Progressive gun owner [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Progressive gun owner


greentriple
05-05-2012, 18:41
So, some of you my hate me already, and that vitriol has inspired this post. I suspect our commonalities are more than our differences, however the divergences are chasms.

What I'm interested in is this:

1) I'm a gun owner
2) I am a strict Bill of Rights Advocate. (my problem with the ACLU for one is their blind eye to the 2nd)
3) I believe in the right to CCW. (with restrictions)
4) I think extreme thinking and blind faith will get you killed.
5) Any government is corrupt. But we need to protect the vulnerable.

Can "we" work together?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

GLOCK17DB9
05-05-2012, 18:56
So far so good!:wavey:

Jerry
05-05-2012, 21:12
You are not a “strict Bill of Rights Advocate”. You believe in restrictions when it suits you and stretching it to include things that are not in it when that suites you. Examples… You want the first to include “actions” when it states SPEECH“ and ”PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY while wanting restrictions placed on the 2nd. when it clearly states ”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. That is not a “strict Bill of Rights Advocate”. That is someone that wants to manipulate the Amendments / The Bill of Rights to fit HIS opinion / agenda.

"Let us hear no more of confidence in man, but let us keep THEM [men in
government] from mischief by binding them down by the chains of the
Constitution." [Thomas Jefferson] [emphasis added]

The Bill of Rights was written to BIND the GOVERNMENT not as a tool to be manipulated.

The one and only Amendment that has the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" in it is the second. However you believe the Founders meant that to mean it can be infringed if the government decides it needs another interpretation.

greentriple
05-05-2012, 22:06
Jerry, here you go again. Man you get worked up easy. Too much beer in the Wheaties?

First, you know not what I believe, only what I allow you to think.

Now, if u have a reasonable, rationale response and not an attack I'd be happy to participate.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
05-05-2012, 22:26
You are not a “strict Bill of Rights Advocate”. You believe in restrictions when it suits you and stretching it to include things that are not in it when that suites you. Examples… You want the first to include “actions” when it states SPEECH“ and ”PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY while wanting restrictions placed on the 2nd. when it clearly states ”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. That is not a “strict Bill of Rights Advocate”. That is someone that wants to manipulate the Amendments / The Bill of Rights to fit HIS opinion / agenda.



The Bill of Rights was written to BIND the GOVERNMENT not as a tool to be manipulated.

The one and only Amendment that has the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" in it is the second. However you believe the Founders meant that to mean it can be infringed if the government decides it needs another interpretation.

You believe an action is not speech, I disagree. I believe speech encompasses more than words and I believe our founding fathers did too. I believe they understood this to be true and self evident and not needing of explanation. I have struggled with militia in the 2nd, and believe it has important meaning. But, I also UNDERSTAND the historical period when the COTUS was drafted and ratified, Amendments and all. I believe our founders did not think women should vote, I can't imagine that is something you advocate. I believe they considered Native Americans and Slaves as less than themselves and not worthy of a political voice. I can't imagine you agree with them an that. My point is that values and beliefs, historically grounded in the time colored the lenses our founders wore. We accept some changes and faults and not others depending on our personal agenda. I don't know if it's right, some times it works, others it does not, like prohibition.

When the Preamble read "All men are created equal..." they were thinking of a very limited group. It's a living document, that's what makes it ever enduring, unlike other historical codifications of social and political contracts.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Jerry
05-05-2012, 23:48
Jerry, here you go again. Man you get worked up easy. Too much beer in the Wheaties?

First, you know not what I believe, only what I allow you to think.

Now, if u have a reasonable, rationale response and not an attack I'd be happy to participate.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine



I don't get worked up, I speak mater of factually. I especially do it when conversing with someone that post as a liberal. In fact you stated that you are a progressive so I do know exactly how your though process works. That is unless you lied. Progressives are, in my book, the worst of the worst. They wish to shred the Constitution.


You believe an action is not speech, I disagree. I believe speech encompasses more than words and I believe our founding fathers did too. I believe they understood this to be true and self evident and not needing of explanation. I have struggled with militia in the 2nd, and believe it has important meaning. But, I also UNDERSTAND the historical period when the COTUS was drafted and ratified, Amendments and all. I believe our founders did not think women should vote, I can't imagine that is something you advocate. I believe they considered Native Americans and Slaves as less than themselves and not worthy of a political voice. I can't imagine you agree with them an that. My point is that values and beliefs, historically grounded in the time colored the lenses our founders wore. We accept some changes and faults and not others depending on our personal agenda. I don't know if it's right, some times it works, others it does not, like prohibition.

When the Preamble read "All men are created equal..." they were thinking of a very limited group. It's a living document, that's what makes it ever enduring, unlike other historical codifications of social and political contracts.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

If you don't believe there is a difference in actions and speech you'd better look up the definitions.

The first states speech and peaceful assembly. If speech and actions weer the same they would have just said speech and left out assembly. Assembly is an action.

The militia clause is not difficult to understand. "A militia being necessary to a free state." Says exactly what it means. A state needs the ability to form a militia to stay free. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms." The people have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It simply says the the people have a right to bear armed and to form a militia not that a militia is necessary for the people to be armed as the "progressive" have tried to convince the sheelpy. "Shall not be infringed." The government is forbidden from interfering on The Peoples' RIGHT.

