Jump to content

Saiga Import, 922r and ATF Confusion


Recommended Posts

Dangit... One more point...

 

Any idea that getting "approval" to own firearms at some interval is so ludicrous as to be not worth discussing.

 

The FIRST person who was killed by someone who'd been "approved" would end the whole thing. Nobody would assume the liability of such "approval" and would simply deny everyone. So, would you put the .gov in charge of deciding, and have some .Gov drone with "sovereign immunity" handle it?

 

When the .gov gets to decide which of us is allowed to exercise our Natural (I believe G*d-given) rights as defined in the BoR, there will cease to be any at all.

 

The entire concept is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

Would you agree to having your bank be the sole authority to interpret your mortgage contract, or decide to unilaterally amend it at will? Of course not - for obvious reasons.

 

One more fallacy in which you're apparently invested: The Fed.gov did not create the States or the people, but rather the States and people created the Fed.gov. The Fed.gov exists ONLY to serve the States and the people in very specific, limited ways. **ANYTHING** outside that is usurpation and tyranny - period.

 

PERIOD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's really less about import vs. domestic and more about trying to restrict citizens from having effective combat weapons. The "sporting purposes" shenanigans is to side-step 2A.   >>Any why

Giffords is a democrat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords "A Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, she has represented Arizona's 8th congressional district s

That's what every tyrant tells his victims, we know where it leads. Thank God the founding fathers did too.   In short you are afraid of the animating contest of freedom; here is what Samuel Adams h

...so in fact I am correct about regulation...as it pertains to law...

 

Yes.

 

Said "regulation" - and the "law" which supports it, are however null and void on their face because they're based on illegitimate usurpation of authority. This is a well-known, fundamental axiom of common law and has been for centuries.

 

Ergo, you're right about what some tyrants have claimed - but utterly wrong about the legitimacy of the claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're logic is flawed. I'm trying to write this as politely as I can... What part of "control the nut-cases, not the freedom to bear arms" don't you understand??

 

....thats what I've been trying to advocate the entire time...

 

Some folks here just dont understand that

 

Sorry... my ADD prevented me from carefully reading all posts. This stated, even the power to "control nut-cases" can easily be abused. It's a balancing act on a very fine wire at dizzying heights for certain.

Edited by Mike1234567
Link to post
Share on other sites
...so in fact I am correct about regulation...as it pertains to law...

 

Yes.

 

Said "regulation" - and the "law" which supports it, are however null and void on their face because they're based on illegitimate usurpation of authority. This is a well-known, fundamental axiom of common law and has been for centuries.

 

Ergo, you're right about what some tyrants have claimed - but utterly wrong about the legitimacy of the claim.

 

Definition Regulate v. - to adjust by rule, to direct

Definition Rule v. - to govern, to control, to settle

Definition Direct v. - to command, regulate, adjust

 

All of these were taken from Johnsons dictionary circa 1755...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're logic is flawed. I'm trying to write this as politely as I can... What part of "control the nut-cases, not the freedom to bear arms" don't you understand??

 

....thats what I've been trying to advocate the entire time...

 

Some folks here just dont understand that

 

Sorry... my ADD prevented me from carefully reading all posts. This stated, even the power to "control nut-cases" can easily be abused. It's a balancing act on a very fine wire at dizzying heights for certain.

 

I certainly agree...

 

which is where I fell this thread took a nose dive..."controlling nut-cases" is all I was every talking about...and a method from discerning who the nut cases are....and somehow we have de-evolved to arguing constitutional law

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree...

 

which is where I fell this thread took a nose dive..."controlling nut-cases" is all I was every talking about...and a method from discerning who the nut cases are....and somehow we have de-evolved to arguing constitutional law

 

Whew, OK. Deep breath then for everyone. Xitesmai, if you're interested in controlling the "nut cases" why don't you outline your idea on how to do that in a manner that minimizes the unintended consequences for the 300,000,000 who are not. Then that would be a better basis for discussion. I think that just saying we need yearly psych evals has already been shown to be highly problematic. Then those of us who are interested may respond to a more tightly formulated argument to prevent further drift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree...

 

which is where I fell this thread took a nose dive..."controlling nut-cases" is all I was every talking about...and a method from discerning who the nut cases are....and somehow we have de-evolved to arguing constitutional law

 

Whew, OK. Deep breath then for everyone. Xitesmai, if you're interested in controlling the "nut cases" why don't you outline your idea on how to do that in a manner that minimizes the unintended consequences for the 300,000,000 who are not. Then that would be a better basis for discussion. I think that just saying we need yearly psych evals has already been shown to be highly problematic. Then those of us who are interested may respond to a more tightly formulated argument to prevent further drift.

 

The best way to "control nut cases" is to follow the Bill of Rights. When you ignore the basic freedoms of man as indicated in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights you are creating an enviroment that allows nut cases to rise to power, disarm and slaughter millions of innocent people. That has been the history of gun control in the last 100 years, roughly 100,000,000 innocent people disarmed and slaughtered by their nut case leaders. see

 

www.jpfo.org

 

chart-the-human-cost-of-gun-control.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree...

