NBC nightly news
Listen to the piece about the 2nd amendment rights. The correspondent states, "the second amendment does not automatically apply to all states". "constitutional rights are subject to state consideration"
What does he mean, only members of the District of Columbia can enjoy the recent ruling on the right to bear arms?
The internet is a useful tool in keeping us informed and unified. I am here, you are there and we are all together.
What does he mean, only members of the District of Columbia can enjoy the recent ruling on the right to bear arms?
The internet is a useful tool in keeping us informed and unified. I am here, you are there and we are all together.
0
-
Nicely said, Don. My first reaction was to fire yet another broadside at the Kings ship. However ;
You sunk it with that demolition charge.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don, no disrespect intended, but what you sound like an anarchist!!!
I advocate for my government to adhere to the limitations placed upon it by the very contract, ratified by the states, that created it. I fail to see how that makes me an anarchist.
Anarchy is a system that operates without law. I submit that our current government that operates outside the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution is anarchy, and that supporters of governmental laws and decrees that exceed that charter (the law of the land) are more closely related to anarchists than am I.
You wish to change our Constitution by fiat, Jim. I only suggest that if you want to change it, follow the law and change it through the methods proscribed. You really need to evaluate which of these methods is closer to anarchy.
Don,
You made another ass/u/metion which was wrong. I DO NOT WANT THE CONSTITUTION CHANGED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!
Correct me if I am wrong here please. This country was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy, right? Which means we are governed by LAWS made by those we (the people) elect to represent us, correct? We do not require a majority vote of the citizens on every matter of government, but can call for a referendum if we feel the need.
If this is true our 'representatives' have went astray and no longer represent 'we the people'. This is the main problem we face today in ALL aspects of our life in the USA, not just the RTKABA's!!!
But unless I am miss understanding you, you say the government has no power to make ANY laws which would effect the RTKABA's???
If this is what you are saying it would result in anarchy!! Because as history has show, with the arms go the power and if there were NO restrictions what so ever the people with the most resources (wealth) would simply buy all the arms they want and they would be in control of this society, ie; war lords!!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
You made another ass/u/metion which was wrong. I DO NOT WANT THE CONSTITUTION CHANGED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!
Correct me if I am wrong here please. This country was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy, right? Which means we are governed by LAWS made by those we (the people) elect to represent us, correct? We do not require a majority vote of the citizens on every matter of government, but can call for a referendum if we feel the need.
If this is true our 'representatives' have went astray and no longer represent 'we the people'. This is the main problem we face today in ALL aspects of our life in the USA, not just the RTKABA's!!!
But unless I am miss understanding you, you say the government has no power to make ANY laws which would effect the RTKABA's???
If this is what you are saying it would result in anarchy!! Because as history has show, with the arms go the power and if there were NO restrictions what so ever the people with the most resources (wealth) would simply buy all the arms they want and they would be in control of this society, ie; war lords!!!
I have assumed nothing, Jim.
You advocate for Governmental limits on and Governmental management of peoples' access to firearms, and the 2nd Amendment states that Government Shall Not Infringe upon that access. You either want to change the Constitution or you want your Government to operate outside limits placed upon it. There is no other honest choice, Jim. If you want to limit peoples' access and if you want to manage peoples' access, you want to change that which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Providing justification and rationalization for this advocacy does not change that very simple and obvious fact.
Your comment that 'with the arms go the power' shows, in my opinion, either confusion, or an acceptance of governmental control antithetical to our founding, as well. Obviously if a government can limit and manage its peoples' access to firearms, it then has the final say as to who has the power, does it not? Where then is the security for the state of freedom of the individual citizen?0 -
quote:Because as history has show, with the arms go the power and if there were NO restrictions what so ever the people with the most resources (wealth) would simply buy all the arms they want and they would be in control of this society, ie; war lords!!!
Funny thing happened in the world of 'reality'....Because of government actions,(MANY restrictions) the rich are able to afford nearly ANYTHING they want in the way of weapons...and as many as they want.
