No Right is Absolute;
The debate has raged concerning whether any Right enumerated in the BOR is `Absolute'.
Well;
Of course those stoutly protesting that they are not absolute ARE CORRECT !! EVERY Right MUST have some limitations, in order for any sort of society to work.
Look at the Second Amendment, for instance; Unfettered, uncontrolled access to weapons would lead to a breakdown of Society in short order.
No..there MUST be controls of some sort.
Given the wording of the second Amendment, it is readily apparent that the Founders intended allowing decent citizens an unprecedented level of responsibility for maintaining the Republic.and they intended allowing that by force of Arms, when it became necessary.
Trust me on this...those wise men KNEW it would once again come to force of arms ..thus the REASON for the Second.
The `controls' The Anti-gunners screech about WERE intended by the Founders;
Those controls to take the form of swift, speedy trials and hangings for the vicious animals roaming the streets, victimizing innocent people.
Executing animals is the limits of governmental power over weapons.
One is left to wonder WHY gun-owners INSIST upon punishing everybody in this country for the misdeeds of the few. Instead of DEMANDING that criminals be subjected to proper justice ..they demand that decent citizens bear the burden of universal gun control.
I feel that strongly distrusting those that advocate gun control is a worthy endeavor...and is the sign of a healthy American attitude.
I find no common ground with gun controllers..and it is painfully obvious that while the common language is English.. words mean RADICALLY different things depending upon the point of view.
Four Simple words .."Shall Not Be Infringed" somehow morphs into "government has the authority and the duty to restrict firearms to whomever it pleases..."
No common ground at all, folks...and better the line clearly and cleanly drawn between perversion and common sense.
Well;
Of course those stoutly protesting that they are not absolute ARE CORRECT !! EVERY Right MUST have some limitations, in order for any sort of society to work.
Look at the Second Amendment, for instance; Unfettered, uncontrolled access to weapons would lead to a breakdown of Society in short order.
No..there MUST be controls of some sort.
Given the wording of the second Amendment, it is readily apparent that the Founders intended allowing decent citizens an unprecedented level of responsibility for maintaining the Republic.and they intended allowing that by force of Arms, when it became necessary.
Trust me on this...those wise men KNEW it would once again come to force of arms ..thus the REASON for the Second.
The `controls' The Anti-gunners screech about WERE intended by the Founders;
Those controls to take the form of swift, speedy trials and hangings for the vicious animals roaming the streets, victimizing innocent people.
Executing animals is the limits of governmental power over weapons.
One is left to wonder WHY gun-owners INSIST upon punishing everybody in this country for the misdeeds of the few. Instead of DEMANDING that criminals be subjected to proper justice ..they demand that decent citizens bear the burden of universal gun control.
I feel that strongly distrusting those that advocate gun control is a worthy endeavor...and is the sign of a healthy American attitude.
I find no common ground with gun controllers..and it is painfully obvious that while the common language is English.. words mean RADICALLY different things depending upon the point of view.
Four Simple words .."Shall Not Be Infringed" somehow morphs into "government has the authority and the duty to restrict firearms to whomever it pleases..."
No common ground at all, folks...and better the line clearly and cleanly drawn between perversion and common sense.
0
-
Hb has gotten plenty of attention. Now back the question, please.[?] 0 -
quote:I gave classes to many people who want to CCW, and I stressed the need to take the 2nd Amendment as it is written.
Promoting CCW in one breath and preaching "the need to take the 2nd as written"????? How can you not see the problem within that type of illogic??? It's an oxymoron.0 -
Only to those who are blinded by idealism! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Only to those who are blinded by idealism!TRUTH
Fixed it for you.0 -
Ahhh, Jim..you are such a child.
'HB' should NEVER be the topic of discussion;
Wouldn't be, if you would stop bringing me up personally...We are talking about the Constitution here.
Kindly confine yourself to that topic, including your pet gun control projects, and leave my name out of it...hm ? But I can guarentdamntee you...I can get in the mud and wrassle, if you insist on it.
Try and picture this as a book.
we are duscussing Original Intent versus the perverted Fascist/Socialist version of today..and the people that stand on both sides of the issues.
