Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it is a privilege granted by government to bear arms, or type of arms, then it is in the power of government to ERADICATE that privilege.
If it is a right that existed BEFORE government, which was instituted to SECURE RIGHTS, then government has no delegated power to ERADICATE, REGULATE, RESTRICT or INFRINGE that right.
Can't have it both ways.
Either it's a RIGHT secured, or it is a PRIVILEGE denied.
Why is it that right wingers never seem able to count higher than two?
Those are not the only options.
this must always mean that liberal nutbags cant seem to count at all, because they can never get past the number 2 without having a discussion about it.
If it is a privilege granted by government to bear arms, or type of arms, then it is in the power of government to ERADICATE that privilege.
If it is a right that existed BEFORE government, which was instituted to SECURE RIGHTS, then government has no delegated power to ERADICATE, REGULATE, RESTRICT or INFRINGE that right.
Can't have it both ways.
Either it's a RIGHT secured, or it is a PRIVILEGE denied.
Since government for many years already REGULATES, RESTRICTS, and INFRINGES the right to keep and bear arms, we do have it both ways. .
Since government for many years already REGULATES, RESTRICTS, and INFRINGES the right to keep and bear arms, we do have it both ways. .
That is incorrect.
The government regulates, restricts, and infringes the PRIVILEGE of persons (which excludes the sovereign people) to keep and bear arms.
Check the laws, yourself.
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).
"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
.................
Title 18 USC § 921 (firearms)
(a) As used in this chapter
(1) The term person and the term whoever include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.
............
Title 18 USC § 922 (firearms)
(a) It shall be unlawful
(1) for any person ...
.................
If you think "sovereign" means "government", you should read these:
The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
.................
Do you see that servant government has NOT infringed upon the rights of the sovereign people to bear arms - only those subject persons.
Perhaps you should inquire into how you became a "person liable" to obey.
Personal rights can be regulated by laws where the harm to society or the trend in a society is in a particular direction. For example, it's my personal right to consume LSD. But the potential to harm in society because of it (loss of capital for commerce, increased health care costs for me, increased potential to harm for me and others, supporting criminal gangs, etc) mean that the harm to society is great enough that society has deemed it important to regulate it (in this case ban it).
Wikipedia is a poor substitute for legitimate education, and serves only as a talking point source for the intellectually lazy.
Not that I advocate the use of LSD ... but the "harm to society" is pure nonsensical gibberish, and such harm that you stipulated is born of it being a "banned" substance. If it were not banned, there would be no gangs of black market drug dealers dealing it, as such criminals are the creation of the law banning it, not the user using it. Secondly, the notion that personally consuming a substance of that nature might affect one's ability to contribute to society assumes one to be obligated to make such collectivist contribution to begin with, as well as the silly notion that you are needed for society to function. Neither is true ... your obligation to society begins and ends in the respecting of others individual rights, and the world would keep spinning and never know you were gone, if you drifted off into a perpetual state of LSD induced la-la land. You just aren't that important. And so far as the costs of your "upkeep" might be a concern, that too is born of the collectivist mentality that demands that all individuals must contribute to your upkeep, when such maintenance is solely your responsibility.
This is the nature of modern day "liberalism" which should simply be called what it is ... authoritarian collectivist tyranny, who's initial violation of individual liberty leads to the next, and the next, and the next. The first error was made by declaring that the "collective" has the right to violate the individual's liberty by demanding of him his "contribution" to society's greater good. Then, once that is established, the collective can then dictate every other detail of that person's behavior for which the collective considers counterproductive to his ability to make such forced contribution. It's the snake eating it's own tail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
Whereas culturally before we were willing to overlook massacres like what just happened and just say "them's the side effects of gun ownership" or place blame on the owners of the guns, etc.; nowadays culturally we are less willing to say this same thing.
I don't know if a cultural shift has happened or not, but I sense the trend is towards more regulation, which the government has every right to do according to its charter we, the people, granted it with the country's founding.
Such concepts are not new. Refer to John Stuart Mill in his treatise "On Liberty"... and before you write him off as some European liberal, he lived in the 1800s and is by far and away by today's standards a conservative.
Even he said that when harm to a society comes from a particular direction, or the potential for harm exists, and the culture of the people dictate an unwillingness to live with that threat, or where popular opinion is for regulation or loosening of regulations, then it should be permitted.
You have selectively "mined" Mill's words and distorted them to fit your narrative. And this is typical behavior of the modern day "liberal" who grants themselves license to engage in all forms of intellectual dishonesty, often shown in the propensity to ignore all that doesn't fit, or turning upside down whatever necessary to make it fit. But, quite to the contrary of what you insinuate, Mill was directly opposed to what you suggest, and this is clear in Mill's introduction "On Liberty, where he writes:
"Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression ...."
Mill was a "classic liberal", which just so happens to represent the polar opposite of modern day progressive liberal philosophy, who's foundation promotes a "collectivist tyranny" where the vocal majority or collective can and should override the rights of the individual .... for the "greater good". But this is both a morally and intellectually bankrupt philosophy created and promoted by authoritarian types, and consumed by fools who simply lack the wisdom to recognize what is and is not in their own best interests, or that of the collective society as a whole.
