Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on March 09, 2007, 03:18:51 PM
-
If you read the part starting AFTER
"by disarming the very people on whose authority police operate."
someone finally understands!
the 2nd Amendment.........
WE.... YOU and ME.............. it's about US
That is what it's REALLY about, WHO is SUPPOSED to be incharge!
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3585.html
-
Originally posted by wrag
That is what it's REALLY about, WHO is SUPPOSED to be incharge!
Sorry to break it to you, but it ain't so.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
In other words, the citizenry consents to delegate or elect folk.
From that act of consent, power stems.
The power of those elected/appointed exists to secure "unalineable Right," and 3 are listed. The others aren't.
As to who is in charge, it's the folks we place there by our "consent."
One of the bald faced lies that has become all but gospel in the last 25 years is "we the people are in charge." We aren't and never have been per se. We have a direct address via the ballot of course.
I for one am VERY glad the mob isn't in control and that they were never desired to be in control by Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, and Co.
All the best,
hap
p.s. there was a guy in Germany in the 30's who very successfully tapped into the mob's errors and weaknesses. Read the 1st third of Shiller's "Rise and Fall." If you're honest with yourself, you'll find yourself reacting in ways you did not anticipate. Evil and lies are powerfully seductive, and none is 100% immune.
-
Which is why we have a Republic form of democracy.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Hap
p.s. there was a guy in Germany in the 30's who very successfully tapped into the mob's errors and weaknesses. Read the 1st third of Shiller's "Rise and Fall." If you're honest with yourself, you'll find yourself reacting in ways you did not anticipate. Evil and lies are powerfully seductive, and none is 100% immune.
My God Hap, I've been quietly thinking and comparing the past 4 years or so to Germany of the '30s and 40's. Interesting parallels can be made.
-
Originally posted by oboe
My God Hap, I've been quietly thinking and comparing the past 4 years or so to Germany of the '30s and 40's. Interesting parallels can be made.
Vote libertarian / Independent.
-
"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."
NEWS RELEASE
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place * Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 * FAX (425) 451-3959 * http://www.saf.org
D.C. APPEALS COURT RULING HOLDS SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS 'INDIVIDUAL
RIGHT'
For Immediate Release: 3/9/2007
BELLEVUE, WA - A ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia that strikes down the District's 1976 handgun ban
and holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep
and bear arms is "a landmark for liberty, and an affirmation that
everything the gun rights community has been saying for years is
correct," the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
The 2-1 ruling came in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia.
Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the opinion, with Judge Thomas
B. Griffith concurring. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The
ruling holds that the District's long-standing ban on carrying a pistol
in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. SAF filed an
amicus brief in the case.
In his ruling, Judge Silberman wrote, "In sum, the phrase 'the right of
the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court
precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is
individual."
"This is a huge victory for firearm civil rights," said SAF founder Alan
M. Gottlieb. "It shreds the so-called 'collective right theory' of gun
control proponents, and squarely puts the Second Amendment where it has
always belonged, as a protection of the individual citizen's right to
have a firearm for personal defense."
Judge Silberman's ruling notes that the Second Amendment
"acknowledges...a right that pre-existed the Constitution like 'the
freedom of speech'."
"Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new
government," Judge Silberman wrote, "the Second Amendment only
guarantees that the right 'shall not be infringed'."
Silberman's ruling also observed, "The right of self-preservation...was
understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless
individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a
tyrannical government."
"Judge Silberman's ruling," Gottlieb said, "reverses 31 years of
unconstitutional infringement on the rights of District of Columbia
residents, not only to keep and bear arms, but to be safe and secure in
their own homes. This is a ruling that should make all citizens proud
that we live in a nation where the rights of individual citizens trump
political correctness."
The ruling may be viewed at:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
-
Ok I don't understand, whats the big deal about people owning and having guns? Personally I don't have one, but if you guys want them then so be it have them you should be able to have them, as long as your not using them to kill people or commit crimes. But then if they take away the guns from you guys that have them for legal reasons then I guess the criminals will be the only ones left with guns huh?
