Basejumper.com - archive

 
SOFEX-bring your money
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL_3Qg-SADY

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
-Ben Franklin

i voted for anyone with the cash.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How would you say when someone it's pissing in your rights, what is the correct legal term or the politically correct term? You know what I mean, it happens all the time ... to everyone ... like when you have a right in theory and in practice it's not really happening due to the fact that you are on the bottom of the food chain ..... what's the word I'm looking for? Anyway for the sake of moving our conversation forward let's call that word "pissright".

I think that it's about time that from the statistic point of view and not officially, the right to bear arms would be illegally and in a very unprofessional way pissrighted to more and more people. 0fficially would still be in the constitution and only in practice would be pissrighted slowly to more and more people.

That's a good pissright.

Anyone who can fight to keep whoever or whatever is trying to make him relinquish his firearms or weapon of choice to use in the protection of himself, family, property, or country, as that is your born right as an American Citizen .
.
.
Those of you who have never seen this should take the time .
documented Vid. evidence of ' Treasones larceny ' against the American Citizens 2nd .

FOPA Hughes Amendment VOTE APRIL 10 1986
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ
.
Vid. footage was provided by Calguns.net

http://www.calguns.net/...wthread.php?t=364163

.

And speak of the devil . More FUN today to rob from you and force you to live on your Knees and be the victim .

https://www.federalregister.gov/...mport-list-2011r-20p

& What ( IMHO - I interpret ) is basically going on here is .
When you don't get your way with the UN Arms Trade Treaty and the new weapons & accessorize Ban on US citizen ' FAILS to Pass ' this month . You stomp your feet and force Rule like the petty dictator you are . You make executive order to delete specific wording of law to BATF ( Arms Control Act ) . Then giving power of decision to International import of specific weapons and parts to Attorney General ( Eric Holder ) . To bypass congress and erode and remove your born given Constitutional Rights .
.
Also
Anyone who does not know should pay attention ,That in the Federal Registry and in combination with the Federal Internal Revenue Service tax law and Reg. . The total number of pages of federal law and regulations is numbered well over 140,000 pages and growing rapidly larger every year . 140,000 + Fed. Law & regulations to place upon it's citizens . Use to Detain, Charge, Incarcerate and force mandatory forfeit of your 'born' Constitutional Rights upon ' Felony ' conviction of these Federal Laws & Regulation . With methodical premeditation is continuously composing, writing and passing Law to break your back to use and force you to your knees if charged with Felony with use of any single or in combination of these evergrowing Federal laws & Regulation .
.
.
edit add:
HEY HEYHEY, Dont Forget .... ;)
When your Government passes law making BASE Jump illegal, as well as other activities that involve use of land and air that is your public property . You are all free to covertly participate in that activity without regard to law and behave freely as the criminals they paint you to be .
.

 
I hope every one caught the the last instalment of Atlas Shrugged. If not then it's on Netflix as a DVD. I'm not super wild about the adaption but they did leave in the quote about, Laws are of no use unless the right people break them. I don't recall the exact phrasing.

Lee

For those of you adhering to libertarian ideals, what is your opinion on this?

Weapon system manufacturers are the most heavily gouvernment subsidized businesses there are. If I had a choice I would not finance the business of war, but some of my taxes does exactly that.

Of course, I do have a choice. Pay taxes, pay fines or go to jail.

This easter, the russians held a military airforce exercise 30-ish kilometers away from our border. We didn't send any planes up as show-force. At the same time, we support companies like SAAB and Bofors with tax money. I stood guard at a military "exercise" which sole purpose was to sell planes, equipment and services under the disguise of a "joint training exercise". Which would've been fine with me if they payed me at market price and the whole thing wasn't financed with taxes.

If these companies could support themselves, fine. If my country would buy stuff on a free market, fine.

The argument as to why we don't: in times of non-peace, your enemy will not sell you weapons, and your friends are long gone. That's why we need to stand on our own legs. Well, tell me, these companies that we rely on as a nation, how independant are they really? These planes, submarines and destroyers that "we" build and sell, yet are so incapable of using in times of need, how much of that technology belongs to the people and designated rulers of our society and how much of it really belongs to multi-national companies? Could we really stand tall with legs that thin?

The food was good, though.

Just let me have an actual choice (not a choice by default) in where my taxes are spent. Or even, abolish taxes and let us all pay for the servces we require. Need food? Pay up for maintaining roads. Need healthcare? Pay. Can't pay? Rely on the good will of others. Even without taxes, I would pay to support a gouvernment healthcare fund.

I realize it's not that simple, but there has to be a better way of financing what we need as a society that doesn't allow these kinds of perverse businesses to exist.

I think what you are trying to say is that you think there should be more restrictions to owning weapons so fewer people would have them.

There is no shortage of countries to live in where that is the reality and I would not want to live in any of them. I have no problem with those countries' rights to run themselves as they see fit but it is not what I want for myself.

I am in complete agreement with John Rich. There are *far* too many restrictions on firearms ownership in the U.S. already. Anyone who thinks there should be more should immediately renounce their U.S. citizenship and move to a country that is more to their liking. It will make the U.S. a better place.

Walt

A country more to their liking... that would be Canada. As I recall we had a social program like that back in the sixties. It was a voluntary resettelment program called the Draft. It allowed us to rid our selves of some of the more unsavory elements of our society. But look what happened to our poor naibbor to the north. I'm surprised our nations are still on speaking terms. I'm not sure it's fair to push our problems off on some one else.

Lee

Very good point there. The gun grabbers (i.e., Obama supporters) are another form of pollution on the planet and sending them to another country would be the equivalent of declaring that country to be a septic tank. Rude for sure.

Walt

> Anyone who thinks there should be more should immediately renounce their U.S. citizenship and move to a country that is more to their liking. It will make the U.S. a better place.

And if they don't comply, what's the plan B?

come to Vermont. It's not all birkenstocks and phish heads.


damn, that escalated quickly... i guess you are not one for democratic debate, huh? :) maybe you shouldn't come to vermont, because new england has this thing called town hall meetings here people express conflicting opinions without exiling each other.

The 2nd Amendment is not negotiable. Period. End of story.

The people who think it is are the equivalent of criminal scum and they do not belong here.

Fuck democratic debate regarding the 2nd Amendement. They are trying to steal something that is rightfully mine and call it "reasonable". I would consider it far more reasonable if they would get the fuck out of this country that they hate so much, or better yet--off themselves. They would be making both the U.S. and the planet a better place.

Sound reasonable?

On the other hand, democratic debate on negotiable things is something I have no issue with.

Walt

Not to me. Do you think anyone, including felons and mentally ill, should be able to buy weapons? I think there is a debate about who can own them.

Do you think that any weapons, from bb guns to nuclear arms, should be legal? I think there is a debate about what kind of arms civilians can have.

Do you think that they can be taken anywhere? Like, into a hospital? Or other people's private property who might not want you to carry there? I think there is a debate about limiting physical places they can go.

Are there small burdens we can ask gun owners to endure, to enforce these laws, without overly burdening them? Like, commercial background checks? Or bulk-purchase background checks? Or universal background checks?

I could go on. But trying to stonewall the debate is the same stupid shit that happens in the rest of american polit,ics today, and why we rail at each other. Life is rarely black and white and the 2nd amendment is definitely not black and white.

So are you saying that the arguments for the pro-gun debate are the guns themselves?

Something like if you don't agree with my 2nd amendment opinion you can either get out or get shoot?

Am I right on this one?

Hehe...

You don't read the dorkzone much do you...?

Just a note... I've already "killed" every argument Quade and Billvon have tried to put forward; and I love how they just go silent when they get defeated, "through, democratic debate."

