Ammo for the gun lobby

[Toad]

Originally posted by Thud:
I think that with the present situation regarding firearms (i.e. so much people having them without needing them) it might be necessary to reconsider that basic right now that's obvious that only few people are sensible enough to not own firearms... After all, nowadays people essentially don't need guns like they once did, right?

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

What else are you prepared to let the government or some influential lobby group decide you "essentially don't need"?

This is EXACTLY what Brandeis was talking about.

I think we'd all be far better worrying about what changes we've allowed in society that have removed many individuals' sense of responsibility and accountability.

How did it come about that children think a proper solution after being disciplined is to stick a gun in the face of their teacher, kill him and then claim "I didn't mean to do it" and "I didn't know it was loaded"?

 

[mietla]

Originally posted by Thud:
What worries me though is that so much people choose to exercise that right their forefathers were given in entirely different circumstances.

Fundamental rights affirmed (not granted) by the Constitution are unalienable and eternal (or at least until the dump the Constitution). The Constitution does not grant us any rights. It does not limit nor restricts The People in any way. It affirms our rights and restricts the government.

The circumstances are not different. Just like king George was after The People, so is the current government. If you ask me, I think that the situation is much worse. They are taking half of our income and threaten to jail us if we protest. They decide how fast you can drive, what you smoke and  which school your kid goes to. They are slowly eating us alive. All Amendments are under constant assault and the Tenth is utterly ignored.

The Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment for a specific reason. Not to target practice and not to hunt (as the libs would like to portrait it), but to overthrow the government when it gets injust.

   

I think that with the present situation regarding firearms (i.e. so much people having them without needing them) it might be necessary to reconsider that basic right now that's obvious that only few people are sensible enough to not own firearms.
To be specific: I don't advocate changing the constitution (duh) but significantly raising the criteria for letting people exercise that right might be an answer.
[/b]

Could not disagree with you more. If the government can arbitrarily decide who can "qualify" to exercise their fundamental right and who can't, the right has effectively been taken away.

BTW, do you really "need" to eat three times a day?
Do you really "need" running water in your house?
Do you really "need" all the money you make?

After all, nowadays people essentially don't need guns like they once did, right?[/b]

Absolutely wrong.

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]

[Thud]

Posted by Mietla:

"Fundamental rights affirmed (not granted) by the Constitution are unalienable and eternal (or at least until the dump the Constitution). The Constitution does not grant us any rights. It does not limit nor restricts The People in any way. It affirms our rights and restricts the government."

Exactly, that is why I stated that not the constitution itself should be changed but that the legal demands on citizen for getting guns should be more strict. It's not the constitutional right that would be violated, it would only be augmented by laws which would adapt it a little bit more to today's society.  

"The circumstances are not different. Just like king George was after The People, so is the current government. If you ask me, I think that the situation is much worse. They are taking half of our income and threaten to jail us if we protest. They decide how fast you can drive, what you smoke and which school your kid goes to. They are slowly eating us alive. All Amendments are under constant assault and the Tenth is utterly ignored.

The Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment for a specific reason. Not to target practice and not to hunt (as the libs would like to portrait it), but to overthrow the government when it gets injust."

Again I want to say, times have changed.... In today's modern civilized states governments which are unjust are overthrown by electoral landslides rather than armed uprising.
In all civilized countries most citizens pay at least 50% taxes, but without those there would be no roads for example at which the by some so dreaded government has introduced speedlimits. My personal belief is that people who do not pay their taxes are egocentric and selfish, everybody has to contribute their bit to society from which they also profit.

BTW I'm not impressed by the current government either but I doubt our motivations for that are identical   I don't believe they are after The People but I do believe that they are hardly on a path that will lead to the most beneficial situation for all Americans.

"Could not disagree with you more. If the government can arbitrarily decide who can "qualify" to exercise their fundamental right and who can't, the right has effectively been taken away"

They are already doing that. People with criminal records for example are forbidden to posess firearms, right. Maybe it would be wise to prevent all from having them apart from those that indeed need them, i.e. professionally.

Of course you will point out that you indeed need them to protect yourself from the government if necessary but as many of you gun advocates have said:"banning is no good and will not help public safety because criminals can get guns anyway". Well if the so called need to 'overthrow the unjust government' arises in your opinion then how hard could it be to acquire the necessary weapons?

"BTW, do you really "need" to eat three times a day?
Do you really "need" running water in your house?
Do you really "need" all the money you make?"

To stay healthy and live a reasonably acceptable life you most definately need the first two, the latter is rather subjective and differs person from person, but on a more serious note: I don't think we'll ever agree on the other 'do you need ...?' question and probably many other subjects but tried to make my views clear, just as you did.

Thud.

[mietla]

Originally posted by Thud:
I don't think we'll ever agree on the other 'do you need ...?' question and probably many other subjects but tried to make my views clear, just as you did.

Thud.

I agree, have a      

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]

[Toad]

"It's not the constitutional right that would be violated, it would only be augmented by laws which would adapt it a little bit more to today's society."


