Local radio host carries without permit...

hat being said, there is that persnickety wording "Well regulated." To me, that means that "the Militia" Being you and me, have to meet minimal guidelines of fitness in order to be allowed the right to bear arms. That means we can't be violent felons, (Those who cannot be trusted with weaponry) Mentally disturbed (Those who can't handle the responsibility of weaponry) and those who are pacifist in nature (We can't force people to carry, who don't want to.)
Click to expand...

In the context being used and at the time the Constitution was written, "Well regulated" means the same as "Well trained". It merely means the "militia" were expected to be skilled in firearms use.

The concept of "felons" not being able to possess firearms is relatively new. It began with the 1968 Gun Control Act as a means of banning firearms to a certain section of the population. As with most gun control laws, it has nothing to do with controlling crime, just people. Prime example is the more recent addition of another group of Americans, anyone convicted of "domestic violence". This group is now banned for life. Recent discusion has sought to expand the list of banned Americans to include anyone ever diagnosed with PTSD. They too, would be banned for life. Seems the anti's fear our returning military veterans. If they ban enough groups, they can succeed in banning firearms from the public with banning a single gun.
 
There is a big difference between breaking the law and doing something that is wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah, every drug dealer and child molester tries to justify what they do with that argument too.

The statement that you made suggests to me that you aren't mature enough to accept that part of the price of living in our society is that your behavior is constrained for the common good, just like everyone else's.

So again, if my shot gun is ok, why can't I buy a M-240 at Wal Mart?
Click to expand...

Because the right of the rest of us to be safe outweighs any alleged "need" for such a weapon that you could try to make. Your earlier comments in this very thread suggest that you won't obey the laws so I'm good with laws that keep such weapons out of your hands, just like I'm good with you not being able to possess C-4 explosive, hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc. It's good enough that we as a country possess uncounted thousands of such weapons collectively for the common defense of this country. If you want to be part of that, you can enlist and play with them all you like.
 
Stagger Lee,
I am just wondering, how do you feel/what are your thoughts on the original minute men??
What do you think about Paul Revere and those like him??

Do you look at what they did in obtaining our independence as a good or bad thing??

Just wondering??

Thanks
 
There is a big difference between breaking the law and doing something that is wrong.
Click to expand...
Yeah, every drug dealer and child molester tries to justify what they do with that argument too.
Click to expand...

Doubtful.

Malum prohibitum and malum in se is a valid distinction. Even an ardent pacifist might not try to argue that mere possession of a specific weapon would be malum in se.
 
I am just wondering, how do you feel/what are your thoughts on the original minute men??
What do you think about Paul Revere and those like him??
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. That was two hundred+ years ago and we're in a totally different situation today. There is no comparison, as much as a few of you keep dragging that straw man out.
 
Apples and oranges. That was two hundred+ years ago and we're in a totally different situation today. There is no comparison, as much as a few of you keep dragging that straw man out.

No, it is a proper question and one you do not want to answer and I know why you do not want to answer it.
I just wanted to see if you would.
I won't bore you with all the famous quotes made by famous men about history repeating itself and how we are doomed if we do not remember our history and act accordingly.
There IS nothing new under the sun--that's for sure---and the one thing that has not changed and will never change is MAN.
According to your way of thinking, I would expect that there should not be any wars at this point in our history but there still are. Why is that??
I mean, you must feel that we have come a long way in our development of society---but I still see people that are enslaved and abused--true, most are from countries that banned firearms or made them VERY hard to obtain etc.
It is said by men MUCH wiser than I that history repeats itself.

Maybe you'll answer this question.
Why does our military get polled with questions like this??

If ordered to do so, would you fire on American citizens??
Why would someone ask that question---really--that has always puzzled me.
Can you/ will you answer that one??

Thanks
 
So, exactly what does history teach us again?

That it repeats and man will always be man not matter what the time is in our history.
I didn't say we learn from it, apparently we don't.