I'd much rather hear a hunter in the winter shooting at deer than a man behind me saying "stick em up"
-
Or even hunter in the winter shooting at the man behind me saying "stick em up.
:)
-
Originally posted by dmf
Ok I don't understand, whats the big deal about people owning and having guns? Personally I don't have one, but if you guys want them then so be it have them you should be able to have them, as long as your not using them to kill people or commit crimes. But then if they take away the guns from you guys that have them for legal reasons then I guess the criminals will be the only ones left with guns huh?
I'd much rather hear a hunter in the winter shooting at deer than a man behind me saying "stick em up"
one could say the same for:
Ok I don't understand, whats the big deal free speech? Personally I don't protest, ....
The fact of the matter is the 2nd amendment says nothing about hunting or recreational use.
If DC passed a law prohibiting free speech for political reasons...IE no peacfull protests at all and only allowed free speech for other things wouldn't that be a gross violation of the constitutional right?
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Vote libertarian / Independent.
or vote for Ron Paul!
America is sick,
Dr. Ron Paul
is the cure.
Ron Paul '08!
-
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
-
Russian 40, Gun Control Zealots 0. Of course, that's assuming they understand sarcasm.
-
I guess the Barney Fife crowd got back from the VFW.
hap
-
Zero-to-Godwin in 3 posts. That might be a record.
Hap,
Finish the quote:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Read that as "We let them mind the store, but if they get out of hand, we come back to the shop and fire them."
If you're trying to say we aren't in charge, you need to read closer. I guess we could have a semantic debate over the nuances of how our government works, but the overarching result is the same: power is decentralized so it remains in the hands of the people. That doesn't suggest "mob rule", but it certainly doesn't state that we are not in charge. The bottom line is our government is designed to be changeable, just not on a whim.
Hey, I lean more towards gun control than not, given how things are. That said, I don't know how one gets around the 2nd amendment without another amendment.
-
Hap, the Barney Fife quip went over my head. Pity, because it sounds dang funny. I just don't quite get what you're tyring to say?
Kieran - we may have the right to abolish our government - but honestly, in this day and age, do you really think its possible? The Civil War proved that disaffected groups of people can't even peel off the union and strike out on their own.
I think any groups of people attempting this would be tried and convicted of treason.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I think any groups of people attempting this would be tried and convicted of treason.
the winner decides what is treason and what is patriotic.
-
"Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do".
-
so hap.. you compare the 80 million or so adult gun owners and the founders of our nation to barney fife? Interesting and very "progressive" of you.
guns are power.. it is that simple. Those who don't have the guts to own guns always relegate that power to others.
It is funny how the liberals all feel that police and military are the only ones who should have guns but then rail against all the abuses of power that they percieve in the military and police...
When the people have guns you have a free country... when only the police have guns you have a police state.
The liberals have contempt for gun owners as rubes and hicks and rednecks and gun owners see liberals as effite sissies with no guts... We will never see eye to eye us blue and red staters... It is probly time to split the country in two.
But...it is always the blue staters that protest that the most.. funny huh? they hate us but they still want control... why not just be glad we are gone?
lazs
-
Originally posted by oboe
Hap, the Barney Fife quip went over my head. Pity, because it sounds dang funny. I just don't quite get what you're tyring to say?
The lynchpin (ohhh a pun) of the argument is the very mistaken definiton that a priviate citizen is a law enforcer and on par with Officer Krupke.
Then the 2nd Amendment "we like guns, we want guns, give us more guns" guys showed up. Barney Fife was Sheriff Andy Taylor's sidekick in "Mayberry" played by Don Knotts with Andy Griffith as Andy.
He was known for his enthusiam and ineptitude.
hap
-
Hap, I think you're suffering from a stereotype image. I'd say your mind is completely to new ideas on this issue, but that would make me guilty of the same thing.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Barney Fife was Sheriff Andy Taylor's sidekick in "Mayberry" played by Don Knotts with Andy Griffith as Andy.
He was known for his enthusiam and ineptitude.
hap
That pretty much sums up your contribution to the thread here. Rather than discuss something you instead spread innuendo insult and condescension.