The ONLY people barred from effective weapons.ARE...horrors..the less well to do...unable or unwilling to spend half a years wages on an effective defensive weapon.....0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
You advocate for Governmental limits on and Governmental management of peoples' access to firearms, and the 2nd Amendment states that Government Shall Not Infringe upon that access. You either want to change the Constitution or you want your Government to operate outside limits placed upon it.
There isn't one right in the Bill of Rights or in any other Amendment to the Constitution that is absolute. They all can be limited in certain situations.
Would you want to allow convicted felons in prison to have unrestricted access to firearms?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
There isn't one right in the Bill of Rights or in any other Amendment to the Constitution that is absolute. They all can be limited in certain situations.
Would you want to allow convicted felons in prison to have unrestricted access to firearms?
Your first statement is false. There is only one right that is limited preemptively. When was the last time you had to register your vocal chords or be vetted by government in order to buy a pen or a Bible? Limits in all other cases are simply laws which punish behavior that damages others, and as such the proper use and exercise of these rights is not limited. Limits wrt gun ownership and possession occur prior to behavior of any kind and as such, many are prevented from the proper use and exercise of this right.
In answer to your question: No, allowing prisoners unrestricted access to firearms would be silly, just as would allowing them unrestricted access to cutting torches. The limited access to these two items is a direct result of the actions that resulted in their incarceration. Prisons, as you apparently are unaware, are facilities designed and constructed to house people that for whatever reason, society has deemed it necessary to confine. Firearms and/or cutting torches could be used by these prisoners in an attempt to escape from confinement.
A prisoner, for example, could point his firearm at a corrections officer and threaten bodily harm to that officer if said prisoner was not released. This would make the officer's job much more difficult, and would probably result in any number of people who are supposed to be incarcerated being set free.
Likewise, unlimited access to cutting torches for prisoners would provide those prisoners with a means to cut through the steel structures that confine them. This also would make a corrections officer's job much more difficult, and would also result in any number of people who are supposed to be incarcerated freeing themselves.
I hope this helps in your understanding of prisons and why we need to treat those in these prisons differently than those of us outside prisons.
All the best,
Don
EDIT:
If you want the big boy version:
Prisoners are being legally and Constitutionally compelled to do something against their will. In order for a government to ensure that people will do things against their will, they must first be disarmed.
Our Founders understood this.
Some on this Forum understand this.
Many on this forum do not.0 -
Hhehehhehehheh...heh. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
There isn't one right in the Bill of Rights or in any other Amendment to the Constitution that is absolute. They all can be limited in certain situations.
Would you want to allow convicted felons in prison to have unrestricted access to firearms?
Your first statement is false. There is only one right that is limited preemptively. When was the last time you had to register your vocal chords or be vetted by government in order to buy a pen or a Bible? Limits in all other cases are simply laws which punish behavior that damages others, and as such the proper use and exercise of these rights is not limited. Limits wrt gun ownership and possession occur prior to behavior of any kind and as such, many are prevented from the proper use and exercise of this right.
In answer to your question: No, allowing prisoners unrestricted access to firearms would be silly, just as would allowing them unrestricted access to cutting torches. The limited access to these two items is a direct result of the actions that resulted in their incarceration. Prisons, as you apparently are unaware, are facilities designed and constructed to house people that for whatever reason, society has deemed it necessary to confine. Firearms and/or cutting torches could be used by these prisoners in an attempt to escape from confinement.
A prisoner, for example, could point his firearm at a corrections officer and threaten bodily harm to that officer if said prisoner was not released. This would make the officer's job much more difficult, and would probably result in any number of people who are supposed to be incarcerated being set free.
Likewise, unlimited access to cutting torches for prisoners would provide those prisoners with a means to cut through the steel structures that confine them. This also would make a corrections officer's job much more difficult, and would also result in any number of people who are supposed to be incarcerated freeing themselves.