As for woman voting show me where the constitution said they can't. When the constitution was written only land owners could vote. I agree with that. If only land owners, those with something to loose, could vote we wouldn't be in the fix we're in today.

As for slaves show me where the original constitution says it is or isn't ok. Congress wrote another amendment to cover that. And there in lies the rub. Congress can vote in an amendment to override the 2nd. But they know The People won't go for it so the liberal / progressive politicians put the notion in the heads of the sheeply that interpretation is ok and that the amendments really mean something other than what is written.

You are trying to say the Constitution grants or denies rights. The Bill of Rights tells the government what it cannot do. It's there to guarantee our rights and to protect us from government abuse. The rest of the Constitution tells the Federal Government what "power" is granted to it.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do I have to explain that to you. The government has no power other than that granted to it. Shall not be infringed tells the government it IS FORBIDDEN, IS NOT GRANTED THE POWER TO TELL THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH FIREARMS

Fred Hansen
05-06-2012, 00:08
So, some of you my hate me already, and that vitriol has inspired this post. I suspect our commonalities are more than our differences, however the divergences are chasms.

What I'm interested in is this:

1) I'm a gun owner
2) I am a strict Bill of Rights Advocate. (my problem with the ACLU for one is their blind eye to the 2nd)
3) I believe in the right to CCW. (with restrictions)
4) I think extreme thinking and blind faith will get you killed.
5) Any government is corrupt. But we need to protect the vulnerable.

Can "we" work together?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engineNo. I don't believe a thing you type.

ancient_serpent
05-06-2012, 00:15
Jerry, here you go again. Man you get worked up easy. Too much beer in the Wheaties?

First, you know not what I believe, only what I allow you to think.

Now, if u have a reasonable, rationale response and not an attack I'd be happy to participate.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

This alone has convinced me that you do not want to "work together," you simply want others to tell you that your beliefs are right. You want to argue and type pseudo-smart aleck things.
If your attitude in this and in past posts are indicative of other progressives then I am glad to have been in opposition to your ideologies for as long as I have.

Fred Hansen
05-06-2012, 00:26
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/obama/obama23.jpg

IhRedrider
05-06-2012, 06:46
greetriple


3) I believe in the right to CCW. (with restrictions)


How about, you answer the questions I asked you before?

I know that you will feign ignorance of the actual questions, and I was about to go cut and paste, but I'm not going to do that until you actually claim to not know what I'm talking about. SO

"with restrictions"

What restrictions and where , in the Constitution, can you back these "restrictions" up.


Quote:
You;
So, if we accept "reasonable" restrictions to one Amendment it seems fair to accept it for others.

Me;
"WE" are NOT accepting "reasonable restrictions" to the Constitution. You may accept restrictions to your RIGHTS, however I (and many others) do NOT.

"Reasonable restrictions" are the one of the first steps to taking away something. Are you in support of giving up your RIGHTS? If you are, I guess that is one of your right, but I will not submit to tyranny!

Quote:
you;
Our opinions will vary as to what is reasonable.

Me;
This is the very reason I will never agree to "reasonable restrictions". Why don't we simply follow what is written in the Constitution? Makes life much easier.


I've said all this and haven't even delved into the fact that if we allow someone (the government or any other wack job) to restrict our RIGHTS, then they were never RIGHTS to begin with. This I cannot abide by, how about you?

greentriple
05-06-2012, 08:07
Clearly felons and the mentally ill should not legally own guns. Violent misdemeanors also be prohibited during the course of their probation. I prefer a CCW to be "may", with a requirement that a person must "justify" the need. I don't think people should open carry. Not sure the need for high capacity magazine or fully auto weapons, but I don't think restricting them makes sense. I think all guns should be registered, at least with local law-enforcement. No restriction on the number of guns owned, although people with arsenals and stock piles of ammo seem odd to me. No registration on ammo. And unlike the city fathers of Laverken Utah, I don't think every person who want a gun must have on.

As for they being in the four corners of the constitution, I agree the direct wording is not. But I be live there are implied powers. I also read restrictions to voting rights that no longer apply. It's not a stagnant dogmatic document, at least not for me.

I agree, you don't have to accept or agree to any restrictions. If they were on a ballot I presume you'd vote "no" and depending on what they were I might vote "yes". We'd tally up the votes and presto..., "democracy" at work. Now in a representative government we "give/delegate" decision making. If the same issue comes up, well they vote and again, presto... "representative democracy" at work. We don't like the result, vote the bum out and start again, etc, etc, etc...

Does that answer the question?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 08:16
Can "we" work together?


No.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
- Mao Tse Tung

Just because you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.

greentriple
05-06-2012, 08:23
No.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
- Mao Tse Tung

Just because you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.

He's dead.

But I'm unclear if u use the quote to assert you position about your political power, or what you believe mine is? I presume mine since Mao was a Communist and I think you assume I'm one too.

"Enemy"? Strong sentiment for a fellow American.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cambo
05-06-2012, 08:43
Clearly felons and the mentally ill should not legally own guns. Violent misdemeanors also be prohibited during the course of their probation. I prefer a CCW to be "may", with a requirement that a person must "justify" the need. I don't think people should open carry. Not sure the need for high capacity magazine or fully auto weapons, but I don't think restricting them makes sense. I think all guns should be registered, at least with local law-enforcement. No restriction on the number of guns owned, although people with arsenals and stock piles of ammo seem odd to me. No registration on ammo. And unlike the city fathers of Laverken Utah, I don't think every person who want a gun must have on.