What part of this do you find confusing?

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

I have a feeling that your idea of "infringed" and mine are not the same, eh?

I can't wait till we start working on restricting that pesky old First Amendment. Surely times have changed since they wrote that too, right?  

[mietla]

ok, let's try a new, augmented Constitution. Here we go...

 

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But... you have to pass a test of your oratory skills administered by Ted Kennedy and of course submit the content of your speach in writing for the approval.

Just to clarify. The "no law respecting an establishment of religion" means no prayer is allowed in schools (voluntary or not) and that no Ten Commandments display is allowed in public.


     

Amendment II
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.

   .. Thud will supply the pre-conditions here      .

     

Amendment III
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.

An application to become "the Owner" can be downloaded from http://www.whitehouse.com (don't click on this link, it's a porn site)


     

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of course we "the government" will decide what "the reasonable" is. We don't need no stinkin' judges to give us stinkin' warrants. Seize the asset, sell it, give the proceeds to the govs, and let the courts to sort it out later.

Did I mention that income is not a posession?

     

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

don't bug me, man ... 3000 documents withheld... documents/shmocuments, fry'm. The FBI know what they are doing.

just for the record. I do support the death penalty, but I do insist on the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard. And yes, I do believe that Timmy is guilty, but still the situation bugs me.


     

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

ditto

     

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I think we still got this one

     

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

and this one

     

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

we all know that there is no unconditional rights, and all the "unalienable right permits" are available 1600 Pensylvania Ave., now do we?

     

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

the biggest joke of all. We just can't have that, can we? After all we are in Washington because we know the best. It's for the best for all of us. The roads... the hungry... the school lunches... the people offended daily by someone else's speach...THE ENVIRONMENT, MY GOD, THE ENVIRONMENT. THE BALD EAGLE... THE SPOTTED OWL!!!!

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]

[mietla]

Seriously, I think that the US Constitution is an almost perfect document. Think of it. The guys who are about to form a new GOVERNMENT thinking and working hard on limiting THEMSELVES in order to give their constituants the voice.

This is not the everyday stuff. Every single guy/guys who came into power has(ve) attempted to portrait himself/themselves as a saviour/god/protector/lord and thus make himself special, precious and above the law. Obviously it happend "for a good of the people" who just can't afford to lose Alexander, Ceasar, Napoleon, Stalin , Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mao  as a supreme leader.

The only counter-examplesI can think of was Cincinatus an Pilsudski.

Our Constitution protects  us (The People) from the grandiose clowns who think that they can better our lives. They can't!

All they can do, is to divide us into groups and plant the resentment seeds to divide us. Once they've done that, they can take what's ours and give to to THEIR voters to perpetuate the system where THEY are in charge.

[mietla]

Seriously, I think that the US Constitution is an almost perfect document. Think of it. The guys who are about to form a new GOVERNMENT thinking and working hard on limiting THEMSELVES in order to give their constituants the voice.

This is not the everyday stuff. Every single guy/guys who came into power has(ve) attempted to portrait himself/themselves as a saviour/god/protector/lord and thus make himself special, precious and above the law. Obviously it happend "for a good of the people" who just can't afford to lose Alexander, Ceasar, Napoleon, Stalin , Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mao  as a supreme leader.

The only counter-examplesI can think of was Cincinatus an Pilsudski.

Our Constitution protects  us (The People) from the grandiose clowns who think that they can better our lives. They can't!

All they can do, is to divide us into groups and plant the resentment seeds to divide us. Once they've done that, they can take what's ours and give to to THEIR voters to perpetuate the system where THEY are in charge.

[Thud]

""It's not the constitutional right that would be violated, it would only be augmented by laws which would adapt it a little bit more to today's society."

What part of this do you find confusing?

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

"I have a feeling that your idea of "infringed" and mine are not the same, eh?

I can't wait till we start working on restricting that pesky old First Amendment. Surely times have changed since they wrote that too, right?"

Well, I believe the first amendment is also augmented by laws. For instance, the free speech section, it is forbidden to vent opinions that are racist, xenophobic, discriminating any individual or ethnic or social group or damage an individual in public, right. I think we all agree on those being crucial limitations on this consitutional right?

Well, for the second I have indeed submitted my pre-conditions  
But as far as my limited knowledge goes: I don't think that in reality the right to have a militia is not being infringed upon or augmented by laws to create a more realistice frame, as I'd say. It is not allowed to have any sizable means of offence or defence right? I don't think that any militia would be allowed to acquire any hardware with real combat potency, either through legal or illegal channels without the government, both Federal and the state's itself, interfering. So in reality these militias are 'paper tigers' with their pick-up's with MG's etc who are not up the task they we're originally envisioned to be capable of performing of. Nobody and I assume you're included would like to see them operating gunships, or tanks or.... So they don't counterbalance the federal resources enough to secure the free state principle. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But my point is that to create an acceptable situation, both for the people and the government, some constitutional rights can not be exploited to the fullest possible extent, and the line between infringement and those not being infringed is hazy at some points, I think that you agree with me that in some cases that is inevitable, on others clearly you don't.