I consider it perfectly legitimate to point out that people embracing gun control CANNOT be supporting the Constitution..and it makes absolutely no difference if that is the government, the NRA....OR you.
I fully intend throwing lances at anti-gunners till the Beast kills me...so you will not wear me out.0 -
Hb,
You are certinly entertaining, if nothing else![:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by Jim Rau:
Well I certinely hope some are wiseing up HB. I have been my part of wising up MANY people, so I know I have been doing a good job.
Sorry you can't say the same.
Fine Jim, I'll say it for him.
When I first started on here, I was one of those "NRA/common sense/have to accept some regs" people. After reading some of the post from some good people on here, like pickenup, lt496, WW, ECC, and yes, HB, my eyes were opened. They were opened from reading the cold, hard truth; not some distortion of it.
Do I think Hb has done a good job. Nope; he's done a superb job.
I gotta say that description fits me as well. Never thought twice about the jumping through hoops until I was older, when I began to really understand what a travesy had been visited on us! OMG I have to get permission to excersize my 2a rights??? I must say that some of the fine folks here have done even more to light the fire in me to speak my mind. I can't tell you how many debates I've gotten into with people over gun-related issues. Most of them are sheeple (even though some are still considered friends, they are a tad spoon-fed) and just plain ol' can' or won't see the light.
I just do not believe in "dumbing down" stuff or sugar coating it so as to make palatable for the huddles masses. Time for people to be responsible for themselves, time to accept the unvarnished facts, time to think for themselves, educate themselves and stop expecting it to be done for them. This country is going to hell, do we really need Nanny to hold everybodies hand? My god people of America, get your heads out you collective rear-ends before it all gets flushed away!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Only to those who are blinded by idealism!
But if we don't stick to our beliefs, and fold like a cheap suit, we're no different than those seeking to eviscerate the constitution. Might as well have had a hand in it, if we don't stand up for what we believe in. Were not the founders of this once proud nation idealistic? Did they not have ideals that they thought worthy of fighting and dying for? If that makes me a bad person, than so be it. I refuse to believe that being steadfast in support of the BOR is anything but honorable.0 -
4,
I never said you were a bad person. I don't know you well enough to make that kind judgment call about you. I was pointing out the differance, as I see it, between your statement and how I see it![;)]0 -
I am sure this has been touched on before but here goes anyway. Whenever I have a conversation with someone it always come to them arguing that the 1st amendment has some restrictions (Fire in a movie theater). Here is my argument to that. If you were to yell that in a theater then you would not be charged with saying fire, you would be charged with disturbing the peace or inciting a riot. So my question to those folks is why is it that gun owners can not be trusted to not yell fire with their Class III? What keeps us all in line is morals, upbringing and not wanting to spend the rest of our days in solitary with Bubba. I just wanted to spell out my retort to the common argument. I am just a young dumb guy but I will get off my soap box now.[:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well lets see, 50,000 members, 3%. If I am right that 1500.
Where are the other 1490+. Not much a pep rally guys![}:)]
Can't you get more of the 3% motivated than this???[;)]
Jim, you will never break through to some of these guys. They basically want loaded guns sold from vending machines. Save yourself some headaches and give up on them. I did.0 -
Oh, heck, I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment and enjoy rolling around in the mud with you misguided but otherwise basically fairly decent fellows.
So, one simple and direct question to you:
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?0 -
originally posted by trfox:
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?
Because I know of no sellers that have a gun shop set up in any penal institution in this country, which is the proper place for violent criminals. If an individual has been released from incarceration, and the debt to society has been paid, then that individual should have their rights fully restored. If there is any question at all about that individual being able to function and be a productive, law-abiding citizen, they should never be released.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by trfox:
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?
Because I know of no sellers that have a gun shop set up in any penal institution in this country, which is the proper place for violent criminals. If an individual has been released from incarceration, and the debt to society has been paid, then that individual should have their rights fully restored. If there is any question at all about that individual being able to function and be a productive, law-abiding citizen, they should never be released.