As for they being in the four corners of the constitution, I agree the direct wording is not. But I be live there are implied powers. I also read restrictions to voting rights that no longer apply. It's not a stagnant dogmatic document, at least not for me.

I agree, you don't have to accept or agree to any restrictions. If they were on a ballot I presume you'd vote "no" and depending on what they were I might vote "yes". We'd tally up the votes and presto..., "democracy" at work. Now in a representative government we "give/delegate" decision making. If the same issue comes up, well they vote and again, presto... "representative democracy" at work. We don't like the result, vote the bum out and start again, etc, etc, etc...

Does that answer the question?


I live in a "May" issue state and it doesn't work, at all. Why you should anyone have to justify a need to carry? You don't know when violent crime will hit you, it doesn't call you up months beforehand and let you know it's coming. Having been a victim of violent crime, one that would have turned out differently if I had been armed, I find your reasoning to be childish and immature. Like a true progressive, you seek to restrict rights of the average citizen, but would bend over backwards to give rights to the criminal through your precious, communist founded(look it up) ACLU. As for registration, look up all of the vicious governments that used registration for confiscation. You'll find examples going back as far as early Japan, where swords and martial arts were banned. You'll find modern day examples such as Australia, Great Britain, Canada, etc. Look at Syria and Libya where firearms are banned. Do you think they would have benefitted from registration, IF they were allowed to have guns? Do us all a favor and research the true effects of gun control rather than spout off about what YOU want.

1gewehr
05-06-2012, 09:52
Hmm. I'm coming a bit late to this party. Some of the things you (greentriple) have said are factually incorrect, and some are logically inconsistent. I'll address a few of the items I believe are most important.

"I believe our founders did not think women should vote, I can't imagine that is something you advocate. I believe they considered Native Americans and Slaves as less than themselves and not worthy of a political voice."
Actually, the founders believed that there was no 'right' to vote. Democracy was not a goal to be attained, but an evil to avoid. That is why they limited the franchise to one person per family. They did not limit the franchise by race. All blacks were not slaves. Look up Crispus Attucks, Salem Poor, Prince Esterbrooks, and Peter Salem.

As far as counting slaves as "3/5 of a person", that had nothing to do with their feelings towards blacks as people. Free blacks were counted as a full person. Likewise Indians who lived and worked within the states. The census is primarily for the purpose of allocating representatives and raising taxes. What they wanted to avoid was the ability of some men to buy a congressman by having a very few slave-owners with a lot of slaves be able to be a congressional district. By counting the slaves as 3/5 of a free man, it would take a lot more slaves to be able to get the headcount high enough to warrant a congressional district. The Federalist Papers are very clear on this point. Also, they were able to get slave-owners to pay taxes on the headcount of their slaves.

"When the Preamble read "All men are created equal..." they were thinking of a very limited group."
No, they were not. That is not from the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independance. The entire sentence reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
In debate on this issue during the latter part of June 1776 even Edward Rutledge and Button Gwinnett never argued against this applying to blacks.

"I have struggled with militia in the 2nd, and believe it has important meaning."

This is actually a very simple concept. Once again referring to the Federalist Papers, it becomes clear that the Founders viewed a large standing army as potential instrument of government oppression. In order to provide a check and balance to that power, they realized that a free people, with arms of their own, would vastly outnumber any army the government could field. It may also help to realize that even today, most Americans are members of the militia and subject to call-out at need. That is why a military draft is legal and not considered involuntary servitude.
Even today, there are no Federal laws prohibiting private ownership of machine guns, cannon, or any other type of weapon. All Federal firearms laws are tax regulations on the transfer and manufacture of such weapons.

"Any government is corrupt. But we need to protect the vulnerable. "
So, we must put up with a certain amount of government corruption in order to provide wealth transfer payments to some people at the expense of others? And you don't see that stealing from some folks to make others dependent on government checks is vote-buying at it's most basic level? I believe in charity. I do not believe in theft.

greentriple
05-06-2012, 10:20
1g, while I do appreciate you cogent and non-insulting response, it is not much more than opinion. If you could give citations to historical examples or academic articles that support you opinion I'd enjoy reading them. Other than that, while interesting, it's no more substantial than your claim of my opinion. In other words, I too can say you are wrong and write why I believe so.

Your position without support will be credited here by others because they share your opinion, but their cheer does not make you right.

Oh, and I'm not saying they "intentionally" excluded blacks, women and non-land owners to be racist, classist and sexist, it was just the socio-political context of the time. Yet, today in a different time, we do not intentionally or unintentionally preclude suffrage to these groups. And if it were inherent in our original document we would not have needed an amendment o guarantee those writes to previously disenfranchised groups. Again, my opinion, without citation.

Finally, I can't imagine the founders conceived the Constitution would apply to 50 states.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ancient_serpent
05-06-2012, 10:29
If you really want to read a little about the militia clause, I actually posted exerpts of a paper I wrote that addressed a little about the 2nd:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1415938

lethal tupperwa
05-06-2012, 10:31
don't feed--------

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 10:37
"Enemy"? Strong sentiment for a fellow American.


