative my good man, simply put, there are more 'good' people in this world than 'bad' people by a VAST majority. So if EVERONE would except the responsibility to arm themselves and defend themselves crime would be all but non existent. BUT this again is an 'ideal' situation which reality/human nature will not allow to occur.
If you look back in our history a few years you will see I am right about the 'criminal element' taking advantage of the 'unrestricted right' to own the full auto arms. After WWI there were little to know restriction on the 'new' technology of full auto. Did the 'average' citizen run out and get them to protect us from a 'tyrannically government', no they did not. Did the criminal element take advantage of this 'right' to arm themselves and wage war against each other and LEO, yes they did.
Wise men learn from their mistakes, wiser men learn form their mistakes and the mistakes of others, and the wisest men learn from their mistakes, the mistakes of others, and and HISTORY!!![;)]
And yet, Jim, your suggestion is to remove and/or reduce the current restrictions the current restrictions on magazine fed full auto arms.
Was Scar-face Al using a belt-fed 1921?
Did Bonny and Clyde use a belt-fed 1918?
Hmmmm.... I guess I better check my history.
The point, obviously, has nothing to do with the specifics of the 1934 weapons law or even your 'realistic' approach to restriction. The point is that sculpting restrictions based upon emotion at any specific point in time allows for modification, strengthening, or loosening, at any time in the future based on any future emotion.
Yes, a broken record I am, but the only Constitutional way for you to get those restrictions you want actually codified into a legitimate and fixed law is to pursue the Constitutional Amendment you protest that you do not want.
Bonnie and Clyde's weapon of favor was the BAR with a cut down barrel!!![;)]
The restrictions placed on the weapons then were to strict, but the progressives got their way because they 'will not let a good crisis go to waste' (they have not changed over the years)!! With the technology we have now we could do a timely back ground check and sell full auto weapons on the spot. We should totally eliminate ANY type of checks for weapons which fire one round with one pull of the trigger, regardless of the action type.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
110 comments