Your gun rights were never under threat

Originally posted by lilwolf
Just a funny question for all, have you or anyone else you know ever been harmed because they did NOT POSSES an Assault riffle, being under equipped with a firearm that is "legal" and less potent?


nope because crimes are not committed with them in spite of what the anti gun crowd says.... so few in fact it is not even reported...

so what was the purpose of banning them??? Nothing but to see what they could get as a starting point for the next round...

Well man, as I have said I witness a positive impact in central Los Angles since, I do not know why, I think the thugs are not as hard personally...

As I said to Mr. Mountain I do not see why a person would need a finely tuned human killing machine, but thats just me.

There is no next round bud, Guns are American like apple pie, own what you'd like, fine by me, I don't have to get it and it is not my business.

I am only in this thread to explain my ideas, offer my opinion and have an open discussion. The problem is this seems to be an issue that illicit strong defensive
mechanisms. For me that class of weapon is used, when used for more than fun, to kill in a rather ratcheted up manor.
At the same time the idea that criminals break laws anyhow is a good one. This is why
why I cannot see the social imperative to disarm, or at the very least further restrict ownership. Selection is hindered and at the same time ownership is very healthy.



[edit on 6-3-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 7-3-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Janky Red



Many of us simply believe and understand, as the creators of our constitution/bill of right did, that an armed citizen was part of a realistic and practical new political philosophy.

That being...

That the citizenry didnt have to wait for national standing armies to defend them if need be. Nor did they have to be subject to powers gone mad that sought to violate their persons or property, individualy or collectively, be these powers foreign or domestic.

The founders understood that this right was part of the ballance of power. A balance that the people held.

But it goes beyound a balance, but is part of the peoples preogative rights and power to speak, assemble independently, and arm themselves.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Many of us simply believe and understand, as the creators of our constitution/bill of right did, that an armed citizen was part of a realistic and practical new political philosophy.

That being...

That the citizenry didnt have to wait for national standing armies to defend them if need be. Nor did they have to be subject to powers gone mad that sought to violate their persons or property, individualy or collectively, be these powers foreign or domestic.

The founders understood that this right was part of the ballance of power. A balance that the people held.

But it goes beyound a balance, but is part of the peoples preogative rights and power to speak, assemble independently, and arm themselves.

I am aware, thanks...

enjoy

reply to post by Janky Red




well why ban something that is not used in crimes.... there is no logic in that concept that the brady crooks and their lefti anti gun folks want to do...again.

I shoot a lot of weapons and own alot...and i own several different so called assault weapons... and i shoot long range.. like one mile out... so what makes those guns different? Nothing.

It is the person that is handling the weapon...and nothing else...

logically by the thought that they serve no purpose other than to kill... there are used so little in civilain life it is pathetic... all cosmetic in nature... the gun is scary looking and it is evil.... at least that is what many of the anti gun rights panel seem to think...
They serve many purposes.... lastly is for committing crimes.

but then they also serve a very strong and beneficial use as well ...self defense if needed.

but since they serve that purpose as well.. why not ban other things that kill people far more often that a gun of any type???

gun laws are very silly. do you really think someone who is going to go on a shooting spree will obey your laws? they only serve to take away guns from honest americans.

are guns at risk of being taken away? i believe so. the uk lost theirs, so did australia.


the benefits of removing gun control are immediate.


"Since the repeal of the District's ban, a debate has raged about the effect on violent crime.

Last year — without a ban — murders in Washington dropped 25 percent to 140, and the Washington suburbs experienced a similar decrease."

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Originally posted by iMacFanatic
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

None of those take away your second amendment rights. They impose restrictions for sure but honestly who needs an assault rifle or needs to buy 20 guns at a time or can't wait to buy a gun? Also no city or state can take away an amendment right.

Who needs to take a gun into church or to a political rally?

The gun kooks have no sense of propriety. They think that they should be allowed to take them everywhere and that is not what the second amendment says.

[edit on 3/6/2010 by iMacFanatic]

do you like being able to do what you want? or do you prefer to allow the feds to structure your life?

imposing restrictions on the second amendment is "infringing upon" your statement defeats itself.

why shouldn't people be able to get whatever they wish?

why can't i take a gun to church? why does that matter to you? the "right to bare arms" applies everywhere in the u.s., so yes, you cannot infringe upon my baring arms anywhere the constitution holds sway.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I think you confuse being Well Regulated, with Infringement. There is a difference between the two.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

I think you confuse being Well Regulated, with Infringement. There is a difference between the two.

I think you are confused. There is no cause to equate "A Well Regulated Militia, with the infringement of the right of the People to keep and bare arms. They are two separate issues, and the former is merely explanation of why the latter exists.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


As the term Militia as used at the signing of this document indicated free men who took up arms against England. It does indeed apply.

But also one has to see that we have gained more gun rights in the last several years. So the threat of "Dems gunna be takin away our gunz" doesn't have the same intensity it once did.

I don't see how regulating that you not be armed in for instance a Church (unless of course it's a catholic church and your a small boy) is an infringement of your rights.

I don't see how regulating that you not be armed in a stadium is an infringement of your rights.

If you can answer YES to the following question, your rights are not infringed.

Do you own a gun?

reply to post by whatukno

As the term Militia as used at the signing of this document indicated free men who took up arms against England. It does indeed apply.

I am not following your logic with this thought.

But also one has to see that we have gained more gun rights in the last several years. So the threat of "Dems gunna be takin away our gunz" doesn't have the same intensity it once did.

The only way people could "gain more rights" is if rights were granted by government. I hope that is not what you are suggesting.

I don't see how regulating that you not be armed in for instance a Church (unless of course it's a catholic church and your a small boy) is an infringement of your rights.