 

which is where I fell this thread took a nose dive..."controlling nut-cases" is all I was every talking about...and a method from discerning who the nut cases are....and somehow we have de-evolved to arguing constitutional law

 

Whew, OK. Deep breath then for everyone. Xitesmai, if you're interested in controlling the "nut cases" why don't you outline your idea on how to do that in a manner that minimizes the unintended consequences for the 300,000,000 who are not. Then that would be a better basis for discussion. I think that just saying we need yearly psych evals has already been shown to be highly problematic. Then those of us who are interested may respond to a more tightly formulated argument to prevent further drift.

 

Thanks for the decompress...

 

...personally and IMHO the current legislation does a inadequate job of identifying "nut-cases"..hopefully this will be remedied in 2018 when all states are required to report all persons found mentally defective by a court of law...

 

However its conceivable that it could be pushed further, adding those individuals who have been rejected from state or federal service for habitual drug use.

 

I would like to add that I'm for repealling the Hughes Amendment...and I will ask this broadly and would like others opinions as well...

 

...Would you feel comfortable seeing guy X at the range with a Browning M2, and he obviously doesnt know how to use it?

 

...Would you feel "good" with your next door neighbor, whose house is 30 feet away, storing 500lbs of high explosive in the garage, when he was untrained in the storage of such materials?

 

...my caveat to ownership, is training and experience...as lethality increases its the responsibility of the citizen to be knowledgeable in the proper handling, care and operation of that item also must increase...and to accept will full knowledge that any damage caused by that item is the sole responsibility of the operator...

Link to post
Share on other sites

@tktm

 

I respect your right to views...

 

..however statistics really dont prove anything...I could show you many more examples of genocide where both sides were armed...

 

..the world we live in is one where people kill other people...and sometimes on a massive scale....

 

Further more I dont see how your statement of "control nut cases by following the BoR" makes any sense...

 

...when it comes down to it we have to accept that we live in the now, and there are those that believe in gun control to various extremes, and the number of those people are not small...

 

..some regulation is a reality, due the the nature of Americans today whether you wish to accept it or not...now you can either take the approach of "out of my cold dead hands" or work within the system to expand gun ownership rights while at the same time limiting the damage done to the public by their misuse...

 

...neither side will be happy with either outcome...thats the nature of compromise

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree...

 

which is where I fell this thread took a nose dive..."controlling nut-cases" is all I was every talking about...and a method from discerning who the nut cases are....and somehow we have de-evolved to arguing constitutional law

 

Whew, OK. Deep breath then for everyone. Xitesmai, if you're interested in controlling the "nut cases" why don't you outline your idea on how to do that in a manner that minimizes the unintended consequences for the 300,000,000 who are not. Then that would be a better basis for discussion. I think that just saying we need yearly psych evals has already been shown to be highly problematic. Then those of us who are interested may respond to a more tightly formulated argument to prevent further drift.

 

The best way to "control nut cases" is to follow the Bill of Rights. When you ignore the basic freedoms of man as indicated in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights you are creating an enviroment that allows nut cases to rise to power, disarm and slaughter millions of innocent people. That has been the history of gun control in the last 100 years, roughly 100,000,000 innocent people disarmed and slaughtered by their nut case leaders. see

 

www.jpfo.org

 

chart-the-human-cost-of-gun-control.jpg

 

I agree with you. :) As I mentioned earlier I think I should be able to have H&K send me a full auto MP5 to my front porch, no "permission" needed.

 

The post you quoted was just to try and focus things to keep this thread from getting locked or moved to FC. I don't think the government can be remotely trusted to do, well, anything. Remember the US government sent 10s of thousands of Americans of Japanese to concentration camps descent because they were "adjudicated" to be a threat to national security.

 

As to people needing training. The private market could easily remedy that situation. Sellers would be free to deny purchase to anyone. Before anyone gets upset, remember that in this scenario they want to stay in business. No government bailout so if their restrictions were too severe they would go out of business and replaced by a different dealer. This is in the same way that some bartenders will stop serving someone if they feel they've had too much to drink.

 

For the range scenario, you could approach the person in question in a friendly manner, talk to the range officer to have him/her deal with the situation (including asking the person to leave) or if all else fails you could leave.

 

Truthfully, I am tired of compromising. People hold this is as some sort of ideal in itself. If you have $10 and I say, "I'm the government and it is inevitable that I am going to get some of your money. I want $10."

"How about $1"

"OK, $3 is my best offer. I think we can compromise with this value."

"Done."

"Oh actually I need $7. It is inevitable that I will get some more of your money so let's find a compromise solution. You'll eventually see that this is really common sense."

"Well, can I talk you into taking $3 more dollars?"

"Sure."

 

Repeat till you don't have anything. Trotting out compromise as some sort of ideal is a dangerous precedent. As a member of the gun owning public I can say that we've compromised enough.

 

But for now, I really need to go grocery shopping. Have fun all!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

..some regulation is a reality, due the the nature of Americans today whether you wish to accept it or not...now you can either take the approach of "out of my cold dead hands" or work within the system to expand gun ownership rights while at the same time limiting the damage done to the public by their misuse...

 

...neither side will be happy with either outcome...thats the nature of compromise

 

That's what every tyrant tells his victims, we know where it leads. Thank God the founding fathers did too.

 

In short you are afraid of the animating contest of freedom; here is what Samuel Adams had to say to people with a similar disposition.

 

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

- speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. :) As I mentioned earlier I think I should be able to have H&K send me a full auto MP5 to my front porch, no "permission" needed.