I hope this helps in your understanding of prisons and why we need to treat those in these prisons differently than those of us outside prisons.
All the best,
Don
EDIT:
If you want the big boy version:
Prisoners are being legally and Constitutionally compelled to do something against their will. In order for a government to ensure that people will do things against their will, they must first be disarmed.
Our Founders understood this.
Some on this Forum understand this.
Many on this forum do not.
Don,
From your answer you are contradicting yourself. You DO believe in placing SOME restrictions/limits/boundaries on the RTKABA's (2nd A)!!!
I believe our founders had more common sense than may here give them credit for and would not be in the least upset with the use of common sense in the 'management of arms'. I guess I would ask, if prisoners should have limits on the RTKABA's, would be fair to say a five (5) year old should be allowed to bring a loaded gun to school with him, or would it an infringement on his RTKABA's to prevent this??0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
From your answer you are contradicting yourself. You DO believe in placing SOME restrictions/limits/boundaries on the RTKABA's (2nd A)!!!
I believe our founders had more common sense than may here give them credit for and would not be in the least upset with the use of common sense in the 'management of arms'. I guess I would ask, if prisoners should have limits on the RTKABA's, would be fair to say a five (5) year old should be allowed to bring a loaded gun to school with him, or would it an infringement on his RTKABA's to prevent this??
No contradiction, Jim. Read for understanding and you will do so. Open your mind to thinking like a free individual, rather than a vassal of the state.
If you believe the Founders meant something other than that which they wrote, correct the record through the Amendment process so that the imposition of the restrictions you desire are made Constitutional. The idiocy of playing fast and loose with the rules is self-evident.
And yes, you can ask any stupid question you wish to ask. We can get into discussions about the age of majority, the relative status of a minor vs. an adult, the responsibility of parents, etc.
It is, however, you simply evading the fact that you wish to rationalize away my rights because you are comfortable with giving up your rights.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
From your answer you are contradicting yourself. You DO believe in placing SOME restrictions/limits/boundaries on the RTKABA's (2nd A)!!!
I believe our founders had more common sense than may here give them credit for and would not be in the least upset with the use of common sense in the 'management of arms'. I guess I would ask, if prisoners should have limits on the RTKABA's, would be fair to say a five (5) year old should be allowed to bring a loaded gun to school with him, or would it an infringement on his RTKABA's to prevent this??
No contradiction, Jim. Read for understanding and you will do so. Open your mind to thinking like a free individual, rather than a vassal of the state.
If you believe the Founders meant something other than that which they wrote, correct the record through the Amendment process so that the imposition of the restrictions you desire are made Constitutional. The idiocy of playing fast and loose with the rules is self-evident.
And yes, you can ask any stupid question you wish to ask. We can get into discussions about the age of majority, the relative status of a minor vs. an adult, the responsibility of parents, etc.
It is, however, you simply evading the fact that you wish to rationalize away my rights because you are comfortable with giving up your rights.
That is a good laugh, me a 'vessel of the state', it is fair to say you sure do not know me very well.[;)]
You are the one with the closed mind, Don, not me!!!!
If you read my post on the 'Rights' thread it states where I am on this and other issues. Ask Jeff if I am a 'vessel of the state'. How many here put their job and pension on the line to support the RTKABA's???? I would like to know what sacrifices many of you have made to support your close mined views!!! It is easy to 'talk the talk', but how many of you have 'walked the walk'???????????[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
That is a good laugh, me a 'vessel of the state', it is fair to say you sure do not know me very well.[;)]
You are the one with the closed mind, Don, not me!!!!
If you read my post on the 'Rights' thread it states where I am on this and other issues. Ask Jeff if I am a 'vessel of the state'. How many here put their job and pension on the line to support the RTKABA's???? I would like to know what sacrifices many of you have made to support your close mined views!!! It is easy to 'talk the talk', but how many of you have 'walked the walk'???????????[;)]
I once believed very much like you, Jim. I even got into an epic pissing match with some here with me supporting the government's right to deny access to certain individuals. My stubborn nature required a kick to the head to open my mind to the truly unconstitutional nature of the restrictions we live under today. It became apparent in my research that all of these laws exist because almost 80 years ago, it was believed that limiting and managing people outside the constraints of the Constitution was a good idea.
