States vs. Weapons
I have listened to the arguments concerning states having the 'right' to limit arms to the citizens.
I think perhaps there is fully as much reason to go to war with the State..federal OR state...if there comes bans on weapons.
The Second Amendment merely lays out a few of the Rights understood to be inviolate...never to be trifled with by 'authorities'. I am no more willing to allow locals that power over me then I am the federal.
Are States and Cities Bound by the Second Amendment?
http://reason.com/blog/show/127246.html
Jacob Sullum | June 27, 2008,
Plans for post-Heller challenges to gun control laws throughout the country will come to naught unless the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, a question the Supreme Court did not address in yesterday's decision. Three 19th-century Supreme Court decisions say it doesn't.
In U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), Klansmen who had used arson to intimidate and disarm freed blacks in Louisiana were charged with violating a federal statute that criminalized conspiracies to deprive people of their constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment "means no more than that [the right to keep and bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress." It added, "This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Likewise, in Presser v. State of Illinois (1886), which dealt with an Illinois law prohibiting private military exercises, the Court said the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." And in Miller v. Texas (1894), a murder case in which the defendant argued that a Texas law prohibiting the carrying of weapons violated the Second and Fourth amendments, the Court said "it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."
As that last example suggests, these cases were all decided before the Supreme Court began to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment (ultimately settling on the Due Process Clause as the main rationale, although the Privileges or Immunities Clause might have been a better fit). Miller v. Texas actually anticipated that development, saying "if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court."
The question for federal courts hearing challenges to state or local gun control laws, then, is whether the right to keep and bear arms, like freedom of speech or the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, is an aspect of the liberty protected from state encroachment by the 14th Amendment. After reading Heller, which emphasizes that the right to arms grows out of the basic right of self-preservation that preceded the Founding and was merely recognized, not created, by the Constitution, it is hard to imagine how the Court could say it should not be added to the list of civil liberties that states and municipalities must respect.
One Supreme Court case that neither the majority nor the dissenters in Heller cited is particularly illuminating on this point. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the notorious 1856 decision in which the Supreme Court rejected a slave's petition for freedom, declaring that a black man had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect," Chief Justice Roger Taney said (emphasis added):
It cannot be supposed that [the states] intended to secure to [blacks] rights and privileges and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
The decision is no longer binding, obviously, but it provides strong evidence that the right to keep and bear arms was considered part of the "privileges or immunities of citizens" that the 14th Amendment was aimed at securing.
I think perhaps there is fully as much reason to go to war with the State..federal OR state...if there comes bans on weapons.
The Second Amendment merely lays out a few of the Rights understood to be inviolate...never to be trifled with by 'authorities'. I am no more willing to allow locals that power over me then I am the federal.
Are States and Cities Bound by the Second Amendment?
http://reason.com/blog/show/127246.html
Jacob Sullum | June 27, 2008,
Plans for post-Heller challenges to gun control laws throughout the country will come to naught unless the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, a question the Supreme Court did not address in yesterday's decision. Three 19th-century Supreme Court decisions say it doesn't.
In U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), Klansmen who had used arson to intimidate and disarm freed blacks in Louisiana were charged with violating a federal statute that criminalized conspiracies to deprive people of their constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment "means no more than that [the right to keep and bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress." It added, "This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Likewise, in Presser v. State of Illinois (1886), which dealt with an Illinois law prohibiting private military exercises, the Court said the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." And in Miller v. Texas (1894), a murder case in which the defendant argued that a Texas law prohibiting the carrying of weapons violated the Second and Fourth amendments, the Court said "it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."
As that last example suggests, these cases were all decided before the Supreme Court began to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment (ultimately settling on the Due Process Clause as the main rationale, although the Privileges or Immunities Clause might have been a better fit). Miller v. Texas actually anticipated that development, saying "if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court."
The question for federal courts hearing challenges to state or local gun control laws, then, is whether the right to keep and bear arms, like freedom of speech or the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, is an aspect of the liberty protected from state encroachment by the 14th Amendment. After reading Heller, which emphasizes that the right to arms grows out of the basic right of self-preservation that preceded the Founding and was merely recognized, not created, by the Constitution, it is hard to imagine how the Court could say it should not be added to the list of civil liberties that states and municipalities must respect.