My closest enemies are either Americans, or in America.

My oath was to defend against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Your place of birth and your claim that you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.

Fred Hansen
05-06-2012, 10:47
My closest enemies are either Americans, or in America.

My oath was to defend against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Your place of birth and your claim that you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.:agree:

kenpoprofessor
05-06-2012, 10:50
Clearly felons and the mentally ill should not legally own guns. Violent misdemeanors also be prohibited during the course of their probation. I prefer a CCW to be "may", with a requirement that a person must "justify" the need. I don't think people should open carry. Not sure the need for high capacity magazine or fully auto weapons, but I don't think restricting them makes sense. I think all guns should be registered, at least with local law-enforcement. No restriction on the number of guns owned, although people with arsenals and stock piles of ammo seem odd to me. No registration on ammo. And unlike the city fathers of Laverken Utah, I don't think every person who want a gun must have on.



I'll give you that IF, you put similar restrictions on:

Procreating

Voting

Free speech on the net, TV, or radio

So you must have a NEED to procreate, Vote, or speak freely to the masses, and then register to do so to obtain licenses for those acts.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

kenpoprofessor
05-06-2012, 10:51
My closest enemies are either Americans, or in America.

My oath was to defend against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Your place of birth and your claim that you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.

:wow::wow::wow:


Perfect.


Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

greentriple
05-06-2012, 11:15
If you really want to read a little about the militia clause, I actually posted exerpts of a paper I wrote that addressed a little about the 2nd:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1415938

Excellent!

Question: if the original context was to assure sufficient arms and armed fighters to defend against a foreign invader. And in the historical context there was no standing army and the very real fear we might face more war on our soil and need every citizen to organize and fight. Does not our current standing military and national guard change the historical need for a citizen militia?

If not, could not the need for a well armed militia to expel invaders be satisfied with each adult citizen having a single assault rifle and ammunition to use if called to defend our borders?

Finally, I agree it is an individual right and you defend that argument well. But, even so, what of the difference in contextual and historical need between 1700's and 2000's? Important, unimportant? If so why?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
05-06-2012, 11:20
My closest enemies are either Americans, or in America.

My oath was to defend against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Your place of birth and your claim that you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.

Well, with that i expect all conversation between us is mute. Best we not waste time in discussion. If you start a thread I'll presume you are not interested in my opinion and refrain from posting, I ask only that you do the same. In fact, to any who see me as an enemy, please do the same as will I. Should make for short threads for me and more confirmatory back patting for you.

On the other hand if you disagree with my posts, have at me.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 11:36
Well, with that i expect all conversation between us is mute. Best we not waste time in discussion. If you start a thread I'll presume you are not interested in my opinion and refrain from posting, I ask only that you do the same. In fact, to any who see me as an enemy, please do the same as will I. Should make for short threads for me and more confirmatory back patting for you.

On the other hand if you disagree with my posts, have at me.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find that you get what you need."- Janet Reno
:nutcheck:

Jerry
05-06-2012, 11:39
don't feed--------

:rofl: Love it! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

But I just have too do this.

greentriple, do you know how to use the search function? The examples you offer and the tripe you repeatedly post has been hashed out over and over again in this forum.

Other’s and myself have done our best to show you the folly of your progressive ways, however as with ALL progressives your emotional OPINION blinds you to some facts and you just plain ignore the rest. Actually I believe you are inelegant enough to realize that what you post is purely liberal progressive drivel but you enjoy TROLLING. I have know several people that enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing even when they know they are wrong.

I’ll give you one last example of your lack of logic. You state it should be illegal for felons to possess firearms. The law doesn’t stop VIOLENT criminals from possessing firearms. The hate crime law does not stop Blacks form raping, torturing and beating to death Whites nor does it stop Whites from raping, torturing and killing Blacks. They are both USELESS laws. Murder, rape and torture are already illegal.

The Bill of Right was written to protect All FREE MEN. If someone commits a white collar crime or that is caught with 'a' Joint serves their sentence they should not be denied the right to protect themselves and their family. Their serving a prison sentence paid their debt to society and their crime WAS NOT violent. And last but not lease (and I’ve posted this at least 100 times) If someone is too dangerous to possess a firearm they are too dangerous to be walking in public. Give them life in prison or better yet put them to death.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

ancient_serpent
05-06-2012, 11:43
Excellent!

Thank you, I tried to ensure that my rational was very evident to the reader. I recognize that I'm not the best writer, so I try to be clear.

Question: if the original context was to assure sufficient arms and armed fighters to defend against a foreign invader. And in the historical context there was no standing army and the very real fear we might face more war on our soil and need every citizen to organize and fight. Does not our current standing military and national guard change the historical need for a citizen militia?

Not in my opinion. When you look at the overall numbers of able bodied adults that can participate in military service versus the number that actually do, we have a small, professional standing Army. The availability of a militia to supplement (and dwarf them in size) them was within the Founders intent.

If not, could not the need for a well armed militia to expel invaders be satisfied with each adult citizen having a single assault rifle and ammunition to use if called to defend our borders?

The role of the milita hasn't changed. There has been no need for any sort of call up in recent years, but the intent remains. If this is a equipment question, then yes, I feel that current restrictions on select fire rifles is not inaccordance with the Founders intent. A milita member that is expected to render militia service should be expect to carry arms and ammunition of a type consistant with standard military arms of their time. For us, that is the M16 family of weapons and semi automatic handguns.