And for one, felons, are criminals... your rights to life, liberty and property change (no, not entirely), when you are a felon. Same as when you are adjudicated mentally ill by a court (through Due Process).

Already laws on the books concerning the two.


No, the 2nd is very black and white, except by those who want to subvert, infringe, or undermine.

It is about Tyranny... Period.

Not hunting, not sporting, and definitely not self defense (though Self Defense is common sense, as a Natural Right under Natural Law.)

Its 100%, about Tyranny... Black and White.

You do realize, your poll and thread title doesn't really match up with the video, right...

...pretty sweet video though. Watched it when it was posted, haven't felt compelled to post till now.


And you cant really equate individual firearm ownership (with a Constitution based on Natural Law), with sales of arms by governments. They are two separate issues...

Yes I do think that for two reasons:

1. The 2nd Amendment does not contain exclusions
   
2. I do not trust the government's judgement in deciding who is "qualified" to own firearms. My thoughts on the death penalty are similar. I do not trust the process that decides who gets it.

Yes. The natural order of things is "might makes right". Small arms, to a degree, help level the playing field and I consider that to be a good thing.
All public places, yes. Private places, up to the owner of private place.
No burdens. We need to remove all current gun control laws from the books. The amount of burden is irrelevant.
2nd Amendment IS black and white. It is an absolute natural right and personally I think it is a sad thing that something so obvious needed to be codified at all. Anyone who feels like their life is completely miserable because of my right to own firearms is, in my opinion, mentally and morally unfit to make that kind of judgement.

Black and white enough?

Walt

don't read dropzone.com. don't give 2 shits about it


Sounds to me like you are saying it's not totally black and white, because there are exceptions in society that you seem to agree with.

And of course there are already laws on the books about it. That's not my point. The point is that there are exceptions, and that there is legitimate debate about the limits of those exceptions.


Now you are talking about why the 2nd amendment is there. My original point was about what limits to the 2nd amendment are reasonable, given that the amendment is there. You raise a great question but I am going to stick to my original topic for now.

Don't blame you in the least... but most base jumpers don't seem to like to talk about this and other topics (very few threads here), but over there, they talk about everything. And I only post over there as much as I do, because I am tired of all the stupid BS that gets posted. Gotta keep Quade, Bill and a few others in check.


As stated on the dorkzone... as they tried to state the same:

Those are not "exceptions."

Life, liberty, and property... till you violate the rights of others (or break constitutional laws), and only after due process of law.

No different than losing the right to vote as a felon... Not an exemption either.


If the purpose is acknowledged... then that attempted point, with all due respect, is senseless; everything currently on the table, only harms law abiding citizens.

"Universal Background Checks" (AKA... private sales also), is not reasonable.

(I write this from the perspective of an American not affiliated with any political party, but whose philosophies are largely aligned with those of the Libertarian Party.)

I agree with much of what you are saying because of the same reason that I do not completely support the death penalty. While I agree 100% that some actions, whether labeled as a crime or not, absolutely warrant death to the actor, I do not trust the organizations or processes that decide who gets the death penalty and administers it.

We (the US) do a lot of death dealing around the world--some I'm ok with and some not--and it has often been rationalized as "spreading freedom and democracy". When any country interferes with another country's internal affairs it is an attempt to take away that country's right to determine their own destiny. That is not a case of supporting freedom. Almost always, we (the US) do it in support of one or more factions within the country. We are taking sides, not allowing them to work it out themselves internally. In my view if we do that, it first and foremost needs to be morally defensible, but there also needs to be a benefit to our country. The worst possible reason for taking that kind of action is profit. Greed corrupts and, as you point out, dealing death involves a lot of money exchanging hands.

Ron Paul, who is widely viewed as a champion of Libertarian ideals, is not a fan at all of the US being the world's police force. I have little doubt that he shares your thoughts on dealing heavy arms also.

Regarding whether the business have a right to exist, I think they do. I think they also *must* be tightly controlled. While weapons have no morals their use must be governed by a moral purpose.

Yes, I realize that injected "morals" into this discussion makes any argument I put forth as full of holes as a huge fishing net, because everyone's morals are different. I think there are some we can all agree with, though.

Walt

I put this in a separate response because this is an intentional tangent to the main discussion.

What about the parallel to BASE jumping an object without permission?

Walt

BASE jumping an object without permission?

Gooood way to get yourself shot

Neither does the first amendment, but case law has placed limits on free speech. Can I safely assume, that you would feel morally entitled to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Because that is what the case law would prohibit. And if you can do it for one amendment, you can do it for others. Some may not like that but it isn't going to change...

I'm not saying that government judgement is acceptably good. But that by itself doesn't mean that all gun laws are bad. It just means we have to be very careful about the ones we do vote into law.

So, just so there's no confusion, you think that you and I, as well as that newly naturalized immigrant from the Middle East, and every other citizen, should be allowed to own a working nuclear bomb?


So you think anyone should be able to bring guns into a courtroom? i.e. what about the Boston bombing suspect, if he's not convicted

What about private property that is open to the public? Like, the waiting room of a privately owned Catholic hospital, and the hospital says, "no guns on church property"

If you say "no guns," then that is a limit on the RTKBA is it not. if you say "guns allowed," then you are saying your RTKBA trumps my property rights. Personally, I would say that property rights win over someone else's right to bear arms. And to me that is a limit on the 2nd amendment which can be debated, without being worthy of getting kicked out of the country just for talking about it.

Similar to your first point. But whether we like it or not our society puts some amount of limitation on pretty much all our other rights. I wouldn't give arms a special pass on that, especially not explosives and WMDs. Some burdens are so demonstrably trivial, and some benefits so great, that I will continue voting for them, sorry.


That sounds more like pro-anarchy than pro-RTKBA. You know, you owning arms probably shouldn't worry me much, but some people would definitely worry me. And worry a lot of other voters too. So we vote for laws or politicians who will make it illegal for wifebeaters to buy guns, and lunatics to make nerve gas, and anybody to buy nukes. It just sounds too much like an unrealistic anarchist utopia, to think that a weapons free-for-all would somehow work out in the general best interest.

But I do appreciate you having a discussion about it with me. I hope I won't get deported to Denmark now :)

Maybe I've been really misunderstanding you. I thought you didn't think there should be any limits on arms purchasing or possessing.

Colm

This is at least the second time I have been baffled by your definitions.

That response is full of WIN! LOL

I don't. That does not mean that I think everyone *should* have them, though. I'm just not willing to trust the government with deciding who has the right to have them. I would feel safer in a world where everyone is armed vs. only those who have approval from a government to be armed.

But that's small arms. Weapons of mass destruction and death are a different issue.

If I had to make a choice between *all* weapons being restricted vs. *no* weapons being restricted, I would go with the no weapons being restricted. Neither is without a downside but I think it is clear to everyone that governments *cannot* be trusted to act in the best interest of the people.

Walt

That is another case where I think it is sad that something needs to be codified. Just because something is legal does not mean it is morally defensible. Just because something is not morally defensible does not mean it should be illegal.

There needs to be consequences for someone exercising their rights in a way that wrongfully brings harm to others but I don't think it necessarily needs to involve limiting everyones' rights.

For example, if someone drives while drunk and causes an accident I do not think it follows that others' right to get drunk should be limited. (Actually, I don't know that there is any law that specifically grants someone the "right" to get drunk. This is just for the sake of discussion)


"We" (the people) are not given the opportunity to vote on them and even so, I will not support putting an inherent human right up to a vote.


