ANYTHING can be a weapon????

[LAK]

LAK

Why don't we license having children, since surely that is the ultimate responsibility

fyrestarter

I agree

.. I keep trying to impress upon people that we are in an ideological battle, of which the firearms issue is but one facet.

 

[Tamara]

fyrestarter,

I was going to post some court decisions, but I was afraid Tamara might mock me again for being educated

If that was truly what I was mocking you for, you'd understand what a license was.

 

[Tamara]

LAK,

.. I keep trying to impress upon people that we are in an ideological battle, of which the firearms issue is but one facet.

Indeed. One encounters foes of freedom in the strangest places these days, nicht wahr?

 

[Fred Hansen]

Publishing? Try to publish a tract about Nazism or white supremacy and see which one of the agencies show up on your doorstep. Then spend your life savings defending your first amendment rights.

Comparing this to gun ownership is absurd. As many have already pointed out, prior restraint is what is at issue. Purchasing/owning/possessing/carrying/concealing and even USING a firearm is not a frigging crime. For your analogy to have the least bit of relevance to this particular conversation, one would have to say that all publishers must get a license before purchasing the needed items to publish in the event that they might publish a tract on Nazism/white supremacy.

Simply because east coast liberals cannot conceive of a life in which a person has the moral fortitude to own an object capable of being used to cause harm, and that said individual actually possesses the good sense and personal responsibility of not abusing said object, does not in any way mean that said individuals do not exist. In fact, fully 90% of my friends stand in testament to the fact that such individuals do exist. Indeed, they more than exist, they are the very reason that this is the greatest and most free country on Earth.

This in spite of the daily efforts of statist elitists to steal their liberty; all because of the envy and fear that said liberty engenders in the hearts of statist weaklings.

All boats, regardless of size, at least out here on the east coast, require registration. No, it's not a license to operate, but is still a form of governmental authority. On top of that, all watercraft must be insured. Sounds like more authority to me.

I know that many New Yawkahs hate to be told this, but "the east coast" consists of more than your socialist nanny-state. The above quote, fyrestarter, is patently false. Oh, and I would bet the ranch that you know it is false.

Many powerboats must be registered/insured, but in most states on the "east coast" that's about the extent of it.*


* Statist elitist's efforts to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[fyrestarter]

I do not view this as a little friendly debate. You and your ilk are the enemy of our liberty and the prosperity in our society. While I doubt my words could possibly get through to someone with such a abominable world view, I would hope I could at least embarrass you into keeping your hate program to yourself. We have all the rich old white men and racial profiling we need at the moment without adding your brand of crazy to the mix.

Such unwarranted vitriolic words, Handy. You call me a fascist, I call you an anarchist. You say I am "racially profiling", I say I never mentioned a damn thing about race. You say I'm "abominable" and an "enemy", I say I'm practical and realistic. I have no hate towards anyone, Handy, at least those who don't deserve it. I certainly do not think you deserve my hate, nor would I presume to think you "evil". You and I simply differ on a philosophical level. I don't embarrass, and I don't back down from my convictions, but I'm not going to insult you into submission either. Crazy? Hardly. My experiences are merely different than yours, and as such, my "world view" has been shaped differently. The bottom line? Unchecked freedom leads to social breakdown. As does "over-governing", I agree. But the key is compromise, not obstination.

I could have sworn I read somewhere that one of the tenets of American "freedom" was that each is entitled to his own opinion, as well as the expression of such. Or is your idea of "freedom" only to hold those opinions that conform to yours? I would hope not. I'm sorry that you feel it neccessary to turn to Ad Hominem attacks to further your position, but it is at that point that you have lost the argument.

 

[FirstFreedom]

OMG, fyrestarter, where to start with your outlandish statements

"One needs a license to drive, marry, open a business, go fishing, and myriad other activities in this country. Why not for possessing a firearm? "

BECAUSE THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION BARRING AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE RKBA - not so with infringement of the right to fish, open a business, or marry, or most other activities.

Regarding your hypothesis that: Slavery was in the Constitution, so therefore everything else in the Constitution might be bunk too: totally false analogy, because slavery was OVERRULED in 1868 with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. The Second Amendment, notably, has NOT been overruled.

Regarding licensing: Wrongo there too.....Under constitutional law per the SCOTUS, if the right in question is a FUNDAMENTAL one, such as speech, RKBA, etc., then it cannot be subject to a PRIOR RESTRAINT. Licensing to carry guns is a prior restraint on the exercise of a fundamental right, and therefore, unconstitutionally ILLEGAL, just as would be a license to vote or a license to write a letter to the editor.

"A crack dealer should not be allowed to carry a firearm." Wrongo there too. A crack dealer should be punished under the existing law for DEALING CRACK! The existing law INCLUDES (rightfully, IMO), an enhanced sentencing measure if you USE A FIREARM IN FURTHERANCE OF BREAKING THE LAW AGAINST DEALING CRACK. If you don't use the firearm in furtherance of your illegal trade, then there should be no punishment whatsoever for owning/using a firearm as a crack dealer. One just ain't got nuttin to do with the other (unless the firearm is used in connection with your crime, and IMO it should rightfully add another 5,10,15 years to your sentence if convicted of actually DEALING CRACK).