Thus it is not a closed mind that brought me to where I am today, Jim, it is an open mind.
History has shown that opening this door was a tremendous mistake on the part of our ancestors, and once that one obvious fact was internalized, it became clear what the proper path forward should be. It is our responsibility as citizens to limit and manage our government, and hold it to its charter. When we accept the notion that our government can limit and manage us outside its charter is when we become vassals of that government. Supporting a reading of the 2nd Amendment that includes provisions for limits and management is granting the government that extra-Constitutional power.
I know you only from what you post on this forum, Jim. From these posts, I believe you to be well-intentioned and sincere when you state you believe in limited government. I only ask that you truly consider how we can limit government if we support that same government operating outside the limits so plainly set down in the 2nd Amendment.0 -
Alright we're done.
Do you think the language in the Second Amendment is clear enough? You know, about the right to bear arms.
Of course it's clear, every American has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall. How can that possibly be misconstrued?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
That is a good laugh, me a 'vessel of the state', it is fair to say you sure do not know me very well.[;)]
You are the one with the closed mind, Don, not me!!!!
If you read my post on the 'Rights' thread it states where I am on this and other issues. Ask Jeff if I am a 'vessel of the state'. How many here put their job and pension on the line to support the RTKABA's???? I would like to know what sacrifices many of you have made to support your close mined views!!! It is easy to 'talk the talk', but how many of you have 'walked the walk'???????????[;)]
I once believed very much like you, Jim. I even got into an epic pissing match with some here with me supporting the government's right to deny access to certain individuals. My stubborn nature required a kick to the head to open my mind to the truly unconstitutional nature of the restrictions we live under today. It became apparent in my research that all of these laws exist because almost 80 years ago, it was believed that limiting and managing people outside the constraints of the Constitution was a good idea.
Thus it is not a closed mind that brought me to where I am today, Jim, it is an open mind.
History has shown that opening this door was a tremendous mistake on the part of our ancestors, and once that one obvious fact was internalized, it became clear what the proper path forward should be. It is our responsibility as citizens to limit and manage our government, and hold it to its charter. When we accept the notion that our government can limit and manage us outside its charter is when we become vassals of that government. Supporting a reading of the 2nd Amendment that includes provisions for limits and management is granting the government that extra-Constitutional power.
I know you only from what you post on this forum, Jim. From these posts, I believe you to be well-intentioned and sincere when you state you believe in limited government. I only ask that you truly consider how we can limit government if we support that same government operating outside the limits so plainly set down in the 2nd Amendment.
This is very ironic Don.
My reply to you would be almost verbatim what you said to me!!!!
I once believed the way do and took a 'kick' in the head to make me come back to reality.
I respect your position, and as I said, I post so others can see what is being said, not really to change everyone's mind, but that would be nice wouldn't it![;)]
I have learned those who refuse to even budge a little when discussing an issue are bound to fail to get their points across and change VERY FEW to their way of thinking. But I have the utmost respect for those who stand up for what they believe in as long as they do it in way which does not involve their compromising their integrity, as the progressives have done.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
This is very ironic Don.
My reply to you would be almost verbatim what you said to me!!!!
I once believed the way do and took a 'kick' in the head to make me come back to reality.
I respect your position, and as I said, I post so others can see what is being said, not really to change everyone's mind, but that would be nice wouldn't it![;)]
I have learned those who refuse to even budge a little when discussing an issue are bound to fail to get their points across and change VERY FEW to their way of thinking. But I have the utmost respect for those who stand up for what they believe in as long as they do it in way which does not involve their compromising their integrity, as the progressives have done.
I guess I was just kicked into a different reality, Jim.[:)]
All the best,
Don0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
44 comments