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.
True. People can presume their right to bear arms entitles them to a nuclear arsenal in their back yard because an expressed limit wasn't spelled out by founders who knew nothing about wmd capacity. Back in a time when men settled their differences with a duel instead of hiding behind the skirts of women or using children as human shields.
Stuck on stupid applies to both sides of these arguments, so don't think you're on moral high ground entirely. Becomes a no brainer when you substitute the word 'rights' for responsibility. Each one of those rights is a responsibility, and some really aren't up to the task. Licensing isn't that much of a burden and I'd vote against outrageous fees. Neither side of this argument deserves a blank check.
With all due respect,
People who presume that a right to keep & bear arms relates to nukes ect have little to stand on. A careful look at the arguements of the time makes it very evident that the true intent was to enable free people to protect themselves, their families & their neighbors from attack, whether by criminals, animals or a tyrannical Govt. Now if a state or locality put together a militia they would be within their rights to procure artillery etc. Nukes though would be tough, theres not much defensive about them and the second is all about defense, not offense,
I'm not trying to set myself on moral high ground. I'm simply expressing the obvious intent of the founders. If they wanted guns to be licensed they would have said so, licenseing is infringement. It is true that with those rights comes responsibility. The difference is that in every other case the punishment comes after you prove yourself irresponsible.
You cannot yell "FIRE" in a theatre, but you dont need a mouth license either. IF you yell fire in a theatre you face the consequences of your actions. IF you use a gun in a criminal manner you should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But just as with free speech pryor restraints are wrong & not codified anywhere in the constitution in regards to the Bill Of Rights. If a person proves they cannot be trusted with a right or responsability so be it, but requireing them to prove they can be trusted turns a right into a privilage & allows people with an agenda to dictate who gets what based on their whim.
That said, permits are not arent that big a burden depending on how its administered. Places like NYC & DC have permits but nobody can get one. Other places hand them out with a simple backround check.
But, just because something may not be burdensome doesn't mean its not unconstitutional. Assuming that everyone is a criminal is wrong IMO & thats what licensing a right amounts to. In todays world with the way we allow criminals to walk among us its difficult to respect any rights as they were intended. But that,IMO is wherein the issue lies, tolerance of the intolerable.
First of all, you have a right to allow or disallow people on your property, to include posting a "no trespassing" sign if you so desire.
That was my point. The 2nd. does not trump other constitutional rights.
That you would feel so threatened by the sight of one of your neighbors exercising their constitutional right, sounds like anti-gun paranoia from the extreme left, but, in any case, you have dominion over your property, as it should be.
My neighbors are not the problem. My friends are not the problem. In fact, a dear friend of mine came to visit with his wife and 16 legal machine guns in January so we could shoot in the Arizona desert. But if a stranger walks up to my door with a gun, I'll ask him to leave until he removes the gun from the premises.
But I would ask you ... when guns are outlawed (thanks to lame logic like this) what pray tell are you going use to run a real intruder off with? (keeping in mind, if they are criminals, they're likely to have one of those guns that you no longer are allowed to have!)
You have made a big leap with the above statement. I've never implied that guns should be outlawed only that there are some reasonable restrictions and responsibilities inherint with gun ownership. As usual there is no middle ground with people like you only absolutes. You've taken my reasonable caution concerning strangers with guns on my property and twisted it into "outlawing guns".
The line should be drawn at the law, and not some imaginary boundary between what government considers reasonable and what the people may consider asinine nonsense. Follow the law.
The law is exactly what we gun rights advocates continually work with state, local and federal agencies to interpret to the benefit of society as a whole, keeping in mind that gun ownership is a right and not a privilige.
And I'm sorry to inform you that the 2nd amendment doesn't say " .... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ... except for people that mohoawkx considers unworthy, unqualified or potentially dangerous (which could include just about everyone, based on your previous fears about people carrying those scary guns on your property).
Under certain conditions society, through the use of legislation can and does limit or remove those rights for the benefit of the people. We work with the legislators to insure that the process is justifiable and remove those laws that are not. This is where you and I part ways. You speak as a "constitutional absolutist" but it is only your interpretation that furthers your own agenda. My interpretation of the constitution is "what is the greatest benefit to society as a whole."
Moreover, the "People" implies adult citizens that are protected under the constitution, not children, and certainly not illegal aliens, who, if the government actually did the job it is supposed to do under the constitution, (protect the F'ing borders) there wouldn't be an issue.
Where in the constitution does it say children are not people? Or is it "your" implication?