Finally, I agree it is an individual right and you defend that argument well. But, even so, what of the difference in contextual and historical need between 1700's and 2000's?Important, unimportant? If so why?

Human nature remains the same, not matter the age. Our country still faces threats to it's existance. I feel that that alone justifies the need for individuals capable and equipped to perform militia service.
Insofar as the exercise of rights in the context of a certain time period... My feeling is that the general principals behind the Bill of Rights must be maintained. We need to remember that the Bill of Rights was not meant to limit us, it was made to specifically list some of the most important Rights of the population. Also remember that any rights not specifically given to the government remain in the hands of the People and that the Bill itself did not confer these Rights, it simply outlined them.
Further, as I state in my paper, we do not limit speech simply because of emerging technology. We have incorporated our expectations of privacy with new technology based on established law and precedence based off of the 4th Amendment. I also feel compelled to point out that the 2nd is the only Amendment to specify that no infringments could be placed upon it.
Did that answer the question? I feel that my answer went a little far afield, but it's not a simple question you asked.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


For clarities sake, I have underlined what I percieved as the question and colored my answers in red beneath.

kirgi08
05-06-2012, 13:01
Clearly felons and the mentally ill should not legally own guns. Violent misdemeanors also be prohibited during the course of their probation. I prefer a CCW to be "may", with a requirement that a person must "justify" the need.


As ta yer 1st point,there are a ton of non-violent "felons".The mentally ill is a different class.As ta ccw,the government has no right ta decide either way.




I don't think people should open carry. Not sure the need for high capacity magazine or fully auto weapons, but I don't think restricting them makes sense. I think all guns should be registered, at least with local law-enforcement. No restriction on the number of guns owned, although people with arsenals and stock piles of ammo seem odd to me. No registration on ammo. And unlike the city fathers of Laverken Utah, I don't think every person who want a gun must have on.

Why the heck not,I oc all over where I live and no issues.We have the right ta own any type firearm we choose.Where in the 2A says that we should "register" our firearms,that worked well in Germany before WWII.What folk buy is their business and theirs alone.

As for they being in the four corners of the constitution, I agree the direct wording is not. But I believe there are implied powers. I also read restrictions to voting rights that no longer apply. It's not a stagnant dogmatic document, at least not for me.


There are no "implied" powers,it is the law........



I agree, you don't have to accept or agree to any restrictions. If they were on a ballot I presume you'd vote "no" and depending on what they were I might vote "yes". We'd tally up the votes and presto..., "democracy" at work. Now in a representative government we "give/delegate" decision making. If the same issue comes up, well they vote and again, presto... "representative democracy" at work. We don't like the result, vote the bum out and start again, etc, etc, etc...

Does that answer the question?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Not really,ya left a lot of gray on the table.

No.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
- Mao Tse Tung

Just because you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.

:cool:

He's dead.

His "edicts" aren't.They are followed everyday.

But I'm unclear if u use the quote to assert you position about your political power, or what you believe mine is? I presume mine since Mao was a Communist and I think you assume I'm one too.

"Enemy"? Strong sentiment for a fellow American.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Nope,just misguided.You consider the COTUS a "living" thing,it's not.It's the law.

My closest enemies are either Americans, or in America.

My oath was to defend against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Your place of birth and your claim that you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.


By his own words.

:agree:

x2 :agree:

Excellent!

Question: if the original context was to assure sufficient arms and armed fighters to defend against a foreign invader. And in the historical context there was no standing army and the very real fear we might face more war on our soil and need every citizen to organize and fight. Does not our current standing military and national guard change the historical need for a citizen militia?

Nope the militia is in place ta prevent our government from turning on the people.

If not, could not the need for a well armed militia to expel invaders be satisfied with each adult citizen having a single assault rifle and ammunition to use if called to defend our borders?

That's interesting,while you claim the above,you discount various "charges" some folk might catch.A "charge" doesn't "=" guilty,the "charge" as you would imply automatically removes all 2A rights.

Finally, I agree it is an individual right and you defend that argument well. But, even so, what of the difference in contextual and historical need between 1700's and 2000's? Important, unimportant? If so why?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

None,as #s have proven,limiting the 2A just drives crime up.Check Australia/England ect..'08.

TheJ
05-06-2012, 13:19
Clearly felons and the mentally ill should not legally own guns...

That is a nice sound bite and it certainly is easy enough to demogogue people who may disagree with it... However, explain why you believe that people who may have been convicted of a felony and have served their sentence, should for ever be prohibited from the free exercise of their fundamental civil right to defend themselves and their family?
Given that the pen is far mightier then the sword (or gun) that would be on par with denying someone from practicing religion or free speech for ever, after they served their sentence. A rather extreme position, no?
Before you answer, please consider the fact that the law against felon firearm possesion can not actually stop a former felon from arming themselves and harming others. It can ONLY stop those who chose to abide by the law..