That is a whole different ballgame. I do not think *anyone*, including governments can be trusted with nuclear weapons. The genie has been let out of the bottle, though, so the best we can do is slow down the spread of their possession and usage.

As I said earlier, though, given the choice between *all* weapons being restricted and *no* weapons being restricted, I would go with *no* weapons being restricted.

Yes.

Consider the "gun free zones" that currently exist. They are the places where mass killings are happening because they are soft targets. If everyone is armed, everyone has reason to watch their behavior because the consequences will likely be swift and sure.

Private property should be controlled by the owner. There are a lot of exceptions I do not agree with and weapons is only one of them. Let's say I owned an apartment complex and did not want to rent to white people, Christians, or heterosexuals. I think I should have that right. If I did not want any guns whatsoever on the property, I think I should have that right too. The government should stay out of it.

I do not see the case of a private property owner restricting the possession of firearms on that property as a violation of anyone's Second Amendment rights but I see where you are coming from. I do not have an inherent right to be on anyone's private property. The owner can grant me that right temporarily and put any restrictions they want on it.

Public property is a different matter, though, because it is owned by the public.

And limiting other rights because they were exercised in a way that brought unnecessary harm to others is BS. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Although you did not label me as an anarchist, it would not be a huge stretch. I can see great benefit from good government but there is great harm from bad government. That has led me to conclude that government absolutely has to be limited.

The US has a president that ordered and had executed, the killing of at least one American citizen without any of the bothersome details like charges or a trial.

The US Attorney General knowingly allowed guns to be illegally purchased and exported to Mexico. Those guns have been involved in many dozens of murders in Mexico and were used in the murder of at least one American.

Both of them are among the strongest supporters of gun control in the US. The fact that both are still in office and neither has been charged with any crime is, in my mind, a powerful argument for limiting the powers of government to only those absolutely necessary because power corrupts people.

I do not like the idea of someone with a history of immoral and violent behavior having a gun, but I cannot limit their rights without limiting my own. What I can do is make sure I am armed so that I can defend myself and those I care about.

Regarding the free-for-all anarchy scenario, I do not think it could be much worse than what we have now.

And thankyou for not bring up that, "Think of the children..." BS that keeps popping up among the gun grabber crowd.

Walt

Fascinating discussion. I'm intrigued enough to test this. If I understand your logic correctly:
1. People are born with a natural right to own guns, if they want them.
2. The Federal government protects this right as the custodian of the Constitution, but can't be trusted to interpret the right or manage any restrictions that might pass into law.

Point 1 is interesting. It raises the question in my mind, that if the right to bear arms is fundamental, why did it have to be added as an amendment?
Point 2 is somewhat of a quandry. We don't trust the mice, but they administer our rights to access the cheese.

Guns are fundamental to rebellion. So is transport. Transport is tightly controlled by government. Vehicles and drivers must be licensed. Vehicle designs must be approved by government.
Guns are implicated in approx 30,000 US deaths per year. About the same number die on the roads.
Which is more fundamental - the right to own and bear arms, or the right to own and drive vehicles?
Assuming the same approach applies, anyone should be allowed to own and drive a vehicle, without restriction on the size or shape, safety factors or any other characteristics. The government can't be trusted to control gun ownership, they sure as hell can't be trusted to control transport.

How can a law, a fine or imprisonment stop people, who are mentally deranged, from harming others? They can't, all they can do is scare them into not doing it. Most of these people would do the deed regardless if there were laws or not against it because of their ignorance, selfishness, or whatever, you just have these types in any society.... they are called crazy. And living in a society you take the risk that shit happens sometimes. The government can't and it is certainly NOT their job to protect us from cradle to grave! They are not our parents, although most seem to look to them to regulate their lives and others.

Can anyone honestly say that they think we can preempt all bad things from happening by passing more and more laws?

Laws do not make people safer, in my opinion, and making gun control laws will only give people a false sense of security that may ultimately be to their detriment from the barrel of a gun of the crazies, who don't follow laws, the government or both.

Also, lets be honest.... the government does not make laws to protect citizens, it makes laws to fine and otherwise charge the citizens for living in a 'free' society. It makes laws to further fund it's agenda while under the guise of 'it will make the society safer and it's what the people(lobbyists) asked for'!

I may be opening a big can of worms here but.... my understanding is that the government can only regulate commerce and commercial vehicles.
We have the 'right to travel' freely across the highways regardless of the mode of transportation without any government issued license. Where things get sticky is when the vehicle is registered with the State and licensed. You give them the Manufacturers Certificate of Origin(Title) and they give you a Certificate of Title, which are different and have different right's and interests. They now control everything it and it's Driver do. Are you driving a State controlled vehicle? Then you must have a Driver License!
So, yes, the government can't be trusted to control transport because they have already suckered most of the public into believing that they are required to have a license and register and license their cars when the only power that congress gave them was to control commercial commerce.

So then, let me say this, and also ask two questions.

Overall Desires:

Quade... wants a federal panel of experts which would determine competency of firearm ownership; with Canada and the UK as baseline examples.

Billvon... I do believe wants the same, but wouldn't say it. However he has said, that he wants background checks for private sales. Any sale, by anyone, at any time, of any kind of firearm... to go through a background check.

What are your Overall Desires (if you could have your way)?


And finally...

Do you believe that a well armed populace is necessary for the security of a free state?

BOOM!

Now there's a brain utilizing critical thinking!

"I like this guy!"

You are on a very very important track!

That is incorrect...

We, lend, government our rights.

The entire structure of the Constitution is to bind the hands of power... because "We" don't trust central government; the Federal Government.

And Walt... you are a bit off on your Federalism structure, in response to jumpkks.

I'd say the majority of people I've spoke with on the subject are for not allowing convicted felons to own guns. I think a lot of people could be easily swayed on that stance, if they were shown all the nonviolent felonies a person can get. Probably the majority of people on this site has committed a felony. Hell, our current and our previous president both admit to having committed felonies.

This is not really about my views on gun control, but since you asked...

I think public subsidy of mental health services is more cost effective than most gun control. There is clearly not enough of the former.

Personally I would vote for universal background checks (i.e. public and private sales) for any gun purchase. Alternatively, you don't have to background check the person you are selling to, but if they happen to be a criminal, you are criminally liable for any crime they commit (including mere posession of a firearm) if you sell them a gun. So, makes sense to cover your ass and do a background check if you don't know them. I don't want criminals owning guns any more than I want law-abiding people hampered from buying them. Unlike waltappel I am OK with trivial burdens on gunowners, I think of it like a civic duty like jury duty or voting. Responsible gun owners don't want guns in illegal hands doing illegal things.

And personally I endorse states rights to some degree, so gun laws that work for New York might not work for Alaska, and vice versa. But there is room for some national policy.

I think the more interesting debate is over where you draw the line, about what weapons are too dangerous to allow for unlicensed ownership, see my discussion with Walt.

Another pet peeve. Some people say Obama is the most anti-gun president in history. Why, because he vigorously supported any gun legislation at all? Oh wait, he didn't. Recent bills got his lukewarm support, then all failed, and Obama went shrug, whatevs. His agenda is not focused on gun control, but some people are so blinded by their hate for him that they ignore his actual track record, just so they have something negative to say about him. If you don't like him there are other negative things you could say about him, you don't need to make any up.

I also think hikeat has a point about certain felony convictions but don't want to get more deeply involved in discussions right now. I'm way more concerned by insane attempts to spraypaint Moab, not to mention other things in real life, than hypothetical debates...

Thanks for your thoughtful and sincere answers.

In your own words, you said that you'd be OK with the boston marathon bomber suspect carrying a gun into court. A guy who, while not [yet] guilty in a court of law, is otherwise pretty much known to have tried to murder hundreds of people and partly succeeded, and for all we know might do it again.