A Church is a private institution that can make their own rules about guns without it becoming an abrogation or derogation of rights.

I don't see how regulating that you not be armed in a stadium is an infringement of your rights.

Same argument as above, except that there can certainly be government stadiums I suppose, but no government Churches.

If you can answer YES to the following question, your rights are not infringed. Do you own a gun?

The answer is no, but of course, if a person doesn't own a gun, this doesn't necessarily mean his rights have been infringed upon, as that person is free to not own guns. I have never owned a gun and have no desire at all to own any guns which is why I am counting on people like you to protect my right to own one, so I don't have to buy one. Of course, even with that zealous protection, there may come a time when I would unfortunately have to change my stance on owning a gun. I am counting on a lot from you here, but don't worry I am not going disappointed if all you can do is just a few of the things I expect of you. Just try hard, okay?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I am not following your logic with this thought.

That's "Wukky Logic ©" for ya, I suggest meditating on that for a little while.

The only way people could "gain more rights" is if rights were granted by government. I hope that is not what you are suggesting.

Maybe gained more rights is not the correct term. How about we had more rights returned to us.

A Church is a private institution that can make their own rules about guns without it becoming an abrogation or derogation of rights.

I was responding to another poster.

I feel that gun ownership is a fundamental right of every American. If you choose not to own a firearm, that is okay.

If however you choose to own a firearm. One must remember, with that firearm comes responsibility. Overall, most gun owners are quite responsible individuals. There are however a few especially on this board, that I wouldn't trust with a cap gun.

reply to post by whatukno

That's "Wukky Logic ©" for ya, I suggest meditating on that for a little while.

How much does this copyrighted logic cost, because I've been pretty broke lately.

Maybe gained more rights is not the correct term. How about we had more rights returned to us.

I guess I could live with that, but would prefer we have had more of our rights properly protected lately, but I'm quibbling.

I was responding to another poster.

I thought that whole Church thing was sort of a non-sequitor.

All and all another great post by you.

I think i have said it before but i will say it again, the government will never impose a ban on guns in America, it's absolutely impossible to do so. What they will do is indoctrinate over the years and decades, slowly but surely a generation will arise where it will be THEM calling for a ban. And of course the all wise and caring government will step in and fulfill the wishes of the people. This is the only feasible way to disarm a public like that in America imo.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

How much does this copyrighted logic cost, because I've been pretty broke lately.

Back in the day, Militias were anyone who had a firearm that were willing to fight for the patriots. They were citizens, not sworn officers, and could fight or leave as they pleased.

So we must infer that Militias as termed in the 2nd Amendment refer to any able bodied person who have their own firearms, and thus, according to the constitution are to be well regulated, yet, the right to keep and bear arms aren't to be infringed. Which means, while it is regulated what guns you can have and where in good taste you can have them. The fact that you can have a firearm, suggests that your right to keep arms are not infringed.

I guess I could live with that, but would prefer we have had more of our rights properly protected lately, but I'm quibbling.

Well, yes you are quibbling, but you are correct, we should always and forever remain vigilant against those rights being taken away from us. I have to disagree with the view of god given rights, because it's obvious that god did not give us these rights, a continental congress gave us these rights.

Gun rights in this country are good. I am all for gun ownership. I grew up with multiple firearms in the house. But I also agree with regulation. I believe that if you are a convicted felon, you shouldn't have a firearm. I believe that there is probably not a legitimate use for an RPG or a fully automatic assault rifle. I believe that explosives should best be left to professionals and not Jimbo and Cooter.

I believe in Concealed Carry Permits, I believe in background checks, I believe that responsible gun ownership, means just that Responsible.

This is not infringing on your rights, but keeping the Militia, that is every able bodied person well regulated.

reply to post by whatukno

So we must infer that Militias as termed in the 2nd Amendment refer to any able bodied person who have their own firearms, and thus, according to the constitution are to be well regulated, yet, the right to keep and bear arms aren't to be infringed. Which means, while it is regulated what guns you can have and where in good taste you can have them. The fact that you can have a firearm, suggests that your right to keep arms are not infringed.

We can do more than infer. Consider these words by the Founders:

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

~James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46~

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188~

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

~From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.~

Please take particular notice of this next one:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

~Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court~

Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

~Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book~

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

~Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788~

Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.

~"M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution~

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...

~Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789~

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.

~Noah Webster~

Well, yes you are quibbling, but you are correct, we should always and forever remain vigilant against those rights being taken away from us. I have to disagree with the view of god given rights, because it's obvious that god did not give us these rights, a continental congress gave us these rights.

~Wukky~

Remaining vigilant I would call you on your equivocating. Either rights can be granted by governments or they can't. One need not believe in God in order to embrace the concept of inalienable rights, and for the secularist, Natural rights will work just fine.

The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

~Albert Gallatin, Oct 7 1789~

I believe that there is probably not a legitimate use for an RPG or a fully automatic assault rifle. I believe that explosives should best be left to professionals and not Jimbo and Cooter.

~Wukky~

If the right to keep and bare arms is a natural defense of tyranny from any and all threats, then in this modern age, I respectfully disagree with you. Indeed, since all power government has was granted them by the People, then it stands to reason whatever rights a government has the People have. Thus, a responsible government NEVER would have developed nuclear weapons, understanding fully what I just explained. But, not at all like Jimbo and Cooter, sophisticates such as FDR, and others stupidly and imprudently developed weapons of mass destruction, ignoring the fact that once developed any right that government had to such weapons, so do the People.

Should all people have weapons of mass destruction? Hell no! But, neither should governments. Treating the People as if they are nothing more than Jimbo's and Cooter's and comparing anyone who frightens you to Tim McVeigh doesn't pardon this unforgivable act of treachery by our own government. It's a fine mess we're in, brother. Temperance on your part might be worth considering.