... I prefer a CCW to be "may", with a requirement that a person must "justify" the need. I don't think people should open carry....
Life is an inalienable right... So is the right defend that life. The framers clearly thought mere existence was enough to justify a right of self defense. I agree with them.
How exactly is something a "right" if you have to ask permission from the government first?
Would people who were never attacked before have to be attacked/killed first before they would qualify as "needing" a permit to carry? How does that make any sense? Would you have to have stuff people want to take? So only the rich get guns? Would a female have to be of sufficient attractiveness that somebody may want to rape them before they get permission?
Something tells me you really haven't thought this through very well.
Please explain why you beleive people should not be allowed to open carry? Does this include LEO? Hunters? Military? Just people you don't like?

...
I agree, you don't have to accept or agree to any restrictions. If they were on a ballot I presume you'd vote "no" and depending on what they were I might vote "yes". We'd tally up the votes and presto..., "democracy" at work. Now in a representative government we "give/delegate" decision making. If the same issue comes up, well they vote and again, presto... "representative democracy" at work. We don't like the result, vote the bum out and start again, etc, etc, etc...

Does that answer the question?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

We know that prohibitions on arms can not stop crimes or criminals from harming others. The empirical evidence is overwhelming. Given that, it seems obvious that prohibitions on firearms then, can only serve to deprive law abiding people of the ability to defend themselves.
So please explain why and how you would further restrict firearm ownership if given the chance to vote on it.

mj9mm
05-06-2012, 13:49
this has been a long post and i probably missed a correction of the mis statement that our founding fathers were "racist", they actually believe that only "land owners" should have the right to vote, and i agree with that

Jerry
05-06-2012, 14:49
this has been a long post and i probably missed a correction of the mis statement that our founding fathers were "racist", they actually believe that only "land owners" should have the right to vote, and i agree with that

Was covered very nicely by by 1gewehr in post # 15. Of course greentriple doesn’t agree. :upeyes:

NEOH212
05-06-2012, 15:56
I agree with all but #3 and 4. No restrictions. The Second Amendment doesn't say, "Except for."

It says, "Shall not be infringed."

I guess shall not be infringed means something different to progressives as does most of everything else.

No restrictions. Just the way the founding fathers meant it to be.

As for #4...

Extreme situations require extreme thinking and extreme actions. Otherwise, the extreme will overtake you.

Faith isn't blind when you are putting your faith in the truth. Namely, God himself.

janice6
05-06-2012, 16:42
1g, while I do appreciate you cogent and non-insulting response, it is not much more than opinion. If you could give citations to historical examples or academic articles that support you opinion I'd enjoy reading them. Other than that, while interesting, it's no more substantial than your claim of my opinion. In other words, I too can say you are wrong and write why I believe so.

Your position without support will be credited here by others because they share your opinion, but their cheer does not make you right.

Oh, and I'm not saying they "intentionally" excluded blacks, women and non-land owners to be racist, classist and sexist, it was just the socio-political context of the time. Yet, today in a different time, we do not intentionally or unintentionally preclude suffrage to these groups. And if it were inherent in our original document we would not have needed an amendment o guarantee those writes to previously disenfranchised groups. Again, my opinion, without citation.

Finally, I can't imagine the founders conceived the Constitution would apply to 50 states.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


This is really odd. I wonder which states should have the protection of the Constitution taken away from them...I'm sure you have a "list".

(Rhetorical) I have read your posts.

Jerry
05-06-2012, 16:50
This is really odd. I wonder which states should have the protection of the Constitution taken away from them...I'm sure you have a "list".

(Rhetorical) I have read your posts.



New York, California and Illinois. Oh wait! Too late! :whistling:

Jerry
05-06-2012, 17:16
"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” Winston Churchill :tongueout:

kirgi08
05-06-2012, 17:19
:animlol:

greentriple
05-06-2012, 17:48
Ok. Well hank you all, very educative.

As for the 50 states, my meaning is that could not have conceived of a nation this size with this type of factionalism.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Jerry
05-06-2012, 18:09
Ok. Well hank you all, very educative.

As for the 50 states, my meaning is that could not have conceived of a nation this size with this type of factionalism.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

For someone that has constantly accused others of giving opinion rather than fact you sure offer a lot of opinions. You have no idea what the founding fathers envision. If you would actually research who they were, how they lived and were educated you MIGHT realize they weren't just a bunch of old guys. Some of them were brilliant and wise beyond their years. Tomas Jefferson had started and retired from a law practice before he was 30, he ran his own news paper and he spoke (I believe, can't remember right now) 7 languages I'm positive it was more than 4 and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

JK-linux
05-06-2012, 19:23
Can "we" work together?

Based on the below quoted, no. We can't work together. I don't agree with what you find reasonable.

Clearly felons and the mentally ill should not legally own guns. Violent misdemeanors also be prohibited during the course of their probation. I prefer a CCW to be "may", with a requirement that a person must "justify" the need. I don't think people should open carry. Not sure the need for high capacity magazine or fully auto weapons, but I don't think restricting them makes sense. I think all guns should be registered, at least with local law-enforcement. No restriction on the number of guns owned, although people with arsenals and stock piles of ammo seem odd to me. No registration on ammo. And unlike the city fathers of Laverken Utah, I don't think every person who want a gun must have on.

Fred Hansen
05-06-2012, 21:34
Ok. Well hank you all, very educative.

As for the 50 states, my meaning is that could not have conceived of a nation this size with this type of factionalism.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engineDid the NEA infested public indoctrination hive--a.k.a. "public school"--you attended forget to mention Jefferson and the "Louisiana Purchase"? Did they mention the "factionalism" behind the Burr vs. Hamilton duel?