You don't like guns? Fine, no one is advocating you get one. No one is mandating you get one. The other side of the situation is that you don't want anyone else to have one since you seem to fear them or at least are fearful of people in possession of a firearm. I don't think it's your place at all to tell others how to live.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Kieran - we may have the right to abolish our government - but honestly, in this day and age, do you really think its possible? The Civil War proved that disaffected groups of people can't even peel off the union and strike out on their own.
I think any groups of people attempting this would be tried and convicted of treason.
Uh, no.
Hap's premise is that we the people are not in charge. His argument fails since it is based on the presumption we hand over complete control of our government to our government. Wrong. We hand day-to-day operation of government to the government, but they are responsible to us. Moreover, the Declaration outlines the extremes we can go to to achieve a government that satisfies the people.
His followup post further fails the litmus test because it is based on the idea that, since we are not charged to be policemen, we have no right to own guns. Wrong. The 2nd amendment doesn't specify that we have to be policemen to own guns, only that we have the right to have them if we want them.
-
Originally posted by Hap
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Not to be a nit-picking sweetheart, but the Declaration of Independence isn't the foundation of our government. Got us out from underneath the Brits, but that's about it :D
For whatever it's worth, both you and wrag could find statements supporting your side in:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate."
-
I fully believe that any one owning a gun, should be able to do so without worrying about weather or not it becomes illeagle, I'm, sorry but I really think that if you take away peoples guns and their right to own one, then the only ones left havening any guns will be the criminals.
I heard somewhere that England has no guns and a really high crime rate
-
Originally posted by john9001
the winner decides what is treason and what is patriotic.
We will find out. **It** is not far off...
In other words, the citizenry consents to delegate or elect folk.
No. The citizens consent to be governed. That is not saying that they can choose to be in government.
By consenting to be governed, they set up the government they choose, and can choose to take it out at any time they please.
-
hap... I believe that old barney of mayberry was a little more like the blue city,taxi riding, loafer wearers than you would like to admit... He was scared of firearms.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Hap's premise is that we the people are not in charge. His argument fails since it is based on the presumption we hand over complete control of our government to our government.
Redress is always available through the ballot box. A powerful recourse as we all witnessed this last election. And which I mentioned in my first post on this thread.
Also, a much more powerful example can be found from about 1970'ish through the early 1980's. And really it's the best I know of. During that period of time, many religious folks in America set about to find out what citizens could do within the law to achieve ends they desired.
They put forth an enormous amount of effort to gain seats in local government such as on school boards and the like. From there, they continued in their very legal efforts to effect change. The rest is history.
I can't recall what year the GOP's platform, or talk in their convention centered much about "family values," but that's where those ideas stemmed from. The whole Murphy Brown thing. Some of you may not have been born yet.
So the ballot box is one avenue of recourse. And another is to do all the grunt work to get your guys on the ballot at the local level and keep doing it until the national level is affected.
More to the point, the original poster hailed the article he read. The author of the article gives us an example of the police and citizens (not police) arriving to catch a bad guy and says their "authority" is equivalent. My word, not his. But it captures the sense he is trying to convey.
The author is of the article is wrong.
Why do you think police wear uniforms and have badges?
It's not a "fashion" thing.
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
I guess the Barney Fife crowd got back from the VFW.
hap
Im not a veteran.
but if I were I would be really offended at that remark
That is one of the more sad an pathetic comments I've seen on these boards in a long while.
Utterly digraceful
-
Why worry?
You only have to avoid being killed by your attacker for about 8 minutes (on average) and the cops will show up to rescue you.
Link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20040510-122711-8996r.htm)
Of course, that was in 2003; surely things are faster now because... uh.. well, it should be faster?
That's not all that long; just stay alive through 16 TV commercials and the cops will likely get there.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Im not a veteran.
but if I were I would be really offended at that remark
Hap is the polite liberal that would never think of smearing someone's service. What's wrong with you?
Only conservatives make mean remarks; didn't you get the memo?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
His followup post further fails the litmus test because it is based on the idea that, since we are not charged to be policemen, we have no right to own guns.