One Supreme Court case that neither the majority nor the dissenters in Heller cited is particularly illuminating on this point. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the notorious 1856 decision in which the Supreme Court rejected a slave's petition for freedom, declaring that a black man had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect," Chief Justice Roger Taney said (emphasis added):
It cannot be supposed that [the states] intended to secure to [blacks] rights and privileges and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
The decision is no longer binding, obviously, but it provides strong evidence that the right to keep and bear arms was considered part of the "privileges or immunities of citizens" that the 14th Amendment was aimed at securing.
0
-
I thought I had, but to clarify: A government makes no rights. Rights are inherent in one's being.
Government, has a rule, just one-power must be usurped at every opportunity.
You question "I have never seen in my life time or my study of history where a government has applied ANY right in the ABSOLUTE, no restrictions WHAT SO EVER."
The premise is not restriction. It is prior restraint. No right is restricted. There are only penalties for abuse of that right (the old screaming fire in a crowded theater, or defamation/libel for example) but my flip-which you ignored completely-is what right has a restriction prior to any law being broken? The gov cannot tell me what car or house I can buy or how big of one I can own or where I can live. But seemingly it is just fine in your mind for them to limit any other of my personal property regarding firearms-regardless of whether or not I have ever committed a crime, am likely to, or am even capable of committing one.
Are you getting it yet?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!
What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]
And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???
496, I would really be interested in your input here!
I got it years ago, ARE YOU GETTING IT YET!!![?]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!
What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]
And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???
496, I would really be interested in your input here!
I got it years ago, ARE YOU GETTING IT YET!!![?]
Now back to reality please. Have you ever seen a time or place where your 'ideal' reference rights has occurred?????0 -
Jeez, Jim-you are obtuse man! And you are not getting it at all.
All other rights are totally unrestricted. Free speech, voting, search and seizure, religion, etc. All are unrestricted until you abuse that right or break the law. Only the right to bear arms carries restrictions to the right prior to any law being broken.
Please, tell me you are getting this!0 -
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
Jeez, Jim-you are obtuse man! And you are not getting it at all.
All other rights are totally unrestricted. Free speech, voting, search and seizure, religion, etc. All are unrestricted until you abuse that right or break the law. Only the right to bear arms carries restrictions to the right prior to any law being broken.
Please, tell me you are getting this!
Agreed, CNP:
I would have responded sooner, but I had to contact my local Bureau of Typing and Talking (BTT)to get the lock removed from my keyboard, which required the instant background check and the approval of the post I had prepared to send.0 -
THANK YOU!!!!!!! 0 -
CNP;
The problem, of course...those of us that support the Constitution as written understood your point instantly.
Those that allow their own fears to cloud their vision will NEVER understand..they prefer the safety and security of government intervention in other peoples daily lives.
The fact the the Second Amendment ..indeed, the entire Constitution... has been circumvented, ignored, perverted and twisted beyond recognition since the ink was drying SHOULD have no bearing on the validity OR MEANING of that document in ones' own mind.
Trust NO ONE that refuses to admit the intent of that document. It matter not one particle what 'is'...for there can be no hope at all for freedom unless enough of us realize and fight for what is "supposed" to be.
ONLY by losing sight of original intent can we cheer CCWs, or any other so-called 'regaining rights' laws so dearly loved by the near-blind.0 -
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
Jeez, Jim-you are obtuse man! And you are not getting it at all.
All other rights are totally unrestricted. Free speech, voting, search and seizure, religion, etc. All are unrestricted until you abuse that right or break the law. Only the right to bear arms carries restrictions to the right prior to any law being broken.
Please, tell me you are getting this!
So if the laws says you can't threaten people it does not apply until you do so and are caught right?
If the law says you can't CCW it does not apply until you do so and are caught Right?
Back to one of my UNANSEWRED questions:
What is the difference between the idealists in academia and the idealists on this site (in the CA bunch here)???
You have not been keeping up with this. For many years I was of the same idealistic state of mind many here are. But when I looked at it closely I saw how unrealistic I was and how was not accomplishing any thing good by being a 'marauder' for the cause.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Highball
CNP;
The problem, of course...those of us that support the Constitution as written understood your point instantly.