And you also said that while you don't like the idea of the general public (including potential terrorists) having nuclear weapons, you'd rather have no laws against it, than any laws which might restrict your personal freedom. Even though we know there are very wealthy people who hate America and could afford a nuke if they could only acquire one.

Generally I agree with the adage that if you trade security for freedom you will have neither. But I think that rule fails at the extremes, you could say, because life is not black and white... just my opinion. And above are examples where I'll pragmatically give up certain rights, and vote to take them away from you. Because some consequences I won't tolerate risking. And whereas I might not trust the government much, there are a lot of individuals I'd trust even less.

The whole point I wanted to explore is not the pros and cons of specific gun laws. I was curious where people would draw the line of what they consider protected "arms" by the 2nd amendment. Clearly the vast majority of people don't want potential terrorists getting nuclear armaments. And on the other hand the electoral process tends to punish politicians who attempt much simpler gun control laws. So where do we pragmatically draw the line, is a great debate.

That's all, I've spoken my peace.

I appreciate the discussion. Sorry I have not had time to post more.

Regarding the Boston bombing suspect, he has still not been found guilty.
Regarding everyone having weapons vs. only a few having them, whether it be small arms or nukes, if everyone is armed, everyone has reason to stop and carefully consider the consequences of using them.

We have established that creating soft targets, i.e., "gun free zones" not only does not work, it has resulted in the slaughter of many innocents and those who insisted on them are not being held accountable.

Maybe it is because of their deep denial of their own roles in the slaughter that they are screaming so loudly that it is the fault of inanimate objects. They can scream all they want, but the truth is that they are no better than the crazed murderers who committed the killings. In fact, they are arguably worse. They hide behind a false pretense of morality when they are among the most immoral people on the planet.

Walt

Too bad that terrorists like Jihadis don't adhere to that logic. (Or worse, are perversely motivated by it.) How then do you mitigate them? Irrational human behavior is the downfall of every utopian dream.

And guilty or not, he's a prisoner and prisoners don't get weapons. And neither do people in courtrooms, and I'm happy with it that way.


I disagree that it's universally "established." You can take an argument on either side of the debate and find a real-life counter-example to it.


It's the internet so I won't get offended if you call me one of the most immoral people on the planet, just for wanting background checks and banning WMDs. Maybe you just haven't met as awful people as I have. But if that's what I am, so be it!

Someone could just as easily say that gun advocates are responsible for all the civilian gun violence. It doesn't make either statement remotely sensible. It's just a sad fact that some people out there are not as even-tempered as you or I, and society decided to disregard certain rights for the so-called "greater good." You've said where you'd draw the line, and I'm hoping others will chime in with their $0.02 too.

Its a good video in the Thread beginning & linking the US-2nd Amendment and the Video is relative by the content and subject matter in the video . the subject portrayed as, Tools of Power is purchased on an open world market. A market product that is accessible to governments but un-acsessable to the remainder of citizenry in the world . 'Weapons and Tools' that create government, to hold there borders, and let them hold power over it's citezens are up for sale . ' By each other ' . ' To each other ' .
Academic debate of a anyone's point of view is great but the United States Constitution is above and beyond academic debate purely by example of countries in this world who rule there citizens with an iron fist but openly participate in this world market of weaponry .

The unique beauty of 'our' Constitution is because it's composed with simplicity of definition of written word so to understood by all it's citizens . The United States Constitution & Bill of Rights is designed and set in place as an unmovable foundation. Written by our original founding government officials to hold the United States government in-check . To keep power of government in the hands of it's citizens that are 'Born' - 'adopted by' or granted ' citizenship by the United States . The Right of the People .
Constitution ( Right of the People ) was painstakingly created with simplicity of definition of written word so to be understood by all citizens, to keep the United States Government and it's elected employes accessible to the people and not above accountability of action . To stop the transformation of our government and elected employees forming an elitist entity that stand on top and profit from it's citizens by holding it power by fear of Felony prosecution of law it creates, and with weapons that are deemed illegal to own but only by government power . To keep it's citizens free with a unique document giving power over government rule to it's people . It is not meant to be twisted, diluted, refined or re-written by a government comprised primeraly of professional Attorney and Politician that are motivated by receiving or holding power of office to rule over the citizens of the United States and not a government that is only accountable to itself .

the 2nd, Beauty is Simple .
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed .
.

The comment regarding those who established "gun free zones" being among the most immoral people on the planet deserves some explanation.

It was squarely directed at the "politically correct" crowd, who I view as frauds. Being a middle-aged white male, I am assumed by that crowd to be guilty of everything from "keeping the black man down" to misogyny to gay bashing to being part of the "good old boys network" to being a creator of the "glass ceiling", and who knows what else, but all of it based on the idea that I have an intense hatred for all people not like me.

In my experience they are among the most arrogant, hateful, and (sorry--I really hate using this word, but it does apply) racist people I have ever met.

Anyone who claims another person needs preferential treatment in hiring, acceptance into schools, etc., based only on their skin color is racist. There can be no argument that they are, in effect, making a statement that any person with that skin color is less capable than they are. I consider that to be more arrogant and racist than a KKK member who openly despises people based only on skin color. Why? Because the KKK member offers no pretense or excuses. You *know* what his attitudes are because he will tell you to your face. The PC crowd, in contrast, hides behind a twisted cloak of morality and "fairness" that is nothing but sugar-coated arrogance and "white guilt".

Is leaving innocent people unprotected moral? To them it is. To me, it's not even close. No doubt the PC crowd disagrees, but consider that many of the strongest proponents of gun control do not live an an unprotected world. They and their children are protected by armed guards, yet they arrogantly claim that the rest of us do not need or deserve to have the means to protect ourselves.

I would challenge them to put up or shut up. Let's see Obama take his kids out of private school, put them in a public school, and absolutely, positively demand, that there be no guns allowed within 100 yds. of that school.

Then let's see Obama do that for himself. Tell the Secret Service he does not need them. Fly commercial instead of Air Force One.

He won't do it. Why not? Because he *knows* his claims are a bunch of BS.

I would feel ok sitting next to the Boston bombing suspect if we both had weapons and can tell you without hesitation that he would need not fear any harm coming from me, unless he tried to harm me or others first. He is innocent until proven guilty, even if the media has already convicted him without trial.

Gun advocates are hardly responsible for the mass shootings--we have offered *real* solutions and continue to do so.

Like it or not, there is a price to be paid for an open and free society and that is that it is always vulnerable to attack from outside or within. I accept that downside, though it can be very ugly.

And these same people who would take away our guns, would just as quickly take away any of *your* rights to live your life as you choose and smugly tell you it's "for your own good" or that "it is what is best for society".

Fuck 'em.

Walt

Ray I understand what you are trying to say but there are some issues that I feel need to cleared up. Some may say it's just semantics but not paying attention to detail is precisely how we have contracted away our Rights.

It's not the 'United States Constitution', it's the 'Constitution for the United States of America'.
Also, there was no such thing as a United States citizen when the 'Constitution for the United States or America' was adopted, there were only state citizens, citizens of the Union or people of the several states. United States citizens came about with the 14th amendment in order to grant slaves the same rights as the original people of the several states.


The words/phrases and their meanings mean EVERYTHING! Too many times we just skim through and don't pay attention to the slight manipulation that is taking place.

When people speak of the United States they only think of one meaning referring to the country as a whole but according to the court case 'Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt' the term United States can have several meanings. (1) It may merely be the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. (2) It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends; or, (3) it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.
So when someone talk about the United States, our first question should be "can you define it more? Which one are you talking about?" because each one is completely different.