Ooopsie. You got that one wrong too.
I did not say neither do I think citizens have no right to own guns.
The rootin' tootin' Yosemite Sam types have an entire amendment of their very own.
I also think the understanding of the 2nd amendment by the gun guys in here is erroneous. The general line of thinking that runs "well the framers wanted the citizens to be armed, so they could overthrow the governement when it becomes unjust."
I don't think that's the case at all. The new Republic was the new kid on the block. They knew their position was tenuous, and that the regular American armed forces were no match for the armed forces of some nations. They needed a pool of folk upon which to draw should the need arise. Also, it would be nice if they owned their own guns so the government would have to buy them and issue them.
I don't think for a minute the framers put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution so Bubba could own a rapid fire hizooka, dress in camos, walk down mainstreet beered up with his malitia buds looking for bad guys to frag.
Hence, the 2nd amendment.
All the Best,
hap
-
Toad,
The rsponse times are predicated on someone calling the Police. If the victim is unable to call and the neighbors are unwilling to call, there will be no response until much later than 8 minutes.
While 8 minutes seems a bit long, it is not unreasonable given that it's an average of rural and municipal response times. Considering rural response times are in the half hour to hours time frame it's damn good. In my own home county some Deputies had to drive over 120 miles to respond and it isn't all paved high speed roads. One single call can tie up the majority of the units available in a large area leaving virtually nothing available for a second incident.
At best it will take at least, let me stress this AT LEAST 2 minutes to even start a response in a municipal area. That is assuming a 911 system that is not running beyond it's capacity where an operator is going to answer the ring in less than 20 seconds, takes at least 30 to 90 seconds to determine the proper response (Fire, Meds or Police) then routes the call to the proper dispatch area for response. Then you have to be concerned with unit dispersion, call load (is there a single unit in the entire district not tied up on other calls) and distance to respond or ability (motor vehicle, bicycle or foot response) to respond and travel time to arrive in the area. Then there's the factor that they just can't go busting inside the building willy nilly since there are tactical considerations. Location of situation, number of assailants, location of all assailants, approach vectors with cover and or concealment for both suspects and responding Officers, determining suspects from victim and bystanders.
There are quite a few things that will be impacting any response to a situation once the call is received. Most of the folks who live in the area really have no clue what is involved or the constraints the respondants have to deal with on an every day all shift long situation.
In effect, if you believe that the Police are going to protect you, you have serious fantasy / reality conflicts. The Police will do what they can but they can only respond after something happens. You are on your own until then.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Im not a veteran.
but if I were I would be really offended at that remark
That is one of the more sad an pathetic comments I've seen on these boards in a long while.
Utterly digraceful
Me too
-
Depending on the state laws, remember that the vast majority of laws are state, county and municipal based, arrest authority can be both broad and restrictive for non sworn people (citizens).
In many cases it is broad in that you as a citizen can affect an arrest for certain misdemeanors and felonies. In other cases it is restrictive in that a citizen may not make an arrest for crimes that they did not personally observe. That is one proviso that sworn Officers have well in excess of private citizens in Arizona. That authority is granted by the criminal code.
With the power to arrest also comes great responsibility given the bias the law has towards innocence of the accused. Making an arrest in error can have consequences for the arresting person far in excess of the original crime of the person being arrested.
The concept of what the 2nd amendment does not revolve solely on one situation, that of either self defense or defense from tyranny. It revolves on all events where a weapon, properly used can and does have a beneficial outcome.
The concept of the Bill of Rights is also not one of granting rights to the individual, it is one of safeguarding rights of the individual from infringement by the actions of the state. The state does NOT grant rights, the rights are already granted by virtue of being a citizen, the state simply tries to restrict or reduce rights and is prohibited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No where in the 2nd does it say the State is granting a right. It states instead the right shall not be infringed.
There's a big difference between granting something and being prohibited from restricting something. If you grant something, by definition, the granting authority may also remove it or deny it. IE a license.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Why worry?
You only have to avoid being killed by your attacker for about 8 minutes (on average) and the cops will show up to rescue you.
