Does this make me a Liberal?

Sremmos80
reply to post by Flatfish

 

If the idea of keep arms to defend against a tyrant government then why did our founding fathers go to such lengths to make sure we have that right. And isn't there an old saying attached to firearms and condoms? Better to have and not need, then to need and not have? Or how about a foreign enemy? Wouldn't you want to protect you country v a foreign enemy that gov or military hasn't been able to contain yet?

Well for starters, at the time our founding fathers adopted the 2nd Amendment & the Bill of Rights, everyone had muzzle-loaders and the biggest available weapon was, more than likely, a canon.

Furthermore, at that time our nation's only collective defense mechanism was the Continental Army which was made up of militias from the 13 colonies and it was still in it's infancy. In essence, without the firepower supplied by the colonial militias at the time, there would be no Continental Army. This fact alone would be enough to instill in our founding fathers, a need to protect & maintain strong militias in each of the 13 colonies at the time.

That's why it starts like this;

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

Taking into account the fact that we still had "colonies" at the time, the "free state" they're talking about here is the state of freedom across our land.

With respect to "firearms & condoms," I can see your point, but if condoms fall into the wrong hands while waiting to be "needed," they don't end up costing someone their lives. I'm not saying it can't happen, I've just never heard of a single condom related fatality.

And lastly; Other than an occasional terrorist attack, their isn't an enemy on earth suicidal enough to launch a ground attack on this nation.

Our gun toting public already has over 300 million guns in their possession, more per capita than any other nation. Add on top of that, the world's strongest military and you have a guaranteed suicide mission for anyone who wants to go house to house in this country and you can rest assured, they know it!

Because I voluntarily went for inpatient psychiatric treatment after being assaulted, a stay which lasted a total of 30 hours before a doctor was on shift to send me home due to me being clearly fine, I am not allowed to own a firearm. In the universal hospital codes used for forms and such, I'm identical to someone who was dragged in kicking and screaming and had to be restrained for three days.

Very few people would ever stand up for my right to own a firearm if I wished to (which I don't, precisely because I do have mental health issues in fact, but I value the right, and obviously have the ability to make that discernment for myself).

But I'm a crazy person, so no right for me. Because that's all the computer knows. I'm a number attached to a number attached to a big red "second class citizen" sign.

reply to post by phantomjack


I don't think it makes you crazy.

I personally believe that owning a firearm is an inalienable human right. I also believe that crazy people who hear voices telling them to kill innocent people and are have psychotic idealizations of harming the innocent need to be housed away in the most humane way possible.

Your opinion is a valid one. However the current administration with its new health care system fails to properly distinguish between those who are truly mentally ill and those who aren't.

We take the drivers licenses of people who drink or can't see or are too old. We make a thousand professions prove that those licensed to practice them are qualified. Why is this such a huge issue again?

reply to post by phantomjack


And who gets to define what is mentally unstable, the Govt??? The same Govt that the 2nd was created to aid the people in keeping it in check?
No no no no no.

Nowhere in the 2nd does it state the right to bear arms, except these people here and some over there.


And the way he is doing it is subverting the Constitution as well.
Executive Orders were made for directing Govt agencies, not creating fiat laws that booster Govt departments that should be abolished.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


What amendment is driving attached to again??

reply to post by macman


Doesn't matter.

reply to post by ~Lucidity





Yeah, it kind of does.

reply to post by macman


No. It really doesn't.

Logic is logic. Rationality is rationality. Thoughtfulness is thoughtfulness.

Flatfish


Well for starters, at the time our founding fathers adopted the 2nd Amendment & the Bill of Rights, everyone had muzzle-loaders and the biggest available weapon was, more than likely, a canon.

Wrong.

Please, go and actually research firearms of the times. There were repeating firearms at that time, not just muzzle loaders.

If the amendment was just for firearms of the period, it would have been stated. I am fairly confident that the people that created the documents were aware of invention and technology progress in all fields.

But, if we work on your failed login, then you should have no problem with me walking around with a cannon, or having several around my house ready to fire. Please also go and research as to the types of rounds a cannon of the period were able to fire.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Yep, and country borders are just imaginary lines that don't really exist.