BE CAREFUL ws, you COULD solve society's ills with common sense solutions like that. [;)]0 -
quote:Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
The Founders intended violent animals be hung from the nearest lightpole or tree.
Your question is therefore not germane to the discussion.
The instant society turns a man loose after `paying his debt to society'...his Rights are restored to him.
Just because the weak-kneed spavined womanized culture we have today is unable to do what is right does NOT give them the right to limit my freedoms.0 -
BE CAREFUL ws, you COULD solve society's ills with common sense solutions like that. [;)]
We couldn't have that, could we?[;)][:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox on 09/07/2008
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well lets see, 50,000 members, 3%. If I am right that 1500.
Where are the other 1490+. Not much a pep rally guys![}:)]
Can't you get more of the 3% motivated than this???[;)]
Jim, you will never break through to some of these guys. They basically want loaded guns sold from vending machines. Save yourself some headaches and give up on them. I did.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox on 09/07/2008
Oh, heck, I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment and enjoy rolling around in the mud with you misguided but otherwise basically fairly decent fellows.
So, one simple and direct question to you:
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox on 04/06/2008
It will be a cold day in hell before you see me reading or posting on the gun rights forum part of GB.com.0 -
It has been said so well by so many.
The founders envisioned a lot of what could go wrong, but I would suggest that the rejection of personal responsibility by such a large portion of our society was not one of those.
Personal responsibility is being eliminated concurrent with the reduction in liberties and freedom. An obvious correlation that is lost on many. The more people are regulated, the less they feel responsible for their actions. Again, an obvious correlation.
Personal freedom and liberty beget personal responsibility as well as require it. As HB noted, gun rights in today's America are directed at controlling those that abide by the law, whereas the proper action is to control those that do not.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
It has been said so well by so many.
The founders envisioned a lot of what could go wrong, but I would suggest that the rejection of personal responsibility by such a large portion of our society was not one of those.
Personal responsibility is being eliminated concurrent with the reduction in liberties and freedom. An obvious correlation that is lost on many. The more people are regulated, the less they feel responsible for their actions. Again, an obvious correlation.
Personal freedom and liberty beget personal responsibility as well as require it. As HB noted, gun rights in today's America are directed at controlling those that abide by the law, whereas the proper action is to control those that do not.
In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two catagories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals committ crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another examaple, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?0 -
quote:In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two catagories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals committ crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another examaple, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
This has been explained to you over and over and over and over.
It is painfully obvious what we are dealing with, here.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two catagories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals committ crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another examaple, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
This has been explained to you over and over and over and over.
It is painfully obvious what we are dealing with, here.
I know you are a busy man, what with your keyboard wars and all, but why don't you explain it to me again in 100 words or less? That would give me another chance to be "enlightened" and also might help any readers of this thread that might be of the unlikely type in they are also interested in your response.
Thank you very much.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two categories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals commit crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another example, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
There are a number of ways to answer this:
1. Those that are deemed incapable of exercising restraint with a firearm are also incapable of exercising restraint with a knife, a ball bat, a hockey stick, etc. They should be eliminated or perpetually incarcerated. Transitional housing can be used to closely monitor those that are moving from the complete control of lock up back into polite society. Once proven capable of assimilation, all rights are restored.
2. Selling a weapon, be it a firearm or a combat knife, to anyone requires a judgement call by the seller. Yes there are too many that would sell to anyone, but again, controlling the law abiding has no effect on those that do not abide.
3. I cannot get my head around the concept of the fall-back position that 'Well, its OK, that gun was illegally owned.' A person harmed another with a weapon. That person is the only thing that is important, and that person should be controlled. (I know you are not suggesting it is OK, but the concept is a PR position, not a position designed to prevent harm to the innocent.)
Fact: The only way to keep weapons out of the hands of those that would cause harm is to completely eliminate every weapon in the country. (Edit) Alternatively we could completely isolate those that would harm from society. Which is better in keeping with the freedoms and liberties that should be America? (End Edit) No amount of regulation and control, no amount of labelling 'legal' or 'illegal' will have any impact.