Or did they just stick to the "progressive" script, and teach that DWEeMs r the suck?

TheJ
05-07-2012, 05:04
Ok. Well hank you all, very educative.

As for the 50 states, my meaning is that could not have conceived of a nation this size with this type of factionalism.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

So you're not going to address the questions I asked?

I haven't been rude. I haven't insulted. I have merely explained where I see concerns with your stated positions and asked you some probing questions. I took the time to read your posts and respond and yet you will not extend me the same courtesy.

kirgi08
05-07-2012, 07:15
Did the NEA infested public indoctrination hive--a.k.a. "public school"--you attended forget to mention Jefferson and the "Louisiana Purchase"? Did they mention the "factionalism" behind the Burr vs. Hamilton duel?

Or did they just stick to the "progressive" script, and teach that DWEeMs r the suck?

We decided years ago ta home school,ta avoid the very thing Fred describes above.The future relies on the children,program the kids,attain their future.'08. :burn:

1gewehr
05-07-2012, 10:09
1g, while I do appreciate you cogent and non-insulting response, it is not much more than opinion. If you could give citations to historical examples or academic articles that support you opinion I'd enjoy reading them. Other than that, while interesting, it's no more substantial than your claim of my opinion. In other words, I too can say you are wrong and write why I believe so.

"Look up Crispus Attucks, Salem Poor, Prince Esterbrooks, and Peter Salem."

"The Federalist Papers are very clear on this point."

"Once again referring to the Federalist Papers,..."

I'm assuming that you are an adult capable of doing your own reading. I pointed you in the right direction. The 'Federalist Papers' are a series of essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay explaining the proposed constitution and why it was written as it was. Considering that those are the men who actually wrote the Constitution, they should show you the mindset of those men, and the purposes for which they wrote the Constitution. And interesting counter-point is the 'Anti-federalist Papers'. this is a series of essay written in response to the Federalist essays and opposing ratification of the Constitution.

For source documentation on the arguments leading up to the Declaration of Independence, the Charles Jenkins book on Button Gwinnett covers some of the debate over slaves. Likewise the James Haw biography of Edward Rutledge provides some insight. A third source is the excellent book by Marty Matthews on Charles Pinckney "The Forgotten Founder". It provides a lot of insight into the thoughts and beliefs of some of the wealthiest men in America as well as being an excellent view of the impact of the Revolution on the lives of the people. You should also join jstor.org, as it is an excellent resource and store of source documents. If you are truly interested in what the writers and signers of the Declaration and Constitution thought, you will find a great wealth of information there.

concretefuzzynuts
05-07-2012, 10:22
greentriple, I've read your many posts on other threads. They seem to be mostly hostile and combative. Left leaning and full of disinformation and misinformation.

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/images-10.jpg

ithaca_deerslayer
05-07-2012, 14:15
What I'm interested in is this:

1) I'm a gun owner
2) I am a strict Bill of Rights Advocate. (my problem with the ACLU for one is their blind eye to the 2nd)
3) I believe in the right to CCW. (with restrictions)
4) I think extreme thinking and blind faith will get you killed.
5) Any government is corrupt. But we need to protect the vulnerable.

Can "we" work together?


1. It is nice that you are a gun owner.
2. So far from this thread, it does not appear that you favor the 2nd Ammendment. You do not appear to agree with "shall not be infringed."
3. Because you do not favor the 2nd Ammendment, you are willing to accept restrictions. What restrictions, and why do we need them?
4. Free thinking is nice.
5. A government is a collection of people. All, some, or none of those people may be corrupt.

What is it that you want?

Do you want the people who participate on GT to favor restrictions on the right to have and carry guns?

I'm fairly left leaning. I might be called progressive. I might be so far left leaning I come all the way back around to the right.

But let me spell out my views on the 2nd Ammendment. If someone is not in jail or otherwise under adult supervision, then they should be able to buy and carry guns. Children and the mentally retarded and mentally ill should be under adult supervision. Criminals should either be in jail or under adult supervision.

If a guy goes to prison and gets out legally, and is not on parole (not under supervision of someone else), then he should be able to buy and carry guns.

Those are my views. Just as FYI.

Now, why do you want to restrict the ownership and carrying of guns?

Oh, I should also mention that I believe people should be able to carry guns anywhere. If a place is too sensitive, such as a courtroom, then they should be required to provide security and a place for you to lock your gun up at the door. They need security checks to keep out guns, if they are going to say "no guns". Otherwise, criminals are going to carry guns there anyway.

If you restrict a law abiding citizen from owning or carrying a gun, the problem is that you are not restricting a criminal. Criminals do not follow the law, by definition. If someone is dangerous to society, they should be put in jail (or put under supervision).

What is it about guns that makes you want special permission required for obtaining them? The law abiding citizen would be made to jump through hoops and probably still be restricted as to things such as where to carry, and how many bullets can be carried, while the criminal follows no such rules. What is gained by making the law abiding citizen jump through hoops or restricting the number rounds held in a magazine?

What possible logical gain is there for society that is worth violating the Constitutional rights? In my opinion, the anti-gun laws show no gain in safety. They save no lives. And, most importantly, even if they did, they still do not justify violating Constitutional rights.