 

The post you quoted was just to try and focus things to keep this thread from getting locked or moved to FC. I don't think the government can be remotely trusted to do, well, anything. Remember the US government sent 10s of thousands of Americans of Japanese to concentration camps descent because they were "adjudicated" to be a threat to national security.

 

As to people needing training. The private market could easily remedy that situation. Sellers would be free to deny purchase to anyone. Before anyone gets upset, remember that in this scenario they want to stay in business. No government bailout so if their restrictions were too severe they would go out of business and replaced by a different dealer. This is in the same way that some bartenders will stop serving someone if they feel they've had too much to drink.

 

For the range scenario, you could approach the person in question in a friendly manner, talk to the range officer to have him/her deal with the situation (including asking the person to leave) or if all else fails you could leave.

 

Truthfully, I am tired of compromising. People hold this is as some sort of ideal in itself. If you have $10 and I say, "I'm the government and it is inevitable that I am going to get some of your money. I want $10."

"How about $1"

"OK, $3 is my best offer. I think we can compromise with this value."

"Done."

"Oh actually I need $7. It is inevitable that I will get some more of your money so let's find a compromise solution. You'll eventually see that this is really common sense."

"Well, can I talk you into taking $3 more dollars?"

"Sure."

 

Repeat till you don't have anything. Trotting out compromise as some sort of ideal is a dangerous precedent. As a member of the gun owning public I can say that we've compromised enough.

 

But for now, I really need to go grocery shopping. Have fun all!

 

 

I actually did leave a range the other day, due to a 12-14 yr old kid whos guardian was too busy picking up other people brass to notice him sweep everyone down the line with his .40.

 

I approached him, asked him to please keep his muzzle pointed down range...

 

about 30 minutes later he did the same thing..so my friend and I, and the guys next to us...left.

 

And I agree that we have compromised too far, and that the 1968 ban needs to go away...and I would like the NICS stick around...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

..some regulation is a reality, due the the nature of Americans today whether you wish to accept it or not...now you can either take the approach of "out of my cold dead hands" or work within the system to expand gun ownership rights while at the same time limiting the damage done to the public by their misuse...

 

...neither side will be happy with either outcome...thats the nature of compromise

 

That's what every tyrant tells his victims, we know where it leads. Thank God the founding fathers did too.

 

In short you are afraid of the animating contest of freedom; here is what Samuel Adams had to say to people with a similar disposition.

 

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

- speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776"

 

You quote a man talking about those that are not willing to fight back against a government that ruled over the colonists without representation..

 

...we have representation...and its the responsibility of the representation to push the issue of their constituency...

 

...perhaps you are angry that majority of the populace doesn't care about the freedoms you hold dear...

 

...Keep in mind that I picked up arms and went to serve my country...and defended those freedoms with my life...

 

...you blame the government, but that government is an extension of the people, by free and fair election....as are the results...

Link to post
Share on other sites

..some regulation is a reality, due the the nature of Americans today whether you wish to accept it or not...now you can either take the approach of "out of my cold dead hands" or work within the system to expand gun ownership rights while at the same time limiting the damage done to the public by their misuse...

 

...neither side will be happy with either outcome...thats the nature of compromise

 

That's what every tyrant tells his victims, we know where it leads. Thank God the founding fathers did too.

 

In short you are afraid of the animating contest of freedom; here is what Samuel Adams had to say to people with a similar disposition.

 

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

- speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776"

 

You quote a man talking about those that are not willing to fight back against a government that ruled over the colonists without representation..

 

...we have representation...and its the responsibility of the representation to push the issue of their constituency...

 

...perhaps you are angry that majority of the populace doesn't care about the freedoms you hold dear...

 

...Keep in mind that I picked up arms and went to serve my country...and defended those freedoms with my life...

 

...you blame the government, but that government is an extension of the people, by free and fair election....as are the results...

 

No I'm quoting a man who understood that some people want the tranquility of servitude, they don't want the animating contest of freedom. Those same people wish to impose their beliefs on us with force; that is the same thing you desire. You may not wish to word it that way, but that is the root of it, and it is exactly what enables the genocides I mentioned. You are afraid of the animating contest of freedom. What makes your posts even more interesting is that you wish to convince us that we have no choice so we must compromise our God given rights; I am just glad the founding fathers were not of your mindset.

 

In fact, if I had to make a wild ass swag, I would guess that you are writing some sort of research thesis on modifying the societal behaviors of a free society. If you're not, you certainly have been strongly influenced by someone with that mindset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..some regulation is a reality, due the the nature of Americans today whether you wish to accept it or not...now you can either take the approach of "out of my cold dead hands" or work within the system to expand gun ownership rights while at the same time limiting the damage done to the public by their misuse...

 

...neither side will be happy with either outcome...thats the nature of compromise

 

That's what every tyrant tells his victims, we know where it leads. Thank God the founding fathers did too.

 

In short you are afraid of the animating contest of freedom; here is what Samuel Adams had to say to people with a similar disposition.

 

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

- speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776"

 

You quote a man talking about those that are not willing to fight back against a government that ruled over the colonists without representation..

 

...we have representation...and its the responsibility of the representation to push the issue of their constituency...

 

...perhaps you are angry that majority of the populace doesn't care about the freedoms you hold dear...