Those that allow their own fears to cloud their vision will NEVER understand..they prefer the safety and security of government intervention in other peoples daily lives.
The fact the the Second Amendment ..indeed, the entire Constitution... has been circumvented, ignored, perverted and twisted beyond recognition since the ink was drying SHOULD have no bearing on the validity OR MEANING of that document in ones' own mind.
Trust NO ONE that refuses to admit the intent of that document. It matter not one particle what 'is'...for there can be no hope at all for freedom unless enough of us realize and fight for what is "supposed" to be.
ONLY by losing sight of original intent can we cheer CCWs, or any other so-called 'regaining rights' laws so dearly loved by the near-blind.
Very eloquent as usual HB! Are you sure you were not a politician in another life.[;)]
But I can assure you, you are more 'in fear' than I am![;)]0 -
Really ?
I do not fear a full auto, unregistered, in the hands of my neighbor.
While I know of no such weapons, I am confident that there ARE such out there. I am pretty sure the government hasn't cowed an ENTIRE nation of men...just most of them.
I don't fear them at all.
Odd thing. I think full autos are a joke. My frugal nature shrivels at the idea of blasting all that ammo down range.
Still..it is none of your nor the governments business who owns them.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!
What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]
And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???
496, I would really be interested in your input here!
I sense a clash of the 1. Hesitant idealist who urges caution and levelheadedness due perhaps to a fear of upsetting the "masters" all the while ostensibly decrying the carnage that a revolution might engender. 2. He who understands that as citizen in a democracy IS the master regardless of what the government says. I imagine what folks who wanted to hold the Boston Tea Party had to contend with? "Now now boys, we gotta work within the system, the redcoats will give us our inalienable rights as free men as long as we work out a deal,,,give some concessions. My question is. How far will we sink into this morass of concessions (additional fettering) before we see that our government is indeed tyrannical in it's attempts to deny us what is due in the Constitution, namely with gun registration etc. Free men do not need to be conciliatory when speaking the truth about the Rights of Man, nor will they need to apologize for defending the same.Just food for thought from a kid who grew up holding a rifle over stone walls on the route that Rochambeau took.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
So if the laws says you can't threaten people it does not apply until you do so and are caught right?correct
If the law says you can't CCW it does not apply until you do so and are caught Right?also correct Getting caught is not relevant.Also-Do not make the elementary mistake of clouding the issue of CCW being in the 2A- what is not specifically prohibited is permitted.
Here you make my point for me-read carefully now. Are you watching?Okay...
If I make a threat to someone, I am placing perhaps several of someone else's liberties at risk (depending on the specific threat, of course) Correct? Good. Let's keep going... The utterance of that threat is an illegal act based on what? Based on the likelihood of carrying out that threat. Why? Because I said I would do it. Saying so,leaves no choice but to assume one has both the means and the motive to perform the acts specified therein. Are you following? To simplify-I said I would do something bad to someone, and the law has to assume I will. Why? Because I said so! Reasonable enough?
Now...are you still reading? Making a law forbidding the carry of firearms is based on what? I have made no threat (real or implied) I give no reason for one to believe that I will commit all manner of nefarious acts (regardless of whether I have before or not) My actually carrying (legal or otherwise) infringes on no one's liberties (in fact, precisely the opposite) I am doing nothing illegal other than doing what the goverment forbade in direct contravention of the law the government is limited by.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee of the ability to make threats in the BoR. It says free speech, yes, but there are penalties for the abuse of that freedom, and rightfully so, but not the exercise of it.
Back to one of my UNANSWERED questions:
What is the difference between the idealists in academia and the idealists on this site (in the CA bunch here)??? There are several-most importantly two:My ideal of a government following the plan concieved by the founders and codified in the Constitution is one shared and codified as the basis for the founding of our nation. That being the greatest nation on Earth, without peer or superior. In academia, generally, the ideal (typically a socialist utopia)is one that is fantasy from it's conception;was not the plan envisioned for this country, and makes no provision for the motivation of people who want more.
You have not been keeping up with this. For many years I was of the same idealistic state of mind many here are. But when I looked at it closely I saw how unrealistic I was and how was not accomplishing any thing good by being a 'marauder' for the cause.