United States citizens are granted privileges such as licenses whereas state citizens have Rights which are god given and not granted by the government. Everyone wants to be a US Citizen but they do not realize that by doing so they are contracting with a corporate entity that does not care about their rights, it only cares about the contract they have agreed to which only includes privileges granted by them. The US government does not take anyone's rights, we are freely giving them up because of our laziness, gullibility and stupidity.
Everyone is up in arms about the laws being passed by the US government but people don't realize that when they claim US citizenship the Constitution for the United States of America does not apply to them anymore. The Constitution of the United States applies. They have contracted away any right to complain because they abandoned the Republic and pledged their allegiance to a corporation. The United States corporation can do whatever they want to IT'S citizens/property.

U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other"

Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.

Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.

The point I am attempting to make is that most people think that a US citizen is the same thing and has the same rights as the original citizens of the several states. We are lead to believe that we have all the rights of the citizen of the several states but in reality the US citizen is strictly controlled and in regards to the gun control issue; the US government WILL pass laws restricting guns for it's citizens because.... it can. What is happening now is just a show, a dance if you will, to seduce the populace into believing that they are choosing gun control but in reality the decision has already been made. It just needs to introduced slowly as not to incite a riot.
How do you cook a frog? Slowly. You can't just drop him in boiling water.... you have to place him in tepid water and slowly increase the heat so he doesn't know you are cooking him.

thanks ... Those are good points and clarification . I am also pretty aware that the pot is slowly being turned up .
Separation between Fed. citizen & States citizen . I tend to forget that separation & states sovereignty given ( the 10th ) . But lately you cant tell the difference with some States and there willingness to suckle the supple nut sack of this current administration .
.

edit to add:
... " to seduce the populace into believing that they are choosing gun control but in reality the decision has already been made. It just needs to introduced slowly as not to incite a riot ".

The political decision might want and think it has been made . The past was methodically slow but the current administration rudely shoving it down the throat is not introducing it slow, it's throwing gasoline on the fire and they act like they dont give a flying fuck as long as rebellion/riot does not happen on there watch .
,

Constitution: Fail.

Ok, just for fun. Let's see if we can name an amendment in the bill of rights that has not been trampled upon since it was introduiced. I yeald the floor and invite you to name one that has not been violated by federal or a state government.

Lee

Great post!

Great post!

So if it's so simple and clear, that there need not be any debate at all, do you think the second amendment protects yours, my, and the potential terrorist's right to own a nuclear weapon? I mean, it just says "arms," it doesn't say that certain kinds are exceptions.

If you say yes, I call bullshit, because there is no fucking way I (or 95% of the rest of us) would sit around and let Mr. New Al Qaeda Recruit drive a nuke on a truck into NYC. If you say no, then you have to admit a debate about which "armaments" are protected by the second amendment, and which are not.

Walt has submitted his opinion already, for which I am appreciative.

If there is one, it would be the 3rd:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Other than that. Trampled all to hell.

Walt

1st off . ( the 2nd ) It is simple and very clear for majority of people to read and interpret the text because it is composed in the least amount of words to express what is priceless to a lot of people living in this country . That is the beauty of it .
It's simple but powerful Efficiency to express in 27 words something that empowers all that live here, It's not to be reworded, reinterpreted or deleted by an self-empowered academic or political agenda that thinks they are more enlightened, to manipulate and mandate the rest of America . Which category of the two do you attach yourself to ?

I am though having a little difficulty following your thought process ? Is there something change in the flawless wording of the 2nd that will make you content ?
It is pretty simple, murderers/terrorists should not have nuclear weapons . The 2nd empowers all American under it's clear, simple wording .
In No Way have I said .
' A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed . '
IS meant to empower murderers/terrorists, to own/purchase nuclear weapons .
Plus the Thread Topic Vid. clearly shows that nuclear weapons are Not For Sale on the world arms market . Now the Video does clearly show where & how individual world powers ' Shop ' for there arms that might help them keep other individual or international powers from taking away or interfering with making Nuclear weapons .
.

I'll bite... where in the simplicity of the 2nd does it limit the concept of "arms" to exclude those that are "Not For Sale on the world arms market"?

It doesn't say "...the right to keep and bear hand guns and longarms, and maybe small grenades...ok, if you must, you can have mortar and anti-tank missiles, but we draw the line at tactical nukes...", it just says "arms". Similarly, where does it exclude the right of murderers or terrorists from keeping or bearing arms? Rightly or wrongly, other laws do that.

Which kind of implies that other laws can have an impact on the 2nd, apart from how the interpretation of "A well regulated militia" affects the "right of the people to keep and bear arms". Maybe that gives the state the right to do background checks, as you would in forming a well regulated militia... It could be interpreted that this statement does not confer a right on any individual to keep and bear arms, limiting the same to a well regulated militia, acting on behalf of the people. It doesn't say "each citizen", or "any person" - it says "the people". Last time I checked, "the people" was a collective term...

But, before your blood boils...I might just be a troll...;)

 
Nukes or any thing like them did not exist when our fathers wrote the constitution. I honestly do not know how they would have addressed such an issue.

There is the thought process of trying to apply the law in the manner of it's intent. This has been the basses for court rulings, and I have no problem with this. To that end the supreme court looked at other papers and laws from that period. We had just fought a gorilla war of rebellion against our own government. It was done by every one of fighting age just showing up with there own gun. Following that there were laws written in some states requiring every man over a certan age to own a gun "of standard military caliber." That was apparently a big issue at the time. So the idea was that if we ever needed to fight a war again every one would be able to just rise up together. Not the Army. Not a special "militia" but every man in the street. That was what the Militia was formed from.

Why is it in the constitution? Because the last war that we had fought was against our own government. And Brittan was our government. We were brittish citicans. That fact was still clear in their mind. The states were leary of another central government. They wanted the security of knowing that if the government of the united states should ever become oppressive they would be able to throw it off. That's what the bill of rights is all about.

So what does this mean? The populas should always be better armed then the government. That was their intent. To that end I say that every citizen of this country should be able to own any weapon that the military posseses. In fact I would argue in favor of the old law requiring every one to own say, one rifle and one hand gun in standard military caliber. If you can not afford a weapon a weapon will be provided for you. That's my interpitation of the second amendment. What kind of weapons? I'd say any weapon that can be employed to that end. I could make a good argument for any conventional weapon. It's a little harder to justify nukes. Yes they have been used to end a war but if your goal is to recapter your country from an oppressive government what's the point of having a nuke. It's only useful as a threat. There are not a lot of practical ways to really imploy it. Note that they have not been used since WWII. Countries armed with them have lost wars rather then use them. Why? Because their use would not have achived the stated objective. We could have turned North Viet Nam into a glowing craiter. And that's what it would have taken. Congratulation. We own a crator. That and the threat from the other side to do the same for us. So being of no practical military value I'd say that the second amendment does not apply to nukes. If you're seriously worried about the federal government employing them then I'd say that every state government should be issued there own short range nuklier missile. That is probable how our founding fathers would have delt with it. They probable would have retained the control of them by the state. But we are talking about you and me. If you can afford and can fly a bomber you should be allowed to own it. People own jet fighters. There should be no bar to a private citizen owning any small arm he wants. Me, I'd like a tank. And I maintain that the second amendment gives me the right to own my own Abrams.

Is it Switzerland where every retired military is allowed to retain his fully automatic rifle and keep it in his home?