 

...Keep in mind that I picked up arms and went to serve my country...and defended those freedoms with my life...

 

...you blame the government, but that government is an extension of the people, by free and fair election....as are the results...

 

No I'm quoting a man who understood that some people want the tranquility of servitude, they don't want the animating contest of freedom. Those same people wish to impose their beliefs on us with force; that is the same thing you desire. You may not wish to word it that way, but that is the root of it, and it is exactly what enables the genocides I mentioned. You are afraid of the animating contest of freedom. What makes your posts even more interesting is that you wish to convince us that we have no choice so we must compromise our God given rights; I am just glad the founding fathers were not of your mindset.

 

In fact, if I had to make a wild ass swag, I would guess that you are writing some sort of research thesis on modifying the societal behaviors of a free society. If you're not, you certainly have been strongly influenced by someone with that mindset.

 

Just a few questions:

 

Please define for me in the language of 2011, what your interpretation of "animating contest of freedom" is...

 

Please define for me "Those same people"...as it applies to 2011...

 

And Im not writing a research paper, but like any good negotiator I know that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar....

Link to post
Share on other sites
You quote a man talking about those that are not willing to fight back against a government that ruled over the colonists without representation..

 

...we have representation...

DO we? REALLY? So when literal millions of people, all over our Republic, took to the streets to make it perfectly clear that we DO.NOT.WANT. what the tyrants in DC were pushing on us, when every poll showed a majority of Citizens OPPOSED to it, when they couldn't even muster the votes without resorting to "deem and pass" or outright bribery of certain Senators and Reps -- Were we being represented?

 

When the 8@$+@rds mocked us as "racists" and "tea-baggers", outright lied about supposed racism, spitting, etc. -- were we being represented?

 

When the midterm saw more seats change parties than at any time in history - EVER - before, and the losing party rushed to push through more of their rejected agenda during the "lame duck session" -- were we being represented?

 

When a "regular guy" CANNOT POSSIBLY ever be elected to National office - without the blessing of one of the two branches of The Government Party, nothing more than two wings of the same rapacious bird of prey - are we being represented?

 

When the CONgress cannot pass laws desired by the regime ("cap & trade", "Net Neutrality", etc) - because We The People gave his party a shellacking they'll never forget - and the usurping _resident does an end-run and has his agencies implement the laws anyway -- are we being represented?

 

F**K NO we're not. Our Founders would have tarred-&-feathered Nazi Pelosi et al decades ago, and would have taken up arms a long damn time ago.

 

...Keep in mind that I picked up arms and went to serve my country...and defended those freedoms with my life...

 

Then you took a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies - foreign OR DOMESTIC.

 

What part of that oath set the expiration-date?

 

Didn't have one, did it?

 

Hmmmmmm.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of observations:2A doesn't grant the right, it recognizes it. In the first clause, "...well-regulated ..." means well-trained. "militia" is all of us--ages 17-47 are mandatory. Look up the word 'infringed'--you'll find it verrry enlightening.

For those who don't feel threatened, read Luke 22:36, and couple of verses before and after.

A nutshell definition of democracy: 2 wolves and a lamb voting on lunch.

Ben Franklin was asked by a woman at the end of the Con-Con what kind of government he had gotten them. He replied, "A repubic, if you can keep it."

Yes, most, if not all, of the "gun control" laws are unConstitutional. I'm not eager to be a Test Case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guy interested in English grammar. The exact reading of the 2nd amendment is as follows," 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." Notice that clause that precedes " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yeah, the one that mentions a militia. Thats integral to the understanding of the 2nd amendment, and what are founding fathers actually intended by it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights. And to the people that don't believe the Constitution is a living document, I must ask you to examine that clause as well. If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on more than one occasion that the part about a militia doesn't exclude private gun ownership, than you'ld probably be shooting squirrels out of a tree with a slingshot right now. If you want to take the constitution as an unchanging document, than you should believe that the only way to own firearms legally would be to join your state militia. Furthermore, were the constitution an unchanging document, you could say goodbye to the right to privacy, something I'm sure everyone on this forum believes in to the highest degree, as it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but instead based on several Supreme Court rulings deeming it an implied right granted by the Constitution; also, the Bill of Rights in it's entirety, since everything contained within it was an afterthought to the original document; and for that matter any other amendments you might like, say, the right to free speech. You can't just run around using the Constitution and Bill of Rights when it suits your purposes, and ignore it when it does not. Again, I must point out that the commerce clause is also part of the Constitution and allows for the regulation of firearms.

griswold vs. connecticut

OMFG. I just read the rest of this drivel. You must be a troll.

 

'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.'

 

Secure in their persons, house, papers, and everything else. How, exactly, do you think we wouldn't have privacy if it weren't for SCOTUS? There is nothing fucking implied here. All that there is, is a bunch of politicians that want to infringe these rights, and the brainwashed people that listen to them and don't do any fact checking or critical thinking on their own.