Link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20040510-122711-8996r.htm)
Of course, that was in 2003; surely things are faster now because... uh.. well, it should be faster?
That's not all that long; just stay alive through 16 TV commercials and the cops will likely get there.
The Police. God bless em for their efforts and good intentions
Can protect me from next to nothing.
They are. As far as crime goes and violent crime in particular merely a reactionary force. And based on the amount of increased local and state sponsored roadside extortion schemes cleverly disguised as seatbelt and inspection sticker checkpoints. designed to increase revenue of their local townships,states and insurance companies (by way of surcharge)
I do NOT blame the police for this movement as I am sure few if any of them including the gung ho ultra militant types among them got into law enforcement for this purpose. But rather the local and state governments they work for.
They are becoming less of a preventative and protective force every day
and serving more and more as armed revenue collectors.
the bottom line though is police can in the majority of cases react to a crime once it has been committed.
In the very vast majority of cases only the victim of a crime. Ad violent crime in particular has the power to react to that crime while it is in the process of happening.
When the government cannot protect the people. the people MUST protect themselves.
Such protection and self protection would fall directly in line with
the unalienable right to "LIFE, LIBERTY . the right to keep and bear arms, the right to self defense, and whatever natural rights you might want to throw in there.
not to mention in defense from based on what one sees and reads about in the news every day about an increasingly(on both sides of the isle) corrupt and tyrannical government.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Ooopsie. You got that one wrong too.
I also think the understanding of the 2nd amendment by the gun guys in here is erroneous. The general line of thinking that runs "well the framers wanted the citizens to be armed, so they could overthrow the governement when it becomes unjust."
the SC of DC seems to dissagree with you.
The second was designed rather intentionally to include all of those things. for all of those reasons
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Im not a veteran.
but if I were I would be really offended at that remark
That is one of the more sad an pathetic comments I've seen on these boards in a long while.
Utterly digraceful
My apologies for what I said.
Any and all who took umbrage are corrent and I am wrong for having said it.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
The lynchpin (ohhh a pun) of the argument is the very mistaken definiton that a priviate citizen is a law enforcer and on par with Officer Krupke.
Then the 2nd Amendment "we like guns, we want guns, give us more guns" guys showed up. Barney Fife was Sheriff Andy Taylor's sidekick in "Mayberry" played by Don Knotts with Andy Griffith as Andy.
He was known for his enthusiam and ineptitude.
hap
HMMM..........
As I recall a Citizens Arrest has PRIORITY over ALL other arrest?
-
Nope it doesn't.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Redress is always available through the ballot box. A powerful recourse as we all witnessed this last election. And which I mentioned in my first post on this thread.
Also, a much more powerful example can be found from about 1970'ish through the early 1980's. And really it's the best I know of. During that period of time, many religious folks in America set about to find out what citizens could do within the law to achieve ends they desired.
They put forth an enormous amount of effort to gain seats in local government such as on school boards and the like. From there, they continued in their very legal efforts to effect change. The rest is history.
I can't recall what year the GOP's platform, or talk in their convention centered much about "family values," but that's where those ideas stemmed from. The whole Murphy Brown thing. Some of you may not have been born yet.
So the ballot box is one avenue of recourse. And another is to do all the grunt work to get your guys on the ballot at the local level and keep doing it until the national level is affected.
More to the point, the original poster hailed the article he read. The author of the article gives us an example of the police and citizens (not police) arriving to catch a bad guy and says their "authority" is equivalent. My word, not his. But it captures the sense he is trying to convey.
The author is of the article is wrong.
Why do you think police wear uniforms and have badges?
It's not a "fashion" thing.
All the Best,
hap
Think maybe someone doesn't KNOW the law?
Ask a law enforcement person about Citizens Arrest.
Further if you bother to check your history MOST law enforcement in local areas were created to ASSIST the population of that area in catching criminals.
Your Law Enforcement powers, at least until fairly recently, were as great as those within the Law Enforcement community.
If you wish to retain such you might want to look further into the legal system.
One major difference is local law enforcement has a much better legal backup (District Attorny, etc) then the average citizen.