Where did we go wrong? The constitution started off so strong. This idea of making your self safe by making every one around you as week as you are has been around for a long time. Even in the old west there were efforts at this. I wonder if there were any attempts before that. It would be interesting to try to research that. When was the NFA, the thirties? I say we should have drawn the line there. The story I heard was that it was pushed through by the corporations to try to prevent private citizans from owning machine guns. It was to try to break the unions. Remember the old pictures of factory guards holding off mobs of workers in front of the factory gates with tommy guns? That's what it was about. Dirrectly contradictory to both the letter and intent of the second amendment. By the way I'm actually anti union. I just think there were better ways to deal with them. I think the country has been in a down hill slide ever since. Don't even get me started on the machine gun ban in the 80's. I'm not even sure what it was that prompted that other then whiney fucking democrats getting there way. And the assault weapons ban? How can you possible justify that. And it was stupid. I mean that was some of the silliest shit in the would. The only good thing about that is a lot of democrats go booted out of office and we regaind control of congress for a while.

Lee

...own an Abrams... the 2nd probably gives you the right to legally own the gun turret, or even the whole tank, but state and federal transport laws prevent you from legally driving the tank on public highways unless the state chooses to issue the requisite licence, and they might have an arbitrary "no private tanks capable of firing" rule...and of course the military, which I think owns the design, might refuse to sell it to you until it can't be fired.

States armed with tactical nukes...the South Will Rise Again...

But, your point about the intent that the populace should always be better armed than the government...the US has the most technologically advanced and integrated military in the world. Bar none. It is not possible for any individual to be better armed. Even drug cartels find the $600 billion+ annual US military budget impossible to compete with...remember Noriega? Hows he doing? An intercontinental jail tour?...he had an army at his disposal, and a whole separate country to hide in.

Anyway, today, weapons alone won't protect any individual much from a bad government. In the modern world, information is the most lethal weapon in warfare. They eavesdrop, they track you, they locate you, they send in the drones. You don't get to shoot at the guy who's shooting at you. He's in Arizona playing a video game. To fight the government, you need information.

So the words are the words, and they confer the rights and restrictions as construed by those better versed in law... but if the purpose of the 2nd was mainly to protect from and against bad government...well, whoops!

 
Tracks are a bit hard on roads and hard surface roads are not that much easier on tracks. This is Texas. We have wide open spaces spaces here. Even the military trailers things like that when they can. On the other hand a light kit would be cool. I can see my self with my head sticking out the hatch with goggles flipping my turn signal as I drive down I-35. I bet they'll make room for me to change lanes. And just for the record there are actually pressedents for that. As an example, I once knew a guy that owned a Duck. He told a great stories about it one of which is when he took it in to regester it as both a driving vehical and a boat.

I have no doubt that the military would like to popo the idea of selling one based on some of the systems, classified national security and all that but the truth is that it's actually an older system. They sell or give away versions of them all over the world. It sounds silly but you might be able to buy one over seas but I don't think you should have to go to all that trouble.

It would be very interesting if you could have taken a pole of the founding fathers on what they thought of the civil war. Where would they have sided. I can guess with some of them but there thoughts might have surprised you. Viewed as a states rights issue I think there would have been almost as heavy of a devision in there feelings as we saw in the 1860's. It's interesting you bring that up because the states are getting polerised once again on a number of issues. After the last election there were pertitions circulated in every state on session. I think it required some thing like 25,000 signitures for the white house to be required by law to respond. Last time I checked the one here in Texas had grown to over 100,000. The response was of course "hell no" but the point is that it shows a certain level of discontent. It makes me wonder if we might some day have a session of the "Red States". Will they some day write a book about the "Red and the Blue"?

Money? You want to talk about Money? Where do you think that 600 billion comes from? From us. We are the ones that pay for it. And at present for the majority of us the tax burden is still bellow 50% of our income and that's for the whole of which the mill is only one part so I argue that we, at least for now, still have more funding then the government. And it's not always about money. Asymetric wars have been fought and won before. it is an interesting question though. How would a war of secession play out today. I'm not down playing the role of inteligents but we're talking about guns and I will argue that in the end if you're going to fight a war it's good to have a gun.

What would they have thought of the envasive nature of our society today? You know if they were here today and had to do the bill of rights over again I'm thinking there might be a few more amendments in it.

Lee

The reason that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is restricted is because it leads to an immediate reaction that can harm other people.

Simple ownership of an inanimate object does not cause an immediate reaction harming people.

It's the _use_ of the inanimate object that does that. And we already have laws prohibiting harming other people (whether any specific inanimate object is used or not).

The exceptions to the 1st Amendment in the case law are all cases like this--where the speech itself causes immediate harm. Simple ownership of an inanimate object cannot cause immediate harm in the same way.

OK lets get off this Nuke shit. besides it being Illegal . Building any device of mass destruction by individuals is a No No especially radioactive ones .

1st off . The Individual States are bastardizing the 2nd . And the biggest offenders of the 2nd are the individual States you live in with there restrictions that completely remove or limit your 2nd Amendment Right . It's all control, power with agenda .
Likewise is the misinformation/Deception about ownership of Firearms . ( unless convicted of Felony) All American citizens can purchase/own Handgun, longgun/rifle shotgun & semi-automatic . plus, Full-Auto, short-barrel, AOW, suppression equipment & some destructive devices with the correct Fed/BATF form with 200-$ tax stamp with exception of AOW that is 5-$ fee . Likewise 'home construction' of a firearm is legal & even Suppression equipment with purchase of a form-1 BATF. plus home built all Laser devices . Also with exception of individuals doing Face to Face private transactions . ' All ' American citizens who purchase firearms in the united states . Do so with a Federal 4473, with that comes a background check .
This ---> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed .
It is some of the individual States that totally rapes it's resident American citizens from the blanket coverage of 'there' 2nd with control and political agenda of restrictions or banning ownership .

quote:
... " a right on any individual to keep and bear arms, limiting the same to a well regulated militia, acting on behalf of the people. It doesn't say "each citizen", or "any person" - it says "the people". Last time I checked, "the people" was a collective term.

Well the way I understand it & have been taught the 2nd does Not have to say ' each individual '. And It does Not have to because the United States is a Republic that empowers the individual . This is NOT the collective and if you want the collective you can reside in PRC, N.Korea or Cuba .
If you strive for an authentic collective to reside in . I suggest you fight for, to live in a 'world' that prohibits all individuals from private ownership of Firearms except government and it's military's .
.
edit to add:
in addition to what I was saying about individual States and them as being the main thieves & manipulators of the 2nd . It is utterly Ass backwards to rational thought. But that what control & power driven by political agenda is about .
( for example ) here where I live ( oregon state ) An Oregon citizen who purchases and owns perfectly legal firearm and accessories, under his State law and Fed. BATF Regulation . Then travels a few hours South, crossing over the boarder and enters the state of California . He Is now facing felony prosecutions and going to prison for being in possession of the same legally purchased private property .
,

Just to strer the pot for a little more fun. I was on the phone with a friend the other night. He is an ex mill officer and a history major.

A lot of people look at this as just a mater of legal theory or a mater of princable. They act like it doesn't really have any relivance to their lives. But think on some of this.

fun facts:

They did a fairly wide pole of both republicans and democrats, conservitives and liberals. 29% said that they thought armed insurrection might be nessasary withen the next thirty years due to the increasingly oppressive nature of the government. Of that 29%, 60% of them were conservitives but 40% were actually liberals. 29%, doesn't sound like much but...

The number of people involved in active rebellion during the revolution against Briton was 7% of the population. The other 93% were loyal to the crown or indifferent.

There was a study done by the military projecting desertion rates if the active military was used internally to put down an armed insurrection. The projections for rate of desertion or refusal were high. The majority of active military come from "red states".