Well while were all fact checking, perhaps you would like to look into Griwold v. Connecticut, a landmark case in determining that the right to privacy is implied by the Constitution. Until this ruling was passed, the SC had ruled against privacy in many cases dating all the way back to the 18th century. You may also care to know, that the Court did not base this decision primarily on the 4th amendment, but rather portions of the 1st, 9th, and 14th, with some, but very little mention of the 4th. And please, don't try and tell me about commas. That "place holder" business is what they tell you in third grade because the term prepositional clause would confuse a child (and apparently adults.) I implore you to put your best thinking cap on, and try your very hardest to remember your English grammar. "A well regulated militia," - now notice there is only a subject in that clause. "Being necessary to the security of a free state," - here please note that though a full clause has been formed and a predicate has been produced, this is what's known as a subordinate clause because it fails to terminate logically without the clause which proceeds it. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms," - again we have a comma, which in antiquated English was required to introduce a modifying phrase, in this case "shall not be infringed."

To hell with all of this though. Being a rational gun owner is just a lonely occupation. You can read whatever you want out of the 2nd amendment, so long as you're not on the SC.

I'm paraphrasing here, but Ghandi said that you must recognize that your opponent has an equally valid point of view, because all beliefs are merely points of view. You want to convince the 2/3 of Americans that don't own guns that you're not just a bunch of nihilistic, anti-government crazies, but people who actually have legitimate and heart-felt convictions concerning their right to own guns, than you'ld better start recognizing that there is a plurality of views and opinions in this country.

And I too am not a gun grabber, whatever that means. I own twelve firearms, two target bows, two pellet guns, countless knives, even a slingshot. I keep a loaded 9mm and 12 gauge in my house at all times, and I would be remiss if anyone tried to change any of that.

Edited by vanveen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guy interested in English grammar. The exact reading of the 2nd amendment is as follows," 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." Notice that clause that precedes " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yeah, the one that mentions a militia. Thats integral to the understanding of the 2nd amendment, and what are founding fathers actually intended by it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights. And to the people that don't believe the Constitution is a living document, I must ask you to examine that clause as well. If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on more than one occasion that the part about a militia doesn't exclude private gun ownership, than you'ld probably be shooting squirrels out of a tree with a slingshot right now. If you want to take the constitution as an unchanging document, than you should believe that the only way to own firearms legally would be to join your state militia. Furthermore, were the constitution an unchanging document, you could say goodbye to the right to privacy, something I'm sure everyone on this forum believes in to the highest degree, as it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but instead based on several Supreme Court rulings deeming it an implied right granted by the Constitution; also, the Bill of Rights in it's entirety, since everything contained within it was an afterthought to the original document; and for that matter any other amendments you might like, say, the right to free speech. You can't just run around using the Constitution and Bill of Rights when it suits your purposes, and ignore it when it does not. Again, I must point out that the commerce clause is also part of the Constitution and allows for the regulation of firearms.

griswold vs. connecticut

OMFG. I just read the rest of this drivel. You must be a troll.

 

'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.'

 

Secure in their persons, house, papers, and everything else. How, exactly, do you think we wouldn't have privacy if it weren't for SCOTUS? There is nothing fucking implied here. All that there is, is a bunch of politicians that want to infringe these rights, and the brainwashed people that listen to them and don't do any fact checking or critical thinking on their own.

Well while were all fact checking, perhaps you would like to look into Griwold v. Connecticut, a landmark case in determining that the right to privacy is implied by the Constitution. Until this ruling was passed, the SC had ruled against privacy in many cases dating all the way back to the 18th century. You may also care to know, that the Court did not base this decision primarily on the 4th amendment, but rather portions of the 1st, 9th, and 14th, with some, but very little mention of the 4th. And please, don't try and tell me about commas. That "place holder" business is what they tell you in third grade because the term prepositional clause would confuse a child (and apparently adults.) I implore you to put your best thinking cap on, and try your very hardest to remember your English grammar. "A well regulated militia," - now notice there is only a subject in that clause. "Being necessary to the security of a free state," - here please note that though a full clause has been formed and a predicate has been produced, this is what's known as a subordinate clause because it fails to terminate logically without the clause which proceeds it. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms," - again we have a comma, which in antiquated English was required to introduce a modifying phrase, in this case "shall not be infringed."

To hell with all of this though. Being a rational gun owner is just a lonely occupation. You can read whatever you want out of the 2nd amendment, so long as you're not on the SC.

I'm paraphrasing here, but Ghandi said that you must recognize that your opponent has an equally valid point of view, because all beliefs are merely points of view. You want to convince the 2/3 of Americans that don't own guns that you're not just a bunch of nihilistic, anti-government crazies, but people who actually have legitimate and heart-felt convictions concerning their right to own guns, than you'ld better start recognizing that there is a plurality of views and opinions in this country.

And I too am not a gun grabber, whatever that means. I own twelve firearms, two target bows, two pellet guns, countless knives, even a slingshot. I keep a loaded 9mm and 12 gauge in my house at all times, and I would be remiss if anyone tried to change any of that.

 

So "the people" isn't the subject? Yeah...protection of "the people" is what this thing was written for. And I'm not going to sit here and argue English...especially when you try to factor in antiquated English. The fact of the matter is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in there, and no amount of you bullshit will make it disapear. The PEOPLE have a right to bear arms.

 

And I'm not looking at any 18th century anything. At least not in this case. I CAN READ THE FUCKING DOCUMENT THAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WROTE. And it isn't very hard to see the point they were trying to make. People like you who think think you get to interpret it, or change it, or anything else deserve a one way ticket out of this country IMO.