All liberty, both individual and that of society as a whole, relies on recognizing and respecting individual rights as paramount, because when you respect the rights of the individual, this automatically translates to the "collective", since the "collective" is nothing more than a collection of many individuals. By contrast, when you violate the rights of just one individual under the false pretense of the greater good, each individual within that "collective" have had their personal liberty compromised. As Martin Luther King said "an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere". And that basic philosophy translates perfectly to individual rights ..... a violation of one person's rights is a violation of every person's rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
I find the Buddhist "do not do harm" concept so much easier... strict gun control should be enabled just because the potential for harm is so great.
To the individual denied the most effective tool for self defense, for whatever reason dreamed up, he is indeed being harmed. He is being placed in the vulnerable position of being less capable of defending himself from potential future acts of violence against him, while this imposed vulnerability makes such possibilities more likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
Will this stop similar crimes from happening? No. Recently 28 children in China were maimed by a madman with a kitchen knife.
Note the difference: 'maimed' not 'murdered' ... there are still 28 children ALIVE in China due to guns being banned. There are 20 DEAD children here. Do the math - which culture is more enlightened in this regard?
Again, more intellectual dishonesty. You cite this one example as if that has any meaningful value. The reality is, people have been murdered, in masse, for thousands of years prior to the invention of firearms. But we should not miss the delusional nature of citing China as your model of enlightened society ... wearing your Chairman Mao tee shirt today, I see? You liberals really are mentally deranged. I'll have you know that there is not one individual in all of human history who murdered more people than Mao Zedong .... estimates range from 40-60 Million Chinese, and there exists no place on earth today that has better mastered the art of tyranny and oppression than communist China, who has held the collectivist thumb pressing down on over a Billion of it's people, creating the largest collective imprisoned population in all of human history.
So it seems you agree with China's declaration that the USA needs to disarm it's citizens ...
Note that I do not say that this should be revoked. By no means is this true nor is it permissible by our Constitution. Self defense is a basic right. But a wide enough net should be cast to greatly reduce such tragedies from occurring in the future.
Please note that one of the first agendas of such despotic dictators like Mao, and every other one throughout history was the complete disarming of the population .... because it's really not hard to see why such a dictator might not want a populace capable of resisting the coming tyranny. By the same token, the 2nd amendment was put there as a protection against such tyranny.
And tyranny does not just appear out of thin air one morning as you have your cup of coffee. Tyranny stalks it's victims, emerging quietly and covertly, in a step by step, incremental fashion over time ... slowly but surely dismantling the protections against it, while constructing it's own support structures, and convincing the masses by either deception or fear or use of force, to accept it, once it has established a firm foundation.
This concept of incrementalism is as old as time ... yet time after time, it works on the weak minded who seem to have no grasp of history, and appear to just mindlessly follow the latest trend. But your intellectual shortcomings and irrational fears cannot be allowed to compromise our "collective" liberty, by limiting and then removing the most effective tool for ensuring that tyranny will have no easy victory over a well armed public who know why that 2nd Amendment must be defended.
It is a natural right protected by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
As we all know, the feds pay no attention to said document, so that wont stop them from overstepping their bounds and attempting to implement a "ban" on something simply because it looks scary.
It "looks scary?" How about it's terrifying when 1st grade kids are killed using a gun. There just is no way around that.
The greater the glorification of guns, the more nuttiness with guns will prevail. As for someone intent on being a suicidal maniac on a killing spree, nothing is going to stop... even if it takes a different form of "arms" to do so... like bombs. What are the consequences of a populace armed with bombs and rocket launchers?
In times not long ago a lot of kids (myself included) were brought to firing ranges after school because it was fun. Some kids even brought their own .22's with them to school and yet school shootings were virtually unheard of. It is NOT the glorification of guns, but the glorification of violence coupled with a heads-in-the-sand attitude toward mental unhealth (witness all the sanctioned drugging in schools and the mainstreaming of kids who'd likely be much better off in special ed) that have contributed to the uptick in school shootings. I'm not saying that your typical Ritalin kid or autistic/Aspberger's kid is a danger to others. What I am suggesting is that, in our collective (and not unworthy) desire to see that these kids are not stigmatized, we've turned a blind eye to the fact that some kids need special attention in an environment fitting their pathology.
That is incorrect.
The government regulates, restricts, and infringes the PRIVILEGE of persons (which excludes the sovereign people) to keep and bear arms.
Check the laws, yourself.
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).
"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
.................
Title 18 USC § 921 (firearms)
(a) As used in this chapter
(1) The term person and the term whoever include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.
............
Title 18 USC § 922 (firearms)
(a) It shall be unlawful
(1) for any person ...
.................
If you think "sovereign" means "government", you should read these:
The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
.................
Do you see that servant government has NOT infringed upon the rights of the sovereign people to bear arms - only those subject persons.
Perhaps you should inquire into how you became a "person liable" to obey.
OK. Waiting periods, permits, licenses, fingerprints, background checks, denial based on criminal activity or mental conditon, mandatory safety classes, and other laws REGULATE, RESTRICT, and INFRINGE on 'subject' people, not 'the sovereign' people. Good luck when you tell the judge you're one of the sovereign people, not subject to the laws. Or will you hole up in your compound until government surrenders.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You liberals really are mentally deranged. I'll have you know that there is not one individual in all of human history who murdered more people than Mao Zedong .... estimates range from 40-60 Million Chinese, and there exists no place on earth today that has better mastered the art of tyranny and oppression than communist China, who has held the collectivist thumb pressing down on over a Billion of it's people, creating the largest collective imprisoned population in all of human history. 