At Pia there was a presentation by a guy from... the groop that handals procurement and government contracts. Their not buying any more parachutes. They are downsizing. They have no plans of fighting a conventional over seas war any time soon.

The Department of Homeland Security and TSA are expanding. They have grown into a huge government employment project. They are mostly drawn from "blue state"/liberal afiliations.

The DHS has just made a HUGE purchas of ammunition mostly 556. What do they have to shoot at?

The TSA has just been given power over the interstate highway system. They now control air, rail, and road travel. All forms of transportation are now under their control.

The DHS has just purchased 10,000 armored vehicals. I'm brainlocking but it's the same IED resistant armored personel cariers we are using in the middle east. They are being distributed and prepositiond with swat teams across the country. But if they are for local police forces why are they all painted black with DHS on the side?

Just a few completely unrelated facts that I'm sure have nothing to do with each other. But they are all true.

Looking at the gun control debate in the larger view... the second amendment might become a lot less theoretical.

One last fun fact. The famous "Ride of Paul Reveare" was a warning that the british were coming to seaze their guns and to hide all the rifles. They were after the leaders but their primary objective was to capture any military supplies.

Just stering the pot and starting shit. And I'm not even a conspearace guy.

Lee

Your friend is right. I look at it from pseudo-legal theory, and maybe from the point of "what happens if it goes this way or that"... Principle is unbending, so there's no point arguing it. If my principle is opposite of person X, neither will change, no matter how much debate. People will die for a principle.

Fun facts...
Not bad. 7% would make about 250,000 - sounds about right. All self funded too. I don't believe that the 93% were either loyalists or indifferent though. Most were sympathetic, but didn't join the fight because they had their own families to feed, and they weren't soldiers, or didn't think the revolutionaries would win. Most of the population was unhappy about taxes without even political input. Their argument was either give us a voice in government, or don't collect tax from us...the British also miscalculated, with domestic and European issues taking priority over a dispute with "ragtag" colonials...

I don't know how they test "projected military desertion rates in a homeland campaign", but it's probably about right. When the Chinese put down the students in Tiananmen Square, they brought in soldiers from a distant ethic group that didn't have any natural affiliation to the Han Chinese, because even they were worried about the "People's Army refusing to turn on their own", and that's in a totalitarian country that couldn't care less about rights, and where civilians don't have guns at all. They are practical tyrants, and any refusal by the army might have led to a much wider revolt.

Paul Revere simply proved the value of information and communication.

I can't imagine any armed rebellion actually succeeding in the US now. Guns are only part of it. You need a majority of the people behind your cause. The government has too much control over key information and communication infrastructure, and the political side of it is too difficult. You can't succeed without popular support. Vietnam proved you can't even win a foreign war without domestic public support. The US won every battle fought in that war, except the one for public opinion at home. Of course, Vietnam was more complicated than that, but the point is still valid.

Look at Northern Ireland. Decades of "the troubles" made for a drawn out stalemate. The IRA disarmed for a political voice. The British remain in charge. Eventually, wars have to be resolved politically.

Face it. The 2nd amendment will survive because Americans just like having guns...and always have. There's no other reason.

Is there a better reason?

Skydiving survives because people like jumping out of planes. Does it need a better reason?

-
Here let me change that for you Tom .

being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep Skydiving , shall not be infringed .
.

Well not everyone here agrees with that... besides I don't see anywhere in the 2nd amendment that it says, "all arms except nuclear arms." Or, "the right of the people (except people convicted of felonies)..."

After all, you can be a felon and still exercise your free speech, so why not bearing arms too?

You are putting forth special exceptions into the amendment, that a literal reading does not in any way support. You have really just been dodging the question.

Some people said there is no room for debate when it comes to our bill of rights. Well fuck me, here's a debate. Now if you're going to say felons can't own nukes, you have to explain why the 2nd amendment does not apply to them. And then, one might wonder what other exceptions to the 2nd amendment exist.

Simple ownership of certain weapons can cause harm, in the extreme cases of the most destructive weapons. Imagine the day we discover Iran owns a nuke, of course there will be some harms emanating from that. Even if the physical presence of a nuke in Iran does not directly, mechanically hurt someone. You can downplay what it means for an implied threat to exist, but it is silly to say that it doesn't have predictable consequences for human behavior.

And the problem with immediate harms (like yelling "fire"), is that it is exceptionally difficult to mitigate, right? Why single out immediate harms, if there are other potential devastating harms that are difficult to prevent? We block felons from firearms because society decided that it is too harmful to even let them have guns. So what's the limit, and why are only "immediate" harms, and not other serious potential harms?

Who gets to define "immediate," anyway?

Look, these are more rhetorical questions, I am not a big gun control advocate. These are the interesting gray areas, where people said no debate exists, I think we are proving that there will always be debates, that no principle is eternally black and white, and every right has some limit somewhere if you look hard enough. The 2nd amendment argument can only be carried so far, even if like me, you really like guns.

At the point that you restrict people's behavior because of "implied threats" or because it has some negative emotional consequence for others, you're no longer talking about measurable harms.

If you maintain that allowing someone to own a "scary" thing causes real harms, then it's easy to extend the same logic to say that letting people _do_ "scary" things, even if it doesn't hurt someone else, can be banned by the collective. I absolutely reject that notion. What's next, being "scared" by gay people getting married? Keeping "scary" looking people with "scary" skin colors out of your town? Jumping off bridges is pretty "scary" for most people, so that probably ought to be banned too, right?

If simply being made uneasy is a measurable harm, you have a right to act to prevent that harm, don't you?



Yes, because of their immediacy. Passive ownership of an inanimate object is not an immediate harm. Simply owning something causes no harm to others. Hurt feelings don't count--even if that guy over there looks _really_ scary.



Because of their immediacy. There are other ways to prevent other harms. If there is some other way to prevent a harm--one which does not involve violating fundamental human rights--then that is the method that ought to be used.

Just because you have a way that you think can prevent a harm _does not_ make it the best method for doing so.



In the American jurisprudential sense? The courts.

But it's simpler to ask a 5 year old. Just like trying to figure out if that thing you just jumped is a building. Just ask a 5 year old "did that guy hurt that guy?"

I'm not convinced there is, and if people are honest, they don't own guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from bad government any more than they skydive for that reason.

I just want Lee's Abrams tank for a couple of hours to innocently pound some heavy rounds into a mound of dirt somewhere. That would be cool...

" Some people said there is no room for debate when it comes to our bill of rights. Well fuck me, here's a debate. Now if you're going to say felons can't own nukes, you have to explain why the 2nd amendment does not apply to them. And then, one might wonder what other exceptions to the 2nd amendment exist ".

There is no debate. You are making no sense with trolling the continued pursuit of citizens owning nuclear weapon under the 2nd . I don't have to explain shit to you why American convinced on felonies cant own Nukes .
.

I'm honestly not trolling you, Ray, and I'm sorry for fixating on an absurd example. I'm trying to get you to say what weapons you think a person can legally own, and what they can't. And why. I agree 100% with you that no individual should own nukes. I'd also agree 100% that any non-felon, non-mentally-ill person should be able to own a handgun. I even like concealed carry without a permit, in most places. But what about machine guns, grenades, RPGs, tanks, and militarized fighter jets. Or certain no-gun zones. Because I do not know exactly where I would personally draw the line.

Although I do think in general, as someone who (mostly) supports gun rights, that supporting your argument with the 2nd amendment can get really flimsy sometimes. And I can support that with case law in addition to logic.