Here is where we differ. I don't believe for a second that a society and government that abides by the rules set out for both in the Constitution is unrealistic. Not only is it attainable-IT USED TO BE THE RULE NOT THE EXCEPTION!!!!!! And by accepting that things are the way they are and feeling that nothing is accomplished by resisting it is defeatist and I'll personally have no part in it. I don't believe for a second that you ever believed the way I do as that is not the natural progression of man. Men do not strive for less freedom. Ever.
Is it possible to make this any clearer to you? Is there anything about this you do not understand?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Really ?
I do not fear a full auto, unregistered, in the hands of my neighbor.
While I know of no such weapons, I am confident that there ARE such out there. I am pretty sure the government hasn't cowed an ENTIRE nation of men...just most of them.
I don't fear them at all.
Odd thing. I think full autos are a joke. My frugal nature shrivels at the idea of blasting all that ammo down range.
Still..it is none of your nor the governments business who owns them.
Just curious HB, but how many times have been fired upon by a full auto weapon? How many times and or rounds have you fired in return?
Have you ever used a full auto weapon just for fun at the range???[?]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rhinovangogh
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!
What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]
And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???
496, I would really be interested in your input here!
I sense a clash of the 1. Hesitant idealist who urges caution and levelheadedness due perhaps to a fear of upsetting the "masters" all the while ostensibly decrying the carnage that a revolution might engender. 2. He who understands that as citizen in a democracy IS the master regardless of what the government says. I imagine what folks who wanted to hold the Boston Tea Party had to contend with? "Now now boys, we gotta work within the system, the redcoats will give us our inalienable rights as free men as long as we work out a deal,,,give some concessions. My question is. How far will we sink into this morass of concessions (additional fettering) before we see that our government is indeed tyrannical in it's attempts to deny us what is due in the Constitution, namely with gun registration etc. Free men do not need to be conciliatory when speaking the truth about the Rights of Man, nor will they need to apologize for defending the same.Just food for thought from a kid who grew up holding a rifle over stone walls on the route that Rochambeau took.
Welcome rhino. If you said nothing more on the subject you will have earned my respect.0 -
[quote
Just curious HB, but how many times have been fired upon by a full auto weapon? How many times and or rounds have you fired in return?
Have you ever used a full auto weapon just for fun at the range???[?]
[/quote]
What in the sam h3ll does that have to do with the discussion? I have all three, have not only the means, but the permission of the commonwealth of MA to own one. That does not pique my interest one bit. My neighbor owns several ClassIII items and I have never desired to touch a one of them. I do love his Model 70 Shadow though- now,there is an instrument to envy.0 -
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
So if the laws says you can't threaten people it does not apply until you do so and are caught right?correct
If the law says you can't CCW it does not apply until you do so and are caught Right?also correct Getting caught is not relevant.Also-Do not make the elementary mistake of clouding the issue of CCW being in the 2A- what is not specifically prohibited is permitted.
Here you make my point for me-read carefully now. Are you watching?Okay...
If I make a threat to someone, I am placing perhaps several of someone else's liberties at risk (depending on the specific threat, of course) Correct? Good. Let's keep going... The utterance of that threat is an illegal act based on what? Based on the likelihood of carrying out that threat. Why? Because I said I would do it. Saying so,leaves no choice but to assume one has both the means and the motive to perform the acts specified therein. Are you following? To simplify-I said I would do something bad to someone, and the law has to assume I will. Why? Because I said so! Reasonable enough?
Now...are you still reading? Making a law forbidding the carry of firearms is based on what? I have made no threat (real or implied) I give no reason for one to believe that I will commit all manner of nefarious acts (regardless of whether I have before or not) My actually carrying (legal or otherwise) infringes on no one's liberties (in fact, precisely the opposite) I am doing nothing illegal other than doing what the goverment forbade in direct contravention of the law the government is limited by.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee of the ability to make threats in the BoR. It says free speech, yes, but there are penalties for the abuse of that freedom, and rightfully so, but not the exercise of it.
Back to one of my UNANSWERED questions:
What is the difference between the idealists in academia and the idealists on this site (in the CA bunch here)??? There are several-most importantly two:My ideal of a government following the plan concieved by the founders and codified in the Constitution is one shared and codified as the basis for the founding of our nation. That being the greatest nation on Earth, without peer or superior. In academia, generally, the ideal (typically a socialist utopia)is one that is fantasy from it's conception;was not the plan envisioned for this country, and makes no provision for the motivation of people who want more.