You have good intentions I think, but you really and truly don't understand the meaning of the second amendment and how it is a fundamental right. I agree that felons can be constitutionally stripped of this right. I don't agree that misdemeanor violators, or persons subject to a CIVIL restraining order should be stripped of this right, which is the current state of the federal law per Lautenberg. It's wrong, it's unconstitutional, and in my mind, wholly justifies the spilling of blood of judges and elected officials until the right is restored. If we're going to draw a bright line that strips felons of the sacred right of gun ownership forever, then we by damn need to observe this bright line on both sides. If state x, y, or z, wants to make looking at your spouse with an evil intent a felony, then by all means states x, y, and z should pass such a law in their state legislature, and then convict them and strip them of gun rights for doing so in THAT STATE. By if states A through W keep wife-beating a misdemeanor, then it shouldn't affect gun rights in those states in any way whatsoever. If you (as a state) want to crack down on wife-beaters, then by gawd, make it a felony in your state. But don't have jackass idiot frank lautenberg sitting up there in Wash. and making rules for my state that strip me of gun rights for looking at my S.O. with a thought of smacking her, or being the subject of a simple TRO. There's something seriously wrong in our society when I won't even date because of fear of a made-up charge of domestic violence from a jilted lover stripping me of my RKBA. But I digress. I'm glad you're a member of NRA - thank you. But I'm also glad that NRA uses your membership money to actually protect the RKBA as it was intended, not just YOUR view of your utopian, crack-down-on-the-druggies-and-those-who-look-like-they-may-commit-a-crime, universe.

 

[fyrestarter]

and in my mind, wholly justifies the spilling of blood of judges and elected officials until the right is restored

Right. And I'm the crazy one...

But you do make a stronger argument than just calling me a fascist, I'll give you that...although I take issue with the term "wrongo"...it smacks of condescension.

And I can't quite be sure, but you seem to take issue with domestic violence statutes and those who violate them. I agree that stripping a person of their basic freedoms because of hearsay and conjecture of a third party is wrong. I've had two close friends lose their pistol licenses because their ex-wives complained that they were "scared" of the "evil guns" in their possession. It is truly a bleak time when simply the word of one vengeful person can result in the loss of another's rights. But I think this concept is outside the crux of this argument, n' est pas? Assuming that a felony had truly been committed, and a person found guilty based on a jury trial and not just the word of a "jilted lover", then one should expect a certain amount of relinquishment of rights. People who operate outside the laws of society should not expect to be have their rights protected by that society.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Well how would YOU suggest restoring the RKBA to non-felons, and even non-midemeanants (word?), who currently have this fundamental right unconstitutionally stripped? There's no sunset clause, unlike the other blatantly unconstitutional infringement, that being the 94 ban. When has any gun "control" ever been repealed under normal political conditions. So if not spilling blood, how would you suggest restoring this right? I may be crazy, but I'm still right. Yes, I sounded condescending, because I was trying to - sorry, shouldn't have done that. But the fact is, your arguments are based false premises and a fundamental misunderstanding of the original intent of the 2A, IMO - the constitution is NOT an "ever-evolving" document, contrary to what the hoplophobes and leo-nazis would have you believe. (hey, I like my word I just made up - sounds like neo-nazis, but means those leo and law-and-order-types like ashcroft who have no regard for constitutional rights, in the name of "safety" and "security"). Actually, the const. in a very attenuated way IS evolving - to the extent that "arms" means those same arms that are contemporaneously in the hands of the most modern army are protected by the 2A, and since those arms are ever-improving, then the types of arms protected as to ownership and use to citizens are also evolving (arms means more than swords and muskets now - it means whatever small arms the standing army has and uses - and some argue/believe, perhaps rightfully, that it extends beyond small arms to cannons, mortars, other indirect fire, and tanks and jets as well. Personally, I think the line should be drawn somewhere around 20mm, give or take, as to what it constitutionally protected to everyone without a license, including of course full-auto, and beyond that require pretty darned strict licensing schemes. It should not be limited to kinetic-energy only either, since the militarys of the world are going more and more to indiv. weaps. with explosive rounds - what's good for the goose.....is the whole idea, but I think an argument can be made that the types of arms actually protected by the 2A means those that a rank-and-file soldier can and will hump and employ at the squad level, without the aid of a vehicle for movement - I know many don't agree that it's limited to this, but I think it is).

 

[PsychoSword]

BECAUSE THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION BARRING AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE RKBA - not so with infringement of the right to fish, open a business, or marry, or most other activities.

That's the whole problem with the authoritarian mindset. The Constitution tells the government what it can do, not what it can't do.

Unfortunately that was all forgotten long ago.

 

[FirstFreedom]

I must add, I don't think I'm crazy for suggesting violence to return to constitutionality here - after all, that is precisely what the 2A is all about in the first place - providing a practical means to overturn a rogue gov't, who has abrogated its duty to protect and defend the constitution. It make be an extreme measure of last resort, but how can it be 'crazy' to exercise one of the exact, intended purposes embodied in our constitutional republic? Just like those 'crazy traitors' named Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Henry, et al., as they were viewed by the the British Gov't at the time.

 

[LAK]

fyrestarter

Assuming that a felony had truly been committed, and a person found guilty based on a jury trial and not just the word of a "jilted lover", then one should expect a certain amount of relinquishment of rights

... Yep, it's called incarceration. It is the result of a sentence issued by the appropriate court. But we do not need the whole nation being turned into an extension of the prison yards.

 

[Dave85]

The Constitution tells the government what it can do, not what it can't do.

Actually, the opposite is the norm among the various amendments. Which makes the casual nature with which the Congress, courts and White House look upon the document that much more despicable.

 

[PsychoSword]

Actually, the opposite is the norm among the various amendments. Which makes the casual nature with which the Congress, courts and White House look upon the document that much more despicable.

I think we're saying the same thing, only in two different ways.