Sure sure then, sure sure.

reply to post by poet1b

Holy crap, we agree.

The "Liberals" of today are mutations of Progressives. Along side with about 50% of the political republicans.

Personally, I don’t feel allegiance to one party or the other. If a good idea/legislation is proposed, to me it stands on it’s own. Who proposes it isn’t relevant. I know I tick some people off by not being “true” to one side or the other, but in my mind that’s their limited view, not mine. Why wear blinders when it comes to the country’s welfare?

Why applying sensable regulations to lethal weapons is considered either a liberal or conservative issue is beyond me. Maybe people are just programmed to believe they must identify with one side or the other, one clique or the other, one gang or the other and then support ANY issue, regardless of it’s merit, that their chosen side proposes. That makes no sense to me. It’s simply an issue. It affects ALL Americans. When considering an issue, I ask myself, Does it make good sense? Does it contribute to the common good? Is it good for AMERICA? Who cares who proposes it? Taking a hard party line, IMO, just feeds the open sore of a horribly divided America.

I think we’d be a lot better off if we weren’t constantly at war with each other. It sickens me to hear about all that’s not getting done, when there’s so much to do. We’re constantly shooting ourselves in the foot and impeding our own growth and progress. That’s not an American value I learned to hold close when I went to school.

I think Obama excercizes executive actions when a) he considers the issue to be important for America, and b) Congress can’t be relied upon to sensibly and intelligently act upon it. Or anything else, for that matter. They can only fit so much into a 28 hour work week, and legislation just isn’t a part of it. I’d do the same thing, being in his shoes.

I hate politics :-)

reply to post by macman


Hey Macman, we have agreed on other issues as well.

The thing is, that most of these elites claiming to be liberals, who want gun control, are not liberal at all.

A true liberal believes in gun rights.

There are too many laws these days, restricting our liberty, because someone has decided that some activity is too dangerous, and that anyone who participates in that activity is a criminal because they might, unintentionally, accidentally harm someone else. It doesn't matter what the odds might be, the PTB are more than happy to find an excuse to deprive us of liberty.

phantomjack
Obama administration proposes new executive actions on gun background checks

I dont know guys...I am a staunch conservative and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment...but I don't disagree with instituting background checks for gun purchases to prevent the mentally unstable from getting a gun.

The problem I do have is the way the President goes about it. Executive order!

The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system, wading back into the gun control debate after a months-long hiatus.

LINK

So what say you, ATS? Should a process be put in place to ensure that crazies are kept away from guns?

And then, what exactly would be the definition of "Crazy?"

I think THAT is the biggest question -- the definition of mental illness...don't you?

The problem is the definition and just because you were sane when you purchased your gun or fertilizer and high pressure cooker doesn't mean you will stay sane.

The Navy yard guy was in the military and if I'm not mistaken he also had some military clearances.

Hello, crazy who can't own a gun right here! No need to talk about us like we're not available to talk with you. Most of us crazies are quite friendly and interested in discussing what rights we should responsibly choose not to engage and when other folks should decide we're not fit to do that.

Is this more interesting if I say what I think of President Whatshisname?

reply to post by poet1b


A man crush may be developing here.

I say Libertarian, you say Liberal.

macman

Flatfish
Well for starters, at the time our founding fathers adopted the 2nd Amendment & the Bill of Rights, everyone had muzzle-loaders and the biggest available weapon was, more than likely, a canon.

Wrong.

Please, go and actually research firearms of the times. There were repeating firearms at that time, not just muzzle loaders.

While I do realize that some "repeating rifles" were indeed making their debut at the time the Constitution was adopted, they didn't actually see service in America until the Civil War. (unless you're talking about the Girandoni Air Rifle carried by Lewis & Clark in 1804) On the other hand, I didn't realize that there was a controversy regarding "repeating rifles" now.

Hell, my bolt action deer rifle and my pump shotgun are both "repeaters." On the other hand, neither of them will hold more than five rounds and you have to manually eject and re-chamber each one. A far cry from the gas operated, fully automatic, assault weapons with 30 round clips that we see today.

macman
If the amendment was just for firearms of the period, it would have been stated. I am fairly confident that the people that created the documents were aware of invention and technology progress in all fields.