Certainly, lock up the murderers. Lock up people who accidentally shoot someone. But don't violate Constitutional rights just because you are afraid of guns, and afraid to trust your law abiding neighbor with guns :)

RyanSBHF
05-07-2012, 19:28
I'll give you that IF, you put similar restrictions on:

Procreating

Voting

Free speech on the net, TV, or radio

So you must have a NEED to procreate, Vote, or speak freely to the masses, and then register to do so to obtain licenses for those acts.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde


:goodpost:

It's a shame the message will fall on deaf ears.

OctoberRust
05-08-2012, 06:45
So, some of you my hate me already, and that vitriol has inspired this post. I suspect our commonalities are more than our differences, however the divergences are chasms.

What I'm interested in is this:

1) I'm a gun owner
2) I am a strict Bill of Rights Advocate. (my problem with the ACLU for one is their blind eye to the 2nd)
3) I believe in the right to CCW. (with restrictions)
4) I think extreme thinking and blind faith will get you killed.
5) Any government is corrupt. But we need to protect the vulnerable.

Can "we" work together?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Didn't you say you endorsed restrictions on those scary sawed-off shotguns, because it scares liberals like yourself?

You never answered my question previously too, what makes you think a criminal is going to not saw off their shotgun, if they're already breaking plenty more laws?

What makes you think you have the right to restrict a law abiding citizen who wants to defend his house, and believes it may be easier to do so with a shorter shotgun?

Again, you show that you live in fairy tale land thinking criminals follow laws.

Jerry
05-08-2012, 10:27
Scary? I'd like for him, or anyone for that matter, to show me, in the Constitution, (And no it's covered by the 9th.), where people have a "right" to not to be scared. Far too often I hear people say there should be a law or people shouldn’t be allowed to do something because it scares people. Dudes on motorcycles are scary. Big dogs are scary. Big Black men are scary. There should be a law! :upeyes:

OctoberRust
05-08-2012, 19:07
Scary? I'd like for him, or anyone for that matter, to show me, in the Constitution, (And no it's covered by the 9th.), where people have a "right" to not to be scared. Far too often I hear people say there should be a law or people shouldn’t be allowed to do something because it scares people. Dudes on motorcycles are scary. Big dogs are scary. Big Black men are scary. There should be a law! :upeyes:


I used "scary" to describe his emotions of an inanimate object.

If it's one right we DON'T have in a free society, it's the right NOT to be offended or scared.

I understand "shall not be infringed" very well, and argue the 2nd amendment with anyone who doesn't, until I'm blue in the face.

Jerry
05-08-2012, 22:44
I used "scary" to describe his emotions of an inanimate object.

If it's one right we DON'T have in a free society, it's the right NOT to be offended or scared.

I understand "shall not be infringed" very well, and argue the 2nd amendment with anyone who doesn't, until I'm blue in the face.

I didn't post that because you used the word scary. I wrote that because you spoke of greentriple using it and the fact that it's a favorite with liberal progressives and FUDS. People with guns are scary (to the sheepely) so no one should be allowed to open carry or have guns out in the open where they "might" scare someone.

Jerry
05-08-2012, 22:47
In an earlier post I wrote of the brilliance of Tomas Jefferson. I just receive this in an E-mail from a Canadian friend and though what better place or time to post it.

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who
started learning very early in life and never stopped.

At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.

At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

At 14, studied classical literature and additional
languages.

At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.

At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

At 23, started his own law practice.

At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the
Rights of British America ” and retired from his law
practice.

At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence .

At 33, took three years to revise Virginia ’s legal code and
wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious
Freedom.

At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding
Patrick Henry.

At 40, served in Congress for two years.

At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated
commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben
Franklin and John Adams.

At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George
Washington.

At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president
of the American Philosophical Society.

At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active
head of Republican Party.

At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .

At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's
size.

At 61, was elected to a second term as President.

At 65, retired to Monticello .

At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia
and served as its first president.

At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the
Declaration of Independence along with John Adams

Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous
failed attempts at government. He understood actual history,
the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens
to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson
really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

Fred Hansen
05-09-2012, 14:19
I didn't see anything about Jefferson being a community organizer, or being able to "shoot hoops"...

I'm surprised he could get elected with such gaps in his resume. :dunno:

eracer
05-09-2012, 14:29
'The right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

Define 'The People' in the above sentence.

greentriple
05-09-2012, 15:02
are you all still ranting and raving? Wow!!

Well just to keep the spirits high, and give me an excuse to take a break from work.
The definition of People can be confusing.... Do you mean people as in group? Do you mean people as in person thus as in corporation? Do you mean people as in person and as some crazies want to define it before conception? Is People only those in the magazine my wife loves so much?

TheJ
05-09-2012, 16:27
Dnftt

Jerry
05-09-2012, 16:58
are you all still ranting and raving? Wow!!

Well just to keep the spirits high, and give me an excuse to take a break from work.
The definition of People can be confusing.... Do you mean people as in group? Do you mean people as in person thus as in corporation? Do you mean people as in person and as some crazies want to define it before conception? Is People only those in the magazine my wife loves so much?

I warned you about not following the rules. Trolling is against the rules and your last post proves beyond a reasonable doubt that, that is exactly what you’re doing. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Jerry