You have not been keeping up with this. For many years I was of the same idealistic state of mind many here are. But when I looked at it closely I saw how unrealistic I was and how was not accomplishing any thing good by being a 'marauder' for the cause.
Here is where we differ. I don't believe for a second that a society and government that abides by the rules set out for both in the Constitution is unrealistic. Not only is it attainable-IT USED TO BE THE RULE NOT THE EXCEPTION!!!!!! And by accepting that things are the way they are and feeling that nothing is accomplished by resisting it is defeatist and I'll personally have no part in it. I don't believe for a second that you ever believed the way I do as that is not the natural progression of man. Men do not strive for less freedom. Ever.
Is it possible to make this any clearer to you? Is there anything about this you do not understand?
WHEN was it the rule not the exception????
I really don't care if you believe it or not, but I have made the exact same arguments you are making.
You make a statement that I have excepted things as they are. Again you have not been keeping up. I do not except this and I have put my career and pension on the line to defend my believes in the 2nd Amendment. I have to laugh at people like you who are so 'holier than though' and you have never had to sacrifice anything to support your beliefs. You are truly 'clue less' to what is going on the real world. And if you truly believe you can achieve the 'ideal' of which you speck I feel sorry for you. You are going to VERY disappointed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
[quote
Just curious HB, but how many times have been fired upon by a full auto weapon? How many times and or rounds have you fired in return?
Have you ever used a full auto weapon just for fun at the range???[?]
What in the sam h3ll does that have to do with the discussion? I have all three, have not only the means, but the permission of the commonwealth of MA to own one. That does not pique my interest one bit. My neighbor owns several ClassIII items and I have never desired to touch a one of them. I do love his Model 70 Shadow though- now,there is an instrument to envy.
[/quote]
He made the statement he was not afraid of people with full auto weapons, so I want to know how much first hand experance on both ends of a full auto weapon he has to base this statement. I don't thing this is to much to ask, why do you???0 -
Here we go again, you guys are really going to get my post count up like Jeff and HB did several months ago.[;)]
So please, newbies, go back and read up so I don't have to keep repeating myself!!!![V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
How many 'blacks' were allowed to be armed then??[;)]
They were also deemed to be chattel.
Do you agree with that, Jim?0 -
I pointing out some facts about the RTKABA's. I am not going off on tangent about race and/or slavery!
Nice try though![;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I am not going off on tangent
Nice try though![;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Then the plane view doctrine is unconditional??
The requirement to ID yourself before you vote is unconditional??
The laws which restrict you from threatening to kill or harm others are unconditional??
Coulda fooled me....0 -
You lost me on this one!! [?] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
quote:Originally posted by Rhinovangogh
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!
What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]
And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???
496, I would really be interested in your input here!
I sense a clash of the 1. Hesitant idealist who urges caution and levelheadedness due perhaps to a fear of upsetting the "masters" all the while ostensibly decrying the carnage that a revolution might engender. 2. He who understands that as citizen in a democracy IS the master regardless of what the government says. I imagine what folks who wanted to hold the Boston Tea Party had to contend with? "Now now boys, we gotta work within the system, the redcoats will give us our inalienable rights as free men as long as we work out a deal,,,give some concessions. My question is. How far will we sink into this morass of concessions (additional fettering) before we see that our government is indeed tyrannical in it's attempts to deny us what is due in the Constitution, namely with gun registration etc. Free men do not need to be conciliatory when speaking the truth about the Rights of Man, nor will they need to apologize for defending the same.Just food for thought from a kid who grew up holding a rifle over stone walls on the route that Rochambeau took.
Welcome rhino. If you said nothing more on the subject you will have earned my respect.
[/quote]Thanks for the welcome. Are you in law enforcement? Your replies on this site remind me of some old FBI colleagues(Probably just a mindset). Lots of those guys were prior Marine and before that Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout too. Still am. Did you read Johnny Tremaine?