So if I were to say that, "had they intended for this right to be extended to all future variations of firearms, it would have been stated," would my statement be factual as well? Give me a break!

IMO, there is absolutely no way that a reasonable person could interpret the 2nd Amendment right to own & bear arms to include all present and future variations.

The same way that it became necessary to institute the "Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988" to combat plastic firearms from being carried on to airplanes and into courthouses, new innovations in firearm technology will demand that we re-visit the issue from time to time and apply some "common sense" regulations.

macman
But, if we work on your failed login, then you should have no problem with me walking around with a cannon, or having several around my house ready to fire. Please also go and research as to the types of rounds a cannon of the period were able to fire.

I never said that I thought you should be allowed to own a cannon, much less walk around with one.

On the other hand, I'd just bet that you'd have a much harder time wheeling that bad boy into an elementary school or movie theatre without attracting a whole lot of attention, much less getting your target to hold still long enough for you to get a round off. Even then, after you got that round off, then what?

phantomjack
Obama administration proposes new executive actions on gun background checks

I dont know guys...I am a staunch conservative and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment...but I don't disagree with instituting background checks for gun purchases to prevent the mentally unstable from getting a gun.

And that is exactly the point. You're not supposed to disagree with it. It's kind of like a Trojan horse. They establish that "mentally unstable" people are just unacceptably dangerous by showing us a bunch of examples and blowing them out of proportion. And now, who can disagree? Once they get everyone on the same page (deny gun ownership to the "mentally unstable") they start inventing new (and oh so dangerous!) mental illnesses or broadening the definitions of the ones that already exist so that more and more people are included. This is the perfect strategy for an incremental "boiling frog" ban. No one rings the alarm bells as long as they don't think their own gun rights are threatened.

And then, what exactly would be the definition of "Crazy?"

I think THAT is the biggest question -- the definition of mental illness...don't you?

Bingo!

Flatfish


While I do realize that some "repeating rifles" were indeed making their debut at the time the Constitution was adopted, they didn't actually see service in America until the Civil War. (unless you're talking about the Girandoni Air Rifle carried by Lewis & Clark in 1804) On the other hand, I didn't realize that there was a controversy regarding "repeating rifles" now.

Hell, my bolt action deer rifle and my pump shotgun are both "repeaters." On the other hand, neither of them will hold more than five rounds and you have to manually eject and re-chamber each one. A far cry from the gas operated, fully automatic, assault weapons with 30 round clips that we see today.

Ah, so the idea of firearm technologies advancing was established, yet no law stating the 2nd was only for muskets.
Plus, given the use of cannons, there is no exemptions of such things.
If you and others want to restrict firearms, maybe, just maybe you should try to adhere to the process in place, of amending the Constitution.
But....you and other will never push for that, because it would be an epic failure and would pull the floor out from underneath you.

Flatfish

So if I were to say that, "had they intended for this right to be extended to all future variations of firearms, it would have been stated," would my statement be factual as well? Give me a break!

Give you a break huh??
It is stated clearly, the right to bear arms. Does it not?
Or does it state the right to bear arms of the current period?

Flatfish
IMO, there is absolutely no way that a reasonable person could interpret the 2nd Amendment right to own & bear arms to include all present and future variations.

Ahhh, the use of the "reasonable person" statement. Sounds like talking points were listened to very astutely.
The 2nd is very clear in this.

Flatfish
The same way that it became necessary to institute the "Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988" to combat plastic firearms from being carried on to airplanes and into courthouses, new innovations in firearm technology will demand that we re-visit the issue from time to time and apply some "common sense" regulations.

And the use of the "common sense" statement as well. Being spoon fed this crap must be really nice, instead of independent thought.

Flatfish

I never said that I thought you should be allowed to own a cannon, much less walk around with one.

That was arms of the times. Thought the 2nd only applied to the arms of the times.

Flatfish
On the other hand, I'd just bet that you'd have a much harder time wheeling that bad boy into an elementary school or movie theatre without attracting a whole lot of attention, much less getting your target to hold still long enough for you to get a round off. Even then, after you got that round off, then what?

I do love the knee jerk, emotional additional of a theater and school used.

Man, you are very predictable.