Specifically, it is a people problem, not a pistol problem, and it cannot be addressed by regulating the pistol.0 -
HB,
Hi, it's me again.
And you are wrong again. We do not hang those folks, many are given light sentences and then relased early. MORE OF THE REALITY MANY HERE CONTINUE TO DENY but we MUST FACE! Like I have said MANY times, you are not living in the real world, only the world you WISH WERE SO![;)]0 -
Yes, Jin..you are back.
The very first post indicates that not only have you not thought about the previous discussions...you failed to comprehend the present one.
I think you will find that I mentioned the FOUNDERS...when I spoke of hanging criminals.
Those men had the courage to do what was right...unlike the feminized, weak-kneed pissants that call themselves `men' today.
You look at the world and see what is.
Fine..I fully UNDERSTAND that !!
I look at the world and see what WAS...what IS...and WHAT IT SHOULD BE !!
Unless you have a concept of better things...you cannot drive towards them. You are totally unable to grasp that concept ..and you have demonstrated that again and again and AGAIN !!
You look at crime and buy into the insanity that the way to solve that is to punish the great body of people that will never commit a serious crime.
I look at a crime and DEMAND A HANGING...right NOW...not 20 years later.
A trial, conviction, and hanging OUGHT to be the work of a month...NOT 20 YEARS !!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two categories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals commit crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another example, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
There are a number of ways to answer this:
1. Those that are deemed incapable of exercising restraint with a firearm are also incapable of exercising restraint with a knife, a ball bat, a hockey stick, etc. They should be eliminated or perpetually incarcerated. Transitional housing can be used to closely monitor those that are moving from the complete control of lock up back into polite society. Once proven capable of assimilation, all rights are restored. While you seem reasonable, I fear you are confused as are many here. In the preceding paragraph, you seriously contradict yourself. You cannot link your "....eliminated or perpetually incarcerate." along with "those that are moving.....back into polite society." You cannot have both
2. Selling a weapon, be it a firearm or a combat knife, to anyone requires a judgement call by the seller. Yes there are too many that would sell to anyone, but again, controlling the law abiding has no effect on those that do not abide. And I will ask again. How do you, as a seller, make that "judgement" call? If you have no first-hand, personal information about the potential buyer, how do you know if you are selling to a responsible person? Unless someone/agency tracks and provides that information to you.
3. I cannot get my head around the concept of the fall-back position that 'Well, its OK, that gun was illegally owned.' A person harmed another with a weapon. That person is the only thing that is important, and that person should be controlled. (I know you are not suggesting it is OK, but the concept is a PR position, not a position designed to prevent harm to the innocent.) Kinda like football players getting injured by each other. They are engaging in "legal" combat. But gangs fighting on the street are engaging in"illegal" combat. Usually "legal" things/actions do not scare the general population into passing even more restrictive laws (usually laws that only impact the already legal) as does "illegal" things/actions
Fact: The only way to keep weapons out of the hands of those that would cause harm is to completely eliminate every weapon in the country. (Edit) Alternatively we could completely isolate those that would harm from society. Which is better in keeping with the freedoms and liberties that should be America? (End Edit) No amount of regulation and control, no amount of labelling 'legal' or 'illegal' will have any impact. Well, yeah, labellng a known, convicted violent criminal as it being "illegal" for him/her to buy/own/ posses a firearm means that criminal has to go about obtaining his firearm (we all know he/she will) in an "illegal" manner. Having to do this will make it just a little bit (or sometimes a lot) harder to obtain a firearm. In addition he might have to settle for the firearm he can obtain and will not be able to get the one he really wants. But even when he gets one and does his crime, people like me (and probably the majority of society) will not blame the "legal" gun owners for the actions of an "illegal" gun owning criminal.
Specifically, it is a people problem, not a pistol problem, and it cannot be addressed by regulating the pistol. Partly true. But it cannot be addressed by total non-regulation of the people either0 -
trfox:
To state it simply, yes, you can have both. It is holding people responsible for their actions, and if they are a threat to society, you prevent them from re-entering society. Putting teeth back into the legal system by locking up violent felons until we are sure they are no longer a risk.