 

Don't like the rights that were afforded to you by the blood of others? Leave. I'm outta this thread. Too much hippy "let's all hold hands and see what this document really means" bullshit going on. It means what it fucking says, in very plain English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..some regulation is a reality, due the the nature of Americans today whether you wish to accept it or not...now you can either take the approach of "out of my cold dead hands" or work within the system to expand gun ownership rights while at the same time limiting the damage done to the public by their misuse...

 

...neither side will be happy with either outcome...thats the nature of compromise

 

That's what every tyrant tells his victims, we know where it leads. Thank God the founding fathers did too.

 

In short you are afraid of the animating contest of freedom; here is what Samuel Adams had to say to people with a similar disposition.

 

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

- speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776"

 

You quote a man talking about those that are not willing to fight back against a government that ruled over the colonists without representation..

 

...we have representation...and its the responsibility of the representation to push the issue of their constituency...

 

...perhaps you are angry that majority of the populace doesn't care about the freedoms you hold dear...

 

...Keep in mind that I picked up arms and went to serve my country...and defended those freedoms with my life...

 

...you blame the government, but that government is an extension of the people, by free and fair election....as are the results...

 

No I'm quoting a man who understood that some people want the tranquility of servitude, they don't want the animating contest of freedom. Those same people wish to impose their beliefs on us with force; that is the same thing you desire. You may not wish to word it that way, but that is the root of it, and it is exactly what enables the genocides I mentioned. You are afraid of the animating contest of freedom. What makes your posts even more interesting is that you wish to convince us that we have no choice so we must compromise our God given rights; I am just glad the founding fathers were not of your mindset.

 

In fact, if I had to make a wild ass swag, I would guess that you are writing some sort of research thesis on modifying the societal behaviors of a free society. If you're not, you certainly have been strongly influenced by someone with that mindset.

 

Just a few questions:

 

Please define for me in the language of 2011, what your interpretation of "animating contest of freedom" is...

 

Please define for me "Those same people"...as it applies to 2011...

 

And Im not writing a research paper, but like any good negotiator I know that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar....

 

 

What a strange Orwellian mindset you must have to think that freedoms granted to us by God have have some how changed in their meaning over time, or that man/government can redefine them to suit the fleeting needs of the moment; no wonder you called the Constitution a "living document". You say you have fought for freedom, given your mindset I would to ask you to explain that. I suspect that it means the you took up arms to force others to bend to the will of yourself or others?

 

In regards to "Those same people", again there is no Orwellian changing of the means of words to suit ones needs; "Those same people" = "ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom"

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple points:

 

1. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right, just like all the others. One does not argue

that the 1st, 4th, or 5th Amendments apply to individuals, don't try it with the 2nd.

 

2. The Constitution pulled from sources like state constitutions which even more explicitly

protected the right of the individual to own guns.

 

3. The 2nd Amendment cannot be infringed at all. The 13th Amendment doesn't free SOME black people,

it frees them all. The 19th Amendment doesn't allow SOME adult women to vote, it allows them all.

The 2nd Amendment protects all citizens' right to own any fucking gun they want. Bear in mind

that most of the cannons in the Revolutionary War were privately owned.

 

4. The well regulated militia clause is a justification for, not a determining factor of, the right

to bear arms. You don't get the right to play gay grammar games with the Constitution of my country.

Everything else in the bill of rights is absolute and applies to the individual, so does this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice summary Kliegl.

 

I love when I get to the point in a debate where the liberal asks the inevitable question..........

 

"SO, IF YOU CAN OWN A MACHINE GUN, YOU PROBABLY THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN ARTILLERY, OR AN ATOMIC BOMB?????" (Caps added, because by this point, after countering everyone of their liberal playbook arguments with fact, they ARE SHOUTING at me)

 

I answer them.

 

"Yes, technically, I should be able to."

 

Then, I go into how difficult it would be for an individual to acquire the components, and material for an atomic bomb, not to mention expense, and technical expertise to make it. Or, how the same factors apply to modern artillery, helicopters, jets, etc.

 

And, they usually walk away at this point, because they have no arguments left.

 

 

How do you control guns so that people don't get hurt? Or Killed?

 

You don't. Just like ultimately, you can't stop a car driver from drinking, or falling asleep, or intentionally driving into a crowd, or, for someone to pick up a rock, or a stick, and do harm on another.

 

You can attempt to do it, and when it fails, as any system does, then the cries come out for more control, more laws, on top of thousands that already are not working, and never will.

 

No one can regulate MORALITY, or STUPIDITY, the two primary factors in most matters of life and death, NO ONE CAN...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to attempt address several points at one time...and then please feel free to keep flaming me.

 

The legislative branch of the government is elected by the people...if you dont like what they are doing...dont vote for them next time...or run yourself, so you can push your agenda......

 

@Dedicated_Dad - I would ask you to refrain from calling anyone a Nazi...Just because you vehemently disagree with someones policies is a long cry from mass murder and subjugation of other sovereign nations...you may disagree with her policies and the policies of other political parties but the people of her state elected her and as a member of congress should be respected...as far as Net-Neutrality goes you might want to do learn what its about, outside of Fox News, before jumping on the band wagon...Net-Neutrality is about keep the internet, free, open and without restraints, preventing ISP providers from blocking content, slowing content they deem to be not in their best interest, or attempting to block communication from other ISPs...for someone who loves freedom so much, sounds like your willing to give that portion of freedom away very cheaply... I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic...there was no OR...