Remember, poor men want to be rich and rich men want to be KINGS!!!!!!
 
Buzzard Bait said:
es the law is a bad law. Breaking it ,getting caught, going to jail, paying huge legal fees, and fines becoming a felon, losing your right to vote, and own a firearm only feeds the monster.
Click to expand...
Here's Rosa Parks, "feeding the monster:"

180px-Rosa_Parks_Booking.jpg
180px-Rosaparks_fingerprints.jpg


She violated Chapter 6, Section 11 of the Montgomery, Alabama City Code and was additionally charged with "disorderly conduct," and was convicted on both counts after a 30-minute trial.

"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
The Rosa parks comparison is laughable and every African American should take it as an insult that you would even compare the two.
 
Rosa Parks was actually braver than the internet patriots that keep pretending that it's still 1776. Rosa Parks acted openly on her convictions in a true act of civil disobedience, prepared to accept the consequences in her effort to bring about change.

That puts her light years ahead of the guy who says "I don't agree with the gun laws" and who then just quietly disobeys them in secret, ashamed of what he's doing and afraid of the consequences.

If the so-called "patriots" here were willing to put their cash on the table like Parks did, they'd all be running for political office, circulating petitions or awaiting court dates now and actually attempting to change the laws instead of just sacrificing their honor and breaking laws that they claim are unjust but are too lazy or afraid to actually challenge.

And no, typing on the internet about how you think that guys two hundred years ago in a different situation would have handled things doesn't get the job done.
 
So a radio host who openly states on the air to thousands of listeners that he exercises his fundamental human right to armed self-defense without begging for permission from any government is disobeying the law in secret?
 
Hey Stagger,

Do you care to answer the question I posed to you in a previous post.

Again, here is a CURRENT question.

Why does our military get polled with questions like this??

If ordered to do so, would you fire on American citizens??
Why would someone ask that question---really--that has always puzzled me.
Can you/ will you answer that one??

Are you avoiding it??
It is a CURRENT question.
 
So a radio host who openly states on the air to thousands of listeners that he exercises his fundamental human right to armed self-defense without begging for permission from any government is disobeying the law in secret?
Click to expand...

Yep. It's no different than some of you constantly talking smack here. Sure, he says that he does it, but you don't see him walking up to a police officer or approaching the metal detectors in a federal building and making the claim that he has some sort of right, do you? No, he's too scared to do that. But he knows that there's no consequence to talking about it on the radio. He knows that he'll never wind up in court over saying that he does it. He doesn't win any bravery points for that.

And Dipper, I'm only answering questions that make sense in the context of the topic. None of the ones that you keep interjecting into this discussion have reached that bar yet.
 
And Dipper, I'm only answering questions that make sense in the context of the topic. None of the ones that you keep interjecting into this discussion have reached that bar yet.

How nice for you Stagger, that's just one of the ways someone who prefers to dodge a question responds.
That's OK, that in itself is a revealing answer----your out of ammo and need to reload.
Cool.
Your response speaks volumes.
 
I was listening to a local talk radio host talk about 2A rights the other day, and he said on air that he carries all the time, and does not have a permit to do so. He said his reason why is that he shouldn't have to ask permission for an unalienable(sp) right granted by the Bill of Rights. I was curious to hear your thoughts on the topic.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anyone ask yet--where is this guy located? He could be carrying open without a permit in a lot of places, or live in Vermont and not need a permit for OC or CC. This issue could be a whole lot of hooplah for nothing.
 
Did anybody read the DC v Heller decision?

They said there is an individual 2A right to keep and bear arms not collected w militia service. They also said that right does not include the right to carry concealed weapons, among other things.

There is a lot in Heller that we will arguing about for a long time:

"absolute ban", "within the home", "sensitive places", "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms", "arbitrarily and capriciously", "in common use at the time", "dangerous and unusual weapons", "exception for self defense", "laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents", and "operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

A long way to go. Many issues and acts of civil disobedience to go... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top