While I am not here for earning anyone's respect,I do not wish to comment on the 2nd amendment so much as I do the clash of ideas I see here. I do value your input here after reading tons of threads on various subjects. Level headed men should prevail over hot heads, but often these level types are often loyalists in failed causes with right-minded allegiances and a strong sense of duty. Good soldiers are always employed and will often unflinchingly do their duties (Wounded Knee,Bergen Belsen,Mi Lai, Quantanamo e.g.).IMHO, once enlisted, as soldiers, good men abdicate free will and exchange it for a paycheck. I do not suggest that these men are dupes or bad people. I spent 20 years in the military.
My purpose for chiming in on the 2nd amendment thread is to find out to my satisfaction where people truly stand. It is possible to be brilliant, educated, informed and still be on the wrong side of any argument. I imagine what the Sons of Liberty had to contend with moving to secure their rights and Kick out the oppressors. I imagine there were plenty of lackeys,loyalists and spies about...certainly there were good soldiers of the King standing guard. Fascinating discussion. Carry on. Rhino [:o)]0 -
I have no experience with enemy fire from a full auto on urban American streets.
Full auto, unless backed with interlacing fields of fire from other gunners, and complete with troop protection, is susceptible to going away quickly.
In the days of massed troops, advancing across open fields, the machine gun was a fearsome weapon.
The criminals we have today that snap and start killing people probably would run up less of a score with full auto weapons....Simply because the rate of fire would run them out of ammo quicker.
3-round bursts being beyond them, I think.
In an America that was sane..gun fire in a mall would instantly alert every gun bearing Citizen in the area...and the end would come very shortly for the killer(s). Full auto or not.
I have access to full auto weapons ..a friend owns several. I shoot them now and again ..if he insists. I could not bring myself to spend the money for the cartridges. Cheap, you know...I also never let him forget about the 200 dollar tithe to the government each time he spends another 15,000 on a 400 buck weapon...0 -
quote:I imagine there were plenty of lackeys,loyalists and spies about...certainly there were good soldiers of the King standing guard. Fascinating disc
I call them cowards, fellow travelers, Quislings, and compromisers...myself.
And...yeh...I am a hot-head.0 -
I have never understood how the concept of a state being able to trump Federal Law. AS for constitutional law, they can't. They are bound by the constitution just like everyone else. Several laws in California have been over turned because they were found to be unconstitutional. Various tried and failed gun bans by the City of San Fransisco and the "good" Mayor Nusium. Now there an A$$ worth his wieght in Poop.
But there are some states that feel they don't have to obey law. Like California. Here it legal to sell and possess Medicinal Pot. Federal law says B.S.. Yet they don't press it. Federal Law has it listed as a class 1 narcodic. A felony.
I have allways been under the aparently false impression that state law could NOT over ride Federal Law or constitutional law. But in todays worlds, that seems to mean very little. And as usual. it depends on what state you live in.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You lost me on this one!! [?]
s-e-l-f D-e-f-e-n-s-e0 -
quote:Originally posted by Remington1981
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You lost me on this one!! [?]
s-e-l-f D-e-f-e-n-s-e0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
So if the laws says you can't threaten people it does not apply until you do so and are caught right?correct
If the law says you can't CCW it does not apply until you do so and are caught Right?also correct Getting caught is not relevant.Also-Do not make the elementary mistake of clouding the issue of CCW being in the 2A- what is not specifically prohibited is permitted.
Here you make my point for me-read carefully now. Are you watching?Okay...
If I make a threat to someone, I am placing perhaps several of someone else's liberties at risk (depending on the specific threat, of course) Correct? Good. Let's keep going... The utterance of that threat is an illegal act based on what? Based on the likelihood of carrying out that threat. Why? Because I said I would do it. Saying so,leaves no choice but to assume one has both the means and the motive to perform the acts specified therein. Are you following? To simplify-I said I would do something bad to someone, and the law has to assume I will. Why? Because I said so! Reasonable enough?
Now...are you still reading? Making a law forbidding the carry of firearms is based on what? I have made no threat (real or implied) I give no reason for one to believe that I will commit all manner of nefarious acts (regardless of whether I have before or not) My actually carrying (legal or otherwise) infringes on no one's liberties (in fact, precisely the opposite) I am doing nothing illegal other than doing what the goverment forbade in direct contravention of the law the government is limited by.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee of the ability to make threats in the BoR. It says free speech, yes, but there are penalties for the abuse of that freedom, and rightfully so, but not the exercise of it.