 

@tktm - Unless you have taken that oath yourself and served i dont want to hear it....you can talk a big game and go out and play soldier all you want...but unless you have stood up and made that oath, and been called to make good on it...please refrain from labeling me. Furthermore, I'm not going to get into theology with anyone...you can believe in God if you want, but leave me out of it...And the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are living...and as proof of that I give you the 18th and 21st Amendments...the Constitution was changed by will of the people to prohibit the sale of alcohol, and then repealed by a further will of the people...if you dont call that a "living document" then I dont know what is....a non-living document is one that by its very nature CANNOT change...and as far as I can tell thats about as far away from freedom as you can get...truth.

 

I dont think anyone here is debating the words written in the Constitution...but put 10 people in a room and ask them what it means and you will get ten different answers...such is the case with politicians, the supreme court, and yourself...it doesnt make you right by default...

 

..and for those of you who are so quick to label folks as hippies, liberal or Nazis...there was another group that liked labels...they liked to call people "undesireables" and "Jews"...the Nazis....lets reflect on that shall we....

 

It seems very easy for some in this thread to disregard other sections of the constitution to attempt to make your point...No one is debating that individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms which was held up in Heller vs. DC...However other amendments to the Constitution and the Commerce clause provide the federal government the authority to regulate commerce between states, as such has the ability to regulate firearms sales how they see fit...hence I mentioned the Montana Gun Sovereignty Law, which directly addresses the point I'm making...

 

...and yes...the people have the right to make changes to the constitution as the people see fit...just because you dont like how it could change doesnt give you the right to deny that right to others...that gentlemen is the definition of freedom...and if you dont like that....theres the door....

Edited by Xitesmai
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to attempt address several points at one time...and then please feel free to keep flaming me.

 

The legislative branch of the government is elected by the people...if you dont like what they are doing...dont vote for them next time...or run yourself, so you can push your agenda......

 

@Dedicated_Dad - I would ask you to refrain from calling anyone a Nazi...Just because you vehemently disagree with someones policies is a long cry from mass murder and subjugation of other sovereign nations...you may disagree with her policies and the policies of other political parties but the people of her state elected her and as a member of congress should be respected...as far as Net-Neutrality goes you might want to do learn what its about, outside of Fox News, before jumping on the band wagon...Net-Neutrality is about keep the internet, free, open and without restraints, preventing ISP providers from blocking content, slowing content they deem to be not in their best interest, or attempting to block communication from other ISPs...for someone who loves freedom so much, sounds like your willing to give that portion of freedom away very cheaply... I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic...there was no OR...

 

@tktm - Unless you have taken that oath yourself and served i dont want to hear it....you can talk a big game and go out and play soldier all you want...but unless you have stood up and made that oath, and been called to make good on it...please refrain from labeling me. Furthermore, I'm not going to get into theology with anyone...you can believe in God if you want, but leave me out of it...And the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are living...and as proof of that I give you the 18th and 21st Amendments...the Constitution was changed by will of the people to prohibit the sale of alcohol, and then repealed by a further will of the people...if you dont call that a "living document" then I dont know what is....a non-living document is one that by its very nature CANNOT change...and as far as I can tell thats about as far away from freedom as you can get...truth.

 

I dont think anyone here is debating the words written in the Constitution...but put 10 people in a room and ask them what it means and you will get ten different answers...such is the case with politicians, the supreme court, and yourself...it doesnt make you right by default...

 

..and for those of you who are so quick to label folks as hippies, liberal or Nazis...there was another group that liked labels...they liked to call people "undesireables" and "Jews"...the Nazis....lets reflect on that shall we....

 

It seems very easy for some in this thread to disregard other sections of the constitution to attempt to make your point...No one is debating that individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms which was held up in Heller vs. DC...However other amendments to the Constitution and the Commerce clause provide the federal government the authority to regulate commerce between states, as such has the ability to regulate firearms sales how they see fit...hence I mentioned the Montana Gun Sovereignty Law, which directly addresses the point I'm making...

 

...and yes...the people have the right to make changes to the constitution as the people see fit...just because you dont like how it could change doesnt give you the right to deny that right to others...that gentlemen is the definition of freedom...and if you dont like that....theres the door....

 

I just want to say thank you Xitesmai. Thank you for your service to the country I love, and the democratic values I embrace; and thank you for having an honest sense of civic responsibility. I have been arguing similar points to your own this time, and it pleases me to know that there are other rational gun owners out there, who's understanding of our constitution and politics isn't limited to vitriol and empty rhetoric. I only wish there could be more gun owners like yourself. You have my thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@tktm - Unless you have taken that oath yourself and served i dont want to hear it....you can talk a big game and go out and play soldier all you want...but unless you have stood up and made that oath, and been called to make good on it...please refrain from labeling me. Furthermore, I'm not going to get into theology with anyone...you can believe in God if you want, but leave me out of it...And the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are living...and as proof of that I give you the 18th and 21st Amendments...the Constitution was changed by will of the people to prohibit the sale of alcohol, and then repealed by a further will of the people...if you dont call that a "living document" then I dont know what is....a non-living document is one that by its very nature CANNOT change...and as far as I can tell thats about as far away from freedom as you can get...truth.