It's all on record. Don't take my word for it! Look it up!
-
Originally posted by Hap
Ooopsie. You got that one wrong too.
I did not say neither do I think citizens have no right to own guns.
The rootin' tootin' Yosemite Sam types have an entire amendment of their very own.
I also think the understanding of the 2nd amendment by the gun guys in here is erroneous. The general line of thinking that runs "well the framers wanted the citizens to be armed, so they could overthrow the governement when it becomes unjust."
I don't think that's the case at all. The new Republic was the new kid on the block. They knew their position was tenuous, and that the regular American armed forces were no match for the armed forces of some nations. They needed a pool of folk upon which to draw should the need arise. Also, it would be nice if they owned their own guns so the government would have to buy them and issue them.
I don't think for a minute the framers put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution so Bubba could own a rapid fire hizooka, dress in camos, walk down mainstreet beered up with his malitia buds looking for bad guys to frag.
Hence, the 2nd amendment.
All the Best,
hap
You don't think? (perhaps you should read some before you open your mouth ot start typing?)
Never read the militia act that Congress was setting up?
Never read the U.S. Army operations setup?
Are you a Citizen of the U.S.? Between the age of 14 and 60?
Then you SIR are in the militia!
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO........ ............ Does that make you a bubba?????
The requirement was that each would have a firearm of the CURRENT type used by the CURRENT military.
As a Vet, I find your constant references to bubba, barney fife, and the VFW unnecassary, attempted belittlement, and OFFENSIVE SIR!
Further IMHO You are in essence comparing many on this board to cartoon charactors.
Are you attempting to be funny?
If so.................... You're NOT succeeding!
Furthermore, from you comments, IMHO you don't know the law, or your rights, or American history.
READ the writtings of the founders!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They said allot that you apparently have NOT read!
Here is some to get you started................
[Ah, Congress: Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788]
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." - Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"The right is absolute ... government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm ... the debate is not about guns. It is about freedom." - Cal. State Sen. Tom McClintock, 6/9/2001
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment ... as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." - U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." —Daniel Webster
"The fundamental force behind the Second Amendment is to empower the people and give them the greatest measure of authority over the tyranny of runaway government." - U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer, 2002
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington
GUN CONTROL: "The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not
a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms." -- libertarian U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), "Gun Control on the Back Burner," Nov. 6, 2006.
"He who is unaware of his ignorance will be only misled by his knowledge." —Richard Whately
-
Hap, two points:
1. I responded to your comment "we are not nor have ever been in charge, other than the ballot box". I disagree with that statement.
2. The 2nd amendment is one of the natural reactions to British rule in the American colonies. Refresh your memory on the Intolerable Acts and you can see why Americans wanted to be sure the government could never again abuse the populace. No, it doesn't mean the framers of the Constitution wanted everyone armed; what it did mean was it wanted to be sure the population could not be disarmed.
I think we can argue all day about the finer points of the issues, but here's what I want to be very clear about:
1. If we take your original statement and extrapolate that out it can be read to state we have given our government authority to take care of us, as in, do what's best for us. The problem with that is extreme leftists and socialists will use that logic to push laws that take away individual rights and freedoms under the assumption we (the populace) are not smart enough to make decisions ourselves (other than select the right people to tell us what to do, that is- ironic, huh?).
2. It is patently obvious the framers of the Constitution intended our people to retain the right to own guns. Once again extreme leftists and socialists will argue what the framers really meant was something else entirely.
The way you read, the need for the 2nd amendment has passed. You might argue that successfully, but not by saying the framers intended something they did not. What they intended is abundantly clear, and the historical record provides ample evidence as to why it would be interpreted that way.
Want to do away with guns? Fine, but the argument had better be based on a deteriorating social condition within the country, or something more contemporary. Trying to change history is gonna be a loser.
*Edited some grammar. May happen again. Content unchanged.
-
Originally posted by wrag
READ the writtings of the founders!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Am working on the Federalist Papers as you speak.
Thanks for the time you to took to post.
I apologize for the VFW crack.