[Toad]

Thud:

"Well, I believe the first amendment is also augmented by laws. For instance, the free speech section, it is forbidden to vent opinions that are racist, xenophobic, discriminating any individual or ethnic or social group or damage an individual in public, right. I think we all agree on those being crucial limitations on this consitutional right?"


Actually, I do not agree with that last statement at all. I believe that's a corruption of the 1st Amendment.

I'll go with Voltaire on my view of the 1st:

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

Voltaire

I personally believe that statement pretty much summarizes what the Bill of Rights actually said.

These latest limitations on the 1st are just "PC" additions for our sad times.

We give up our liberty bit by bit.

[mietla]

Toad is right. Rights have to be unconditional, or they seize to become rights.

You are wrong Thud, it is perfectly legal and constitutional to express offensive views.

Again, the Constitution restricts the gvernment not the people.  The governemnt can't discriminate, but people can. As a matter of fact, punishing someone for being racist is un constitutional.

[Thud]

Originally posted by mietla:
Toad is right. Rights have to be unconditional, or they seize to become rights.

You are wrong Thud, it is perfectly legal and constitutional to express offensive views.

Again, the Constitution restricts the gvernment not the people.  The governemnt can't discriminate, but people can. As a matter of fact, punishing someone for being racist is un constitutional.

Really? Well, I must admit that my knowledge of the american legal system in this case apparantly is not quite up to par. It is very sad though that statements in the categories I mentioned before (racist, discriminating, deregatory towards minorities etc.) are not forbidden by law and penalized as they should be. I think it's a grave shortcoming of a society if they don't adapt their laws to prevent these kinds of extremist views to be expressed.

BTW, there are different kinds of offensive views, if you would write a column anywhere attacking the current foreign policy for example many might find that offensive as well. The examples I mentioned are way beyond offensive, they're dangerous.

[ET]

Little by little the rights of the people are being eroded by well meaning people for the good of us all.It is done to make a more perfect life for everyone.Some day,life will be so perfect,we will not have the right to do anything.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Thud:
It is very sad though that statements in the categories I mentioned before (racist, discriminating, deregatory towards minorities etc.) are not forbidden by law and penalized as they should be. I think it's a grave shortcoming of a society if they don't adapt their laws to prevent these kinds of extremist views to be expressed.

Thud, you ever hear the old children's rhyme "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me"?

The view you espouse above scares me FAR more than racist or derogatory blather.

I think perhaps you don't understand the 1st Amendment to our Constitution at all. I'd hope it would be the rare US Citizen that believes the Government should even try to control a person's thoughts or speech.

As Voltaire said, we don't have to agree with it but we must defend the right to say it.

There's some very good stuff on the 1st on the web. Freedom of speech isn't the very FIRST amendment for no reason. In other words, it's not an accident that it was the FIRST amendment.

[streakeagle]

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

You might just find yourself dead if you try to take either my liberty or my life    

In Florida, you can get a concealed carry license with a minimum of hassle if you qualify (i.e. not a criminal or a nut   ). My weapon of choice is a custom combat carry M1911A1 0.45 cal pistol. If open carry was legal, I would keep my AR15 in the back of my car, instead it is locked up in a safe in hidden in my closet with my ammunition.

I believe the line "peace through superior firepower" is as true for individuals as it is for world powers. By definition, criminals do not respect or "fear" the law, but most respect the laws of physics and a 0.45 cal pistol pointing at them. If they don't, they might learn a fatal lesson, though I might die trying to teach it to them.

In all probability, I will never need to use my pistol, but I can say the same about other tools I have, like the fire extinguisher I keep in my car. I would rather be able to respond to whatever problems life throws at me than be a helpless victim.

Passing new laws has never stopped criminals from breaking them. No matter how many times you tell people they can't do something, if they want to do it, they will do it. Banning guns might limit the accessibility of guns to children, but it would definitely limit the accessability for law abiding citizens who have and will continue to use them correctly. I don't recall the numbers, but try looking up the stats for how many innocent lives have been saved by guns used in self-defense each year compared to those lost to kids blowing away school teachers and angry spouses blowing away each other. If the criminal dies in the process, it saves a lot of court costs    

This country was founded by people who were willing to trade lives for liberty. I am willing to risk my life and the lives of those around me, for the right to have the means to protect myself and others around me from those who have no respect for others' rights, including the federal government  

The right to bear arms exists not to prevent crime or allow hunting (those were givens at the time). Our government uniquely established a precedent that the people should be allowed to be armed to overthrow the government (again) if need be. That the average citizen is no longer allowed to have cannons and machine guns is actually a violation of the intent of this "right".

When this right is fully revoked (and I have not doubt that one day it will be as many of our allies have already done), I fear the other rights will be little more than vestiges compared to the original intent as well. Look where freedom of speech has already gone   You can say anything you like, as long as the majority (or well-funded minority lobby) approve of what you are saying.

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: streakeagle ]