Now this might come as a shock to you, but the government has made it possible for illegals to impersonate a legal citizen by accepting the "Matricula Consular" ID that anyone can get under any name they want at a Mexican Consulate office, and then go to one of 13 state motor vehicle administrations to get a legal drivers license. Once obtained, that illegal can go to any of the other 37 states, turn that legal license in for another, even in a state that only issues them to citizens and legal residents. Over 800 law enforcement agencies and 74 banks now accept "Matricula Consular" as valid ID. And this form of ID is used almost exclusively by illegals, because legal immigrants and visitors have US provided documentation. So why not fix that insanity rather than using it as an excuse to violate a citizen's rights?
Then the system needs to be changed. Not abandoned completely. Are you suggesting that we should abandon the NICS check, Form 4473?
Why not insist that the government obey the laws (just as they insist we do) rather than going to such lengths as you do, making excuses for why they are justified in violating the law? You cannot have justice in a land where government is above the law, no matter if it is sometimes inconvenient.
I make no excuses for the government violating the law. I, and others work within the existing legislative system to bring common sense and responsibility to current gun laws and remove those that don't. You, on the other hand would be thrown out on your ear by those that make the law, with your rhetoric. Credibility is more important than dogma in the current gun rights debate on state and local levels. In the last year we have gotten CCW in establishments that serve alcohol and we have an approved bill allowing CCW without a permit in Arizona just waiting for the governor's signature.
It's the same premise that provides protection in the justice system. Yes, sometimes criminals get off by using those protections, but they are there to protect the innocent, and must remain intact, in spite of the potential for misuse. The same holds true of the right to bear arms.
I would agree with you on this. How we achieve the common end is where we disagree.
Great. With friends like you, the Constitution and We The People don't need enemies. And it explains why our rights have become privileges to be denied at the sole discretion of the "authorities", and the self anointed voices of reason who think they are WISER than those who drafted the constitution.
It is a tough battle. We not only have to battle the hysterical rantings of the anti-gun crowd and the Brady bunch but we are percieved as enemies by the constitutional absolutists who provide no forum for solutions, only rants of their interpretation of the constitution. You and your ilk will never be credible in the arena that really matters and that can bring real positive change for gun rights in America.
And they would be correct, and you would be wrong. And I don't believe these people are advocating arming children and psychopaths with machine guns ... this is your biased and rather irrational commentary being attached to them ... but unlike you, these people understand that a right restricted is no longer a right ... it then becomes a privilege .. and privileges can be denied altogether.
They understand, as most rational people who are actually a student of history, and have paid attention to the actions of government (not the rhetoric), that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Just how do you suppose all of these unconstitutional gun restrictions came into being in the first place? I'll tell you how ... it came about by panty waist, milquetoast Americans who allowed their rights to be stripped from them ... with many actually supporting those violations for various reasons and rationale.
The founding fathers knew all too well the threat government posed to the freedoms and liberty of the people, which is why they left no room for such rationalizing and restrictions with the very clear statement "... shall not be infringed". And you have no authority, moral or otherwise, to bargain OUR rights away, for any reason. Just WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? And who anointed you the arbiter for the people?
If you think you can do better, I suggest you take your half baked, all or nothing stance and present it to those who actually make the laws and see how far you get. You are about the 20th person who has parroted the same constitutional rant and none, not one, has effected any positive change for the gun rights community. Get a clue. You work within the system or be ineffective. That's your choice.
You and your group obviously loath the constitution, and freedom, and anyone who doesn't agree with your dangerous ideas of what a "right" actually is. (you sound like the extremist ... a left wing extremist, passing himself off as a gun advocate in stealth, kinda like the NRA) And the solutions to these "problems" you are concerned about is contained in the right itself ... the right to self defense, and the ability (if armed) to do it, which includes felons and psychopaths who will find a gun regardless of the law. And if a psychopath has a gun, I'd like to think he wasn't the only one with a gun when he decides to go crazy, but he may one day be, given the ill conceived ideas presented here.
I'll just let this ridiculous rant speak for it's self.
And no, these people are not the biggest threat to our rights to keep and bear arms. I would say you and your group of civic activists who are portraying yourselves as 2nd amendment advocates are the greater danger. You are the ones advocating the government's right to illegally convert that right to a privilege, which is the biggest hurdle to overcome before an outright ban.
We will never see eye to eye on this issue. Your suppositions and conclusions of what I and other organized gun-rights groups represent are totally wrong and warped by your blindness.
Only a traitor would be so bold, and only a sycophant would agree. The language of the 2nd amendment is very clear, and leaves no room whatsoever for such "interpretation". Only a constitutional amendment, legally executed according to the procedures clearly outlined in the constitution, and ratified by 3/4 of the States can change the law as it is written. It's not up to 5 pompous, activist, appointed justices to decide to rewrite the constitution as THEY see fit. Their job is to properly interpret the intent of the law as it is written, and enforce it. And NO ONE who is reasonably proficient in the english language could possibly find the intent for "subject to reasonable restrictions" anywhere in the second amendment, or anywhere that the constitution addresses a "right".