Back to one of my UNANSWERED questions:
What is the difference between the idealists in academia and the idealists on this site (in the CA bunch here)??? There are several-most importantly two:My ideal of a government following the plan concieved by the founders and codified in the Constitution is one shared and codified as the basis for the founding of our nation. That being the greatest nation on Earth, without peer or superior. In academia, generally, the ideal (typically a socialist utopia)is one that is fantasy from it's conception;was not the plan envisioned for this country, and makes no provision for the motivation of people who want more.
You have not been keeping up with this. For many years I was of the same idealistic state of mind many here are. But when I looked at it closely I saw how unrealistic I was and how was not accomplishing any thing good by being a 'marauder' for the cause.
Here is where we differ. I don't believe for a second that a society and government that abides by the rules set out for both in the Constitution is unrealistic. Not only is it attainable-IT USED TO BE THE RULE NOT THE EXCEPTION!!!!!! And by accepting that things are the way they are and feeling that nothing is accomplished by resisting it is defeatist and I'll personally have no part in it. I don't believe for a second that you ever believed the way I do as that is not the natural progression of man. Men do not strive for less freedom. Ever.
Is it possible to make this any clearer to you? Is there anything about this you do not understand?
WHEN was it the rule not the exception????
I really don't care if you believe it or not, but I have made the exact same arguments you are making.
You make a statement that I have excepted things as they are. Again you have not been keeping up. I do not except this and I have put my career and pension on the line to defend my believes in the 2nd Amendment. I have to laugh at people like you who are so 'holier than though' and you have never had to sacrifice anything to support your beliefs. You are truly 'clue less' to what is going on the real world. And if you truly believe you can achieve the 'ideal' of which you speck I feel sorry for you. You are going to VERY disappointed.
If you go back as recently as 1967 (pre '68 GCA) or even pre '34 GCA. None of what we discuss-in addition to SSN's, payroll deduction and exhorbitant tax rates, politicians selling senate seats and a bumbling idiot in the white house was occurring. I would say 1900 is about perfect politically. The US was unapologetically imperial. Men were men, women were women and thought it best that they keep to that. One could buy machine guns or artillery providing you had the means.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rhinovangogh
Thanks for the welcome. Are you in law enforcement? Your replies on this site remind me of some old FBI colleagues(Probably just a mindset). Lots of those guys were prior Marine and before that Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout too. Still am. Did you read Johnny Tremaine?
While I am not here for earning anyone's respect,I do not wish to comment on the 2nd amendment so much as I do the clash of ideas I see here. I do value your input here after reading tons of threads on various subjects. Level headed men should prevail over hot heads, but often these level types are often loyalists in failed causes with right-minded allegiances and a strong sense of duty. Good soldiers are always employed and will often unflinchingly do their duties (Wounded Knee,Bergen Belsen,Mi Lai, Quantanamo e.g.).IMHO, once enlisted, as soldiers, good men abdicate free will and exchange it for a paycheck. I do not suggest that these men are dupes or bad people. I spent 20 years in the military.
My purpose for chiming in on the 2nd amendment thread is to find out to my satisfaction where people truly stand. It is possible to be brilliant, educated, informed and still be on the wrong side of any argument. I imagine what the Sons of Liberty had to contend with moving to secure their rights and Kick out the oppressors. I imagine there were plenty of lackeys,loyalists and spies about...certainly there were good soldiers of the King standing guard. Fascinating discussion. Carry on. Rhino [:o)]
[/quote]
I am not in law enforcement although I did try for a while. Too much compromise of principle, combined with too many folks who did not understand the purpose of what they were doing. That said, I bid the Maryland S.P adieu and moved on. I am an engineer in charge of the operations department of a gas turbine power plant. I spent 6 years active in the Marines and 4 in the Reserves, one of those in Kosovo.
I have read Johnny Tremaine, and enjoyed it. I find it curious how readable it is even today.
I try and put forth a reasoned argument, but typically find that logic is too easily trumped by rhetoric and emotion. As an engineer, I find it hard to allow such to make rule and not logic and fact. Again welcome,0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
106 comments