I'm sorry I said it.
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by Kieran
you can see why Americans wanted to be sure the government could never again abuse the populace. No, it doesn't mean the framers of the Constitution wanted everyone armed; what it did mean was it wanted to be sure the population could not be disarmed.
I'd be eager to read some writings in the public domain at the time where some of the signers said so. Because if they exist, they show their intent and motivation and we don't have to guess.
As to "the framers . . . wanted everyone armed," I have never thought that was the case.
As to they "wanted to be sure the population could not be disarmed" I do not think they ever gave it a seconds consideration. It wasn't even part of their thinking. Owing a firearm was too important to basic survival.
I read in here, though not in the same words that it is still important to basic survival. 2 reasons I've seen: 1) crime and the need protect you and yours from bad guys. 2) the need to protect you and yours from our own government.
I think the 2nd has no merit to date. With the exception of the NSA spying thing. Which spooks me. Though I expect that to settle back where it should be.
The 1st has more merit, but not to the degree that many hold here I say.
All the Best,
hap
p.s. As to the "Act" Intolerable and otherwise, I think the Crown's expectation of a robust mercantilism in America ran afoul of the Colonists desire to get more of the pie. And if not more of the pie, then representation in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
-
Hap,
You seem like an intelligent guy. Can you tell me what the Intolerable Acts were and why they were enacted? Their impact on the American way of viewing government?
I gotta tell you, it's difficult to combine pre-United States under British rule with the Constitution without coming to the same conclusion. To put it bluntly, I could argue the first 10 amendments are almost point-for-point a reflection of the American reaction to that time period.
-
You guys that think the time for people to defend themselves is past crack me up. If we are past needing firearms then we are past needing police and courts... we are past needing armies because.. well.. there are no bad guys out there trying to do us harm... we are past needing elections because... since everyone thinks of the good of everyone else only.... anyone will do.. in fact.. why even have a government? just the golden rule will work.
mav put it perfectly.... "The concept of what the 2nd amendment does not revolve solely on one situation, that of either self defense or defense from tyranny. It revolves on all events where a weapon, properly used can and does have a beneficial outcome. "
In some respects.. we may not need the second as much.. say from our government... yet... I would say that it hasn't hurt knowing we were armed tho...
In other respects... if is a far more dangerous place now than when the framers pointed out our right to defend ourselves.... women are far more endangered than they ever were in colonial times as are the old and the infirm... They weren't preyed on like they are now.
The people that carry guns every day for a living... cops.. they all believe that there is a real need for any citizen to defend himself with firearms.
lazs
-
Hap, despite all the political hullaballoo in this thread I respect the fact that you're doing some research on this issue. I think you'll find the writings to be informative.
As for poirtions of the Bill of Rights being outdated or unnecessary, bear in mind that you have some unlikely allies. There are a few guys at the top who believe that in this dangerous age, the safety of you and the nation can't be guaranteed without a few wiretaps and cases of being held without charges here and there.
;)
-
how many of the other amendments are outdated? How many fundamental rights of people are no longer needed? When did government get so utopian? When did the bad guys go away?
lazs
-
Yep.. I don't know what it is exactly, but Hap (from what he says) just seems to live on a different planet.
No offense eh? :) The 2nd is definitely an essential part of the constitution.
Substracting guns from everyone but the criminals that'll dodge that law, as every other, will surely deminish gun crimes.. but how much? I don't think by much, definitely not enough to warrant disarming people.
Probably by a negligible margin.
-
lol Russian! :lol
-
Originally posted by Hap
Sorry to break it to you, but it ain't so.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
In other words, the citizenry consents to delegate or elect folk.
From that act of consent, power stems.
The power of those elected/appointed exists to secure "unalineable Right," and 3 are listed. The others aren't.
As to who is in charge, it's the folks we place there by our "consent."
One of the bald faced lies that has become all but gospel in the last 25 years is "we the people are in charge." We aren't and never have been per se. We have a direct address via the ballot of course.
I for one am VERY glad the mob isn't in control and that they were never desired to be in control by Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, and Co.