It is, as stated by earlier posters, a return to a justice system that truly holds people accountable for their actions, and sequesters those that cannot be depended upon to be accountable. The revolving doors of our prisons necessitate form 4473, and the re-introduction of those that have completed those benchmarks required for a complete return to society will have all rights fully restored.
It is not as you state, total non-regulation of people. It is eliminating or regulating only those people that have proven they need to be regulated.
I should be obvious that regulating the transfer of firearms in the manner you suggest, and the manner that is being pursued with the 'Gun Show Loophole' banner, can only be accomplished through the complete elimination of private gun sales. I must assume that this is what you (and others) advocate.
If this assumption is incorrect, please explain how we get around this.
In general, my view is that government can control people who have proven themselves to be a threat, or government can control all arms sales. Is there a practical middle ground?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
trfox:
To state it simply, yes, you can have both. It is holding people responsible for their actions, and if they are a threat to society, you prevent them from re-entering society. Putting teeth back into the legal system by locking up violent felons until we are sure they are no longer a risk.
It is, as stated by earlier posters, a return to a justice system that truly holds people accountable for their actions, and sequesters those that cannot be depended upon to be accountable. The revolving doors of our prisons necessitate form 4473, and the re-introduction of those that have completed those benchmarks required for a complete return to society will have all rights fully restored.
It is not as you state, total non-regulation of people. It is eliminating or regulating only those people that have proven they need to be regulated.
I should be obvious that regulating the transfer of firearms in the manner you suggest, and the manner that is being pursued with the 'Gun Show Loophole' banner, can only be accomplished through the complete elimination of private gun sales. I must assume that this is what you (and others) advocate. No, I do not advocate that. But if a convicted, violent criminal comes to you and wants to purchase your firearm, he/she WILL NOT tell you they a violent criminal. So you cannot know. So the other side of that coin is to have a procedure whereas the lawful buyers can prove they are lawful. I CAN provide proof to you that I am NOT a violent criminal. Just for one example, I would not mind a procedure whereas I could visit my local police station, present valid id, and come away with a police report of any history of violent criminal activities I might have. If what I present to you allows you to believe I am a lawful person whom you can feel confident about selling your gun to me, then go ahead and sell it. If there is a better/easier way for you to determine my character, then use that way. But I don't know of anyother way.
If this assumption is incorrect, please explain how we get around this.
In general, my view is that government can control people who have proven themselves to be a threat, or government can control all arms sales. Is there a practical middle ground?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
No, I do not advocate that. But if a convicted, violent criminal comes to you and wants to purchase your firearm, he/she WILL NOT tell you they a violent criminal. So you cannot know. So the other side of that coin is to have a procedure whereas the lawful buyers can prove they are lawful. I CAN provide proof to you that I am NOT a violent criminal. Just for one example, I would not mind a procedure whereas I could visit my local police station, present valid id, and come away with a police report of any history of violent criminal activities I might have. If what I present to you allows you to believe I am a lawful person whom you can feel confident about selling your gun to me, then go ahead and sell it. If there is a better/easier way for you to determine my character, then use that way. But I don't know of anyother way.[/red] [/size=2]
The burden of proof, in your example will always be on the seller. The seller will be obligated to retain and present said proof at any time a government official requests that proof. Therefore, it is effectively advocating government control/oversight of every firearm sale that occurs, forcing any private seller to maintain records as required by FFL holders today. Without these records, they will face whatever enforcement mechanism that would be put in place to verify sales to approved people.
It eliminates private sales of firearms, as a private sale that requires inspect-able documentation is no longer private.
It implements complete records of ownership and transfer traceability of all firearms.
How is this any different than advocating the banning of all private sales? Lipstick on a pig, as it were.0 -
HB,
Let me know when your 'DEMANDS' are met!!![;)]0 -
Unlikely, Jim...to ever happen.
The country is made up of people like you..willing to allow a government to push you around at will...and unwilling to defend the Constitution.
Your smart remark changes nothing in the debate of right versus wrong..and you remain on the wrong side.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
122 comments