The Supreme Court did and they are the law of the land. You certainly won't change anything to our benefit with your all or nothing attitude. Now I'm suddenly a traitor for trying to effect positive change for our cause? What have you done lately, except rant on the internet?
That's just it isn't it ... what is reasonable. I say you cannot rely on government to ever be reasonable. They may be from time to time, but only when it suits them. And they have never demonstrated a great deal of integrity, so why would you think they will start now? The framers of the constitution didn't write this into the law of the land to protect hunters, or even to ensure the people the right to defend themselves against other citizens. They established that right in order for the people to prevent government from imposing tyranny, and they made no secret of it .... "when government fears the people, there is liberty, when people fear the government there is tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson
"What is Reasonable" is the battle we fight right now. You'll be suprised to hear that the majority of society do not believe that there is a tyrant around every corner. We acknowledge that there are some misguided legislators, but tyrants?....no.
The old west reference is appropriate. The restrictions on carrying a firearm into a saloon for example, was a local ordinance, agreeable to the people of that jurisdiction, and began and ended there. It was not an infringement, because you had a choice to enter the saloon or not enter. It was private property, and subject to the property owner's rules, as they might agree with the "elected" sheriff for their town. It was a cooperative agreement, and not an imposed rule to be used as a precursor for more stringent restrictions.
You have proven my entire first post on the subject with this statement. Reasonable, agreeable restrictions are necessary for the common good. What is reasonable is the crux of the whole argument and is the battle our gun rights organizations fight on a daily basis.
But, at the same time, it was also common to return a man's firearm to him upon parole from prison, once he had served his time and paid his debt.
Now I'm not an advocate of violent criminals and psychopaths carrying firearms. No sane person would be. But, no sane person would expect a criminal or a psychopath to obey the law either ... including gun laws, which is the folly of such ideas to begin with.
So what is reasonable to one, may not be reasonable to society as a whole.
Prior to the recent Supreme Cout decision upholding the 2nd amendment, as it applies to the individual, the District of Columbia had the strictest gun laws in the country, yet always placed in the top tier for violent crime. And statistics show that violent crime is highest where firearm restrictions are greatest. This is precisely the argument anti-gun advocates choose to ignore. They don't want to confront reason, nor do they want to apply reason to any of their arguments.
I agree as do most, gun laws against law abiding citizens do not deter criminals.
Gun free zones are a criminal's first choice for conducting their nefarious activities, and the ultimate fantasy Island for liberal leftist nuts.
The only legitimate definition of gun control is the ability to hit your intended target. All others are just stealth attempts to disarm the people in small incremental steps.
We are currently working on the gun free zone laws to have them modified but within the realm of common sense. Bottom line, the antis will never get the support to ban all guns in this country nor will the constitutional absolutists get the ability to carry anything, anywhere at any time. Meanwhile reasonable restrictions are here to stay. The only question is what is reasonable and responsible that best serves the interests of society and the constitution. I and others fight for our rights every day in the venues that matter. You on the other hand bluster on about your interpretation of the constitution as if it belong solely to you. It belongs to all the people.
So much talk about the Constitution,as if we r a Yale graduates reunion...
Constitution is the will of the Amer people...
When 20-30% of people & the left wing of the Dems are anti gun,
when the pro gun r naive or stupid & trap themselves with gun free zones,even in the red states,
when they give to the...faculty the right to decide on bearing arms in campuses ,
(... like giving to the wolves the right to decide ...about sheep...)
then we must work out a strategy & work...
No more talks & time wasted on unrealistic ideas,like no licensing...
In Arizona, no license / permit is required to own, or openly carry, any firearm.
A permit is required to carry a concealed weapon. My wife and I have the concealed weapons permit.
There are a few locales, private businesses and some government locales, that do not permit firearms in their places of business. And, unless expressly prohibited, and such prohibitions posted, you can carry your firearm in any business or locale.
So you would have no problem with ANYONE, children included since they are US citizens carrying guns? I mean since you do not feel there should be any restrictions it is all in or nothing.
Casper
It's legal in Vermont for those under age 16 to carry guns with the consent of their parents. Hasn't caused a problem here.
Yes, I know. I have a carry permit, and I think anyone who wants to carry a firearm in public should get qualified to do so. Much like a driver licence. Otherwise you'll have daddies buying 45 semis to their kids and they simply load them and tuck them under their belts and run off to school to show they their buddies. Where is the sense in that?
Here in MS, all I need is an FBI background check and fingerprints given to the state police to get a concealed carry license. It's been that way since 1990 and there aren't any more instances of stupidity and firearms like you describe than any other place. I haven't checked but I'll bet there are less per capita since most kids are taught at an early age to respect the power of a gun.
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.