I think those are really good points. Especially when you are looking at it from the perspective of first principles, and what rights do we want to protect for individuals in society. But on some level of reality, some degrees of "scariness" are unacceptable to society, aren't they? i.e. an Al Qaeda wanna-be with a WMD. And we say, sorry bub, maybe you should have this right, but we're going to deliberately ignore your right. And I think there is moral precedent for that in certain cases. Immediate threat or not. That's what happens, in practice. Is it always wrong?


That is circular logic. "Immediate" harms do not have a monopoly on being difficult to mitigate. And some immediate harms are easy to mitigate.


It's not about if it "looks scary," it's about rational risk assessment. A dumb law bans guns because they look scary. A wise law might bar a 3-times violent sex offender from carrying.

And to shrink a lengthy paragraph- knowledge of a potential threat should be included in risk management. The facts may be "scary" or "not scary" but an objective assessment should not be about fear anyway. And "scary" is a subjective, flexible word that can turn into straw-man territory really quickly.

In general, I think "immediacy" is actually the wrong criterion to focus on. Although it might be a convenient proxy sometimes. I think what is more in line with moral, rational, risk management is to identify harms that are intolerably dangerous. And that's incredibly subjective, as jumpers know all-too-well.


I agree, I don't think I've argued otherwise. But in some cases, the best method for preventing a harm does involve burdens on others. And I probably wouldn't have to look far to find examples you'd agree with.


Though, the courts are not arbitrary, they need to judge "immediacy" (or some other "criteria" we'd mutually agree on) according to some reason or precedent, too. Hopefully that reasoning is accessible to folks who have to make decisions at the scene, in the heat of the moment, too.

As for the 5-year old test, it might be a handy tool to check if an object is a building or not. I would not be as confident in it, in abstract debate or deciding if a risk of harm is tolerable to a society.

Great points you raise though. I feel like we've had the same discussion in the past, over a variety of pretenses. We probably don't differ much on our personal limits, we just tend to emphasize different things in debate.

-
sorry for being aggravated, but I like being challenged to go against my line of thought & the Nuke thing was not doing it for me .

The Felon who has served his time or punishment is a touchy subject and I don't believe in a lot of cases that He/She should be removed of many his Rights for life . A lot of people fuckup and make bad decisions convicted of Felony with the end result being loss of ownership/purchase possession of Firearms . You serve your time then you should be 'free' but that is not the case for the majority that are caught-up on petty drug and other convictions where there is no history a repeat offender or career criminal .
Plus our government made of professional attorneys and career politician really is ruthlely buiding a never-ending onslaught on it public year by year by the yearly addition to thousands of Felony laws , regulations . It's to the point right now that everyone is a potential felon for the thousands Federal Criminal, Federal regulations & IRS law & regulations . And if not at this time it will come in the near future here in the United States . The BEST anyone will be able to do is try to follow the law by discretely living his life by flying under the radar and Not bringing attention to himself .
.
& now you have to excuse me for awhile as I need to go out & work some Rounds out & give a new firearm a workout that I just purchased this week, to decide if It is really worthy of my time and ownership with me keeping it .
.

& Add a little more fuel to the Fire .

5-15-13
http://www.globalresearch.ca/...disturbances/5335110
.

As a military member, I don't know if it is sad or funny that some people will believe that. Probably sad.

Keep em coming. after all, what are the conspiracy theorists going to do without poorly written, pseudo-"news", articles to uncritically read and accept? And after all, what fun is it to actually understand the law. It's way more fun to flip out and then, hey, you have another reason to hate the poltical figure of your choice.

If Jed Morey is so smart maybe he can explain how the military managed to change U.S. law by fiat. Maybe Fox News will interview him. Or offer him a job for his outstanding journalism capability, that is in line with the rest of the "journalists" there.

Hey I did not write the articles that appear this week around the Net. I am just spreading the Luv .
but this & other similar 'Agitation ' articles Seems to be based off a Document in regulation in the U.S. Code with the main concern from written changes or amendments added to document stating local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbance . supposedly there was something changed or amendment added this month to make several websites pop out similar articles this week .

( I think ) this Link is there base of focus for writing the agitation pieces that appeared .
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C18.txt

It is kind of lengthy & it's written in language of Government ' Legalesse ' .
but I picked out some things out of it like this before my head goes Numb & my eyes get blurry & glazed .

( Example ) cut & paste
Support to Other Agencies. - During fiscal years 2012 through 2014,
the Secretary of Defense may provide support for
the counter-drug activities of any other department or agency of the
Federal Government or of any State, local, tribal, or foreign law
enforcement agency for any of the purposes set forth in subsection
(b) if such support is requested -
"(1) by the official who has responsibility for the counter-
.
.

More fun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/war-powers-obama-administration_n_3288420.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing6%7Cdl22%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D314540

So much for the idea that congress has the power to declare war.

Lee

I know, i know-- no offense meant towards you :)

I did browse the multitude of websites that carried that story. The vast majority seemed to be exact copies of the original article. Some credited the original author, some just plagiarized.

It really does take an army of lawyers to parse the law, but they key provision which has not changed is section 375, which orders the sec. def. to ensure that no military people participate directly in "search, seizure, arrest, or similar activity."

The exceptions that are on the books are, as you pointed out, geared towards drug interdiction or intelligence sharing (especially also counter-terrorism). One of the biggest failures in preventing 9/11 was identified to be poor intelligence sharing.. i.e. military had lots of good info, but by law, was very limited in working with the FBI to help them connect the dots. Basically, civilian agencies can ask the military for intelligence products, but military people need to stay behind their desks while helping.

I agree I do not want the cops having access to military grade capabilities all the time. But I direct my frustration at the civilian agencies that are trying to play big brother, not the military, because honestly the military has been plenty enough deploying to everywhere else in the world.

Maybe your article just annoyed me because it made it sound like the military was going after power, instead of what is actually happening, which is civilian agencies going after military power, all over the country.

quote:
.... " I agree I do not want the cops having access to military grade capabilities all the time. But I direct my frustration at the civilian agencies that are trying to play big brother, "

A little off the subject but speaking of that . I really don't mind the local LE having FA weapons & other class3, destructive device & guns/ammo to play with . They should have & know anything that any other local citizen can buy & play with & I like the fact they stay current on all the toys .
BUT . my local County LE has a V150 armored vehicle . this model does NOT have the 90mm gun turret on top .. but WTF they need with that & it's not that rough on the streets around here for that thing, Where I live is NOT the big mean city . need it To do battle with what/who ??? .
.

Check out the last line in this NRA Job Ad!
http://careers.nra.org/job-openings.aspx#1521
Well, you wouldn't want criminals driving your office calculator, you'd never know what they'll do...
It won't work anyway. The only way to stop a bad guy with a calculator is with a good guy with a bigger calculator.

"The exceptions that are on the books are, as you pointed out, geared towards drug interdiction or intelligence sharing (especially also counter-terrorism). One of the biggest failures in preventing 9/11 was identified to be poor intelligence sharing.. i.e. military had lots of good info, but by law, was very limited in working with the FBI to help them connect the dots. Basically, civilian agencies can ask the military for intelligence products, but military people need to stay behind their desks while helping."

Wow you are so programed by our wonderful government you cant see 2ft in front of you! Yep I will be a convicted felon on pot growing charges... Wow hurt a bunch of folks lots of blood on my drugs! Really no blood, very peaceful person with no harm to anyone.... Unlike the Cartels. We all need to be armed including me to stand up aginist bullshit propaganda that is the remained 12 al-caida folks and the rest of us felons that have no rights.. Think you should leave this country douchbag!!!

To bad you were't there to help them

nah it was my buddies who shot him.

what on earth were you trying to rant about, anyway??