All the best,
hap
p.s. there was a guy in Germany in the 30's who very successfully tapped into the mob's errors and weaknesses. Read the 1st third of Shiller's "Rise and Fall." If you're honest with yourself, you'll find yourself reacting in ways you did not anticipate. Evil and lies are powerfully seductive, and none is 100% immune.
Nicely said hap. But one thing is for sure is that without the arms, we would never have the opportunity to grasp the power if we ever needed to.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
But one thing is for sure is that without the arms, we would never have the opportunity to grasp the power if we ever needed to.
My opinion is those who arm themselves as a means to ready themselves for what you said are delusional. Not a good mix -- guns and disproprtionate thinking.
Regards,
hap
p.s. Imagine the time to "grasp power" is now. Sketch out for us how you think things would shake out over the next 4 years. I picked 4 years just because that's how long the Civil War lasted.
-
no one knows how it would turn out, if they say they do , they are speculating.
-
hap.. I find it kind of ironic that the same people who think that we can't possibly win against a few thousand ill educated and starving terrorist "insurgents" and have to give up...
That these same people feel that an army who is forced to fight a few million all the way to 80 million Americans would prevail with no problem.
lazs
-
Hap also forgets the Armed Forces are also made up from the citzenry and swore to "support and defend the constitution", not those who try to render it irrelevent.
-
mav.. yes indeed.. that is what I meant by "half hearted".
The other thing I find interesting is that all the liberals like hap have nothing but contempt for the red voters yet... they will do everything in their power to keep us from dropping out of the union..
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hap
My opinion is those who arm themselves as a means to ready themselves for what you said are delusional. Not a good mix -- guns and disproprtionate thinking.
Regards,
hap
p.s. Imagine the time to "grasp power" is now. Sketch out for us how you think things would shake out over the next 4 years. I picked 4 years just because that's how long the Civil War lasted.
Unlike the civil war where both sides of the conflict are equally armed, the amount of guns for this conflict will be rather skewed.
3 Days to victory.
-
As to they "wanted to be sure the population could not be disarmed" I do not think they ever gave it a seconds consideration. It wasn't even part of their thinking. Owing a firearm was too important to basic survival.
Hap, I still find myself disagreeing with this thought. It is a convenient way to lay the groundwork for removing a principle right of the Constitution. The problem is it totally ignores the history of the amendment, in fact ALL of the first 10 amendments.
Since you didn't look up the Intolerable Acts (I assume), I'll give you a concise version:
1. Closed the port of Boston, depriving the city its main source of income and sustenance
2. Removed self-government
3. Disallowed groups to gather
4. Forced colonists to quarter soldiers in their homes
In addition:
1. Colonial militias arsenals were to be seized (Lexington and Concord?)
2. Speaking out against the government was punishable by jailing (those jailed might languish for months or years without trial)
3. No representatives of the colonies were allowed in Parliament
4. Search and seizure of private property was commonplace for little or no reason (was intended to stop smuggling, but of course extended way beyond that point)
5. Britain established a state-sponsored monopoly in the form of the East India Tea Company, depriving many colonists of their livelihoods
Now check that list over and tell me the first 10 amendments didn't apply almost directly to each and every point here. Try to tell me again how the 2nd amendment was not written specifically to prevent the public from being disarmed.
What is patently clear is that each and every one of the first 10 amendments was designed to prevent something that had already happened from happening again.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The other thing I find interesting is that all the liberals like hap have nothing but contempt for the red voters yet... they will do everything in their power to keep us from dropping out of the union..
lazs
Parasites always need a host. ;)
-
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? *Pay close attention here* I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
That's from the Federalists Papers #84. First, I believe it makes clear the intent of the Bill of Rights was to prevent certain rights from being taken away; secondly, it shows Hamilton's clear thinking about the dangers of codifying those rights inasmuch a clever group might use these very amendments to deprive the citizenry of those rights. Sound familiar?
-
Rights have not been and are not granted by a government. Only restricted and infringed by a government.
-
Another speaks about the WHY.................
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=200851
-
Hap i'd just rather have the option of using a stick or a rifle.