 

I dont think anyone here is debating the words written in the Constitution...but put 10 people in a room and ask them what it means and you will get ten different answers...such is the case with politicians, the supreme court, and yourself...it doesnt make you right by default...

 

..and for those of you who are so quick to label folks as hippies, liberal or Nazis...there was another group that liked labels...they liked to call people "undesireables" and "Jews"...the Nazis....lets reflect on that shall we....

 

It seems very easy for some in this thread to disregard other sections of the constitution to attempt to make your point...No one is debating that individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms which was held up in Heller vs. DC...However other amendments to the Constitution and the Commerce clause provide the federal government the authority to regulate commerce between states, as such has the ability to regulate firearms sales how they see fit...hence I mentioned the Montana Gun Sovereignty Law, which directly addresses the point I'm making...

 

...and yes...the people have the right to make changes to the constitution as the people see fit...just because you dont like how it could change doesnt give you the right to deny that right to others...that gentlemen is the definition of freedom...and if you dont like that....theres the door....

 

 

Please don't read more into my comments then there is ; I never said this was a game. I did say my interest is in protecting the liberty of my children, and that is no game. Nor did I indicate that I played soldier. The intimation one has to be a soldier to comment in of itself is contrary to the founding of the Republic, that war was fought by farmers, in fact a standing army was considered to be the bane of liberty. Moreover, There is no need to debate God, it is firmly established in the Declaration of Independence that the Creator is where our rights come from. (or would your "living" interpretation of that document mean that the Creator refers to the states that ratified the Declaration of Independence)

 

The Constitution is an amendable document, but it is not a living document because the meaning of the words do not change, nor does its purpose to guarantee our rights (not grant them). Your concept of the commerce clause could be used to do to us every single bit of centralized planning that the soviet union did. By your logic the commerce clause gives the government the authority to tell us which foods to buy and eat; heck they could even use it to tell us who to marry and not to marry.

 

"The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make "normal" or "regular" commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of "commerce" such as tariffs, quotas and taxes." if you want to know more read this

http://mises.org/daily/1841

 

You are right that the founding fathers gave us methods for correcting the wrongs that have been done, and we should. But, your argument has been that the only solution is to compromise on the very document/principals on which our republic is based. Even worse you seem to deny that those founding principals, or claim that they have either changed because they were all "living" or never existed. I wonder how long until your "living" interpretation of the commerce clause will be used to tell us how many children to have (is there any stronger influence on interstate commerce than having children?).

 

You seem to have a strong interest in weapons and statisim but very little interest in liberty and freedom (a dangerous mix indeed). Yet you say you have literally fought for freedom, and simultaneously your "living" definition of the word/concept of freedom is confusing; that is why I asked you to expound on it. And now you say you have taken an oath on a living document, so I wonder how that oath can mean ANYTHING if its meaning is "living". How can one legitimately take an oath to something where those words are "living" and their meaning can evolve over time as is required by those in power?

 

I apologize if you have taken any of my inquires or comments as disparaging because that was not my intent. However, you have piqued my interest in so much as your expounded views and desire to influence seem to be directed towards creating an even greater foundation for a medium to far term destruction of our freedoms by compromising on the near term destruction of those freedoms.

 

Seldom does one run into someone with such distrust of weapons in the hands of others, combined with such a strong love of statisim (certainly a dangerous mix, see the JPFO Genocide Chart) . I typically only expect those behaviors from people who are paid shills for the gun control lobby; However to think that some one with your mindset might exist independently in the wild is interesting. In that regard let me ask you this, is there any "societal problem" that you can imagine that would actual require a reduction in governmental power, size, and control?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@tktm - Unless you have taken that oath yourself and served i dont want to hear it....you can talk a big game and go out and play soldier all you want...but unless you have stood up and made that oath, and been called to make good on it...please refrain from labeling me. Furthermore, I'm not going to get into theology with anyone...you can believe in God if you want, but leave me out of it...And the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are living...and as proof of that I give you the 18th and 21st Amendments...the Constitution was changed by will of the people to prohibit the sale of alcohol, and then repealed by a further will of the people...if you dont call that a "living document" then I dont know what is....a non-living document is one that by its very nature CANNOT change...and as far as I can tell thats about as far away from freedom as you can get...truth.

 

I dont think anyone here is debating the words written in the Constitution...but put 10 people in a room and ask them what it means and you will get ten different answers...such is the case with politicians, the supreme court, and yourself...it doesnt make you right by default...

 

..and for those of you who are so quick to label folks as hippies, liberal or Nazis...there was another group that liked labels...they liked to call people "undesireables" and "Jews"...the Nazis....lets reflect on that shall we....

 

It seems very easy for some in this thread to disregard other sections of the constitution to attempt to make your point...No one is debating that individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms which was held up in Heller vs. DC...However other amendments to the Constitution and the Commerce clause provide the federal government the authority to regulate commerce between states, as such has the ability to regulate firearms sales how they see fit...hence I mentioned the Montana Gun Sovereignty Law, which directly addresses the point I'm making...

 

...and yes...the people have the right to make changes to the constitution as the people see fit...just because you dont like how it could change doesnt give you the right to deny that right to others...that gentlemen is the definition of freedom...and if you dont like that....theres the door....

 

 

Please don't read more into my comments then there is ; I never said this was a game. I did say my interest is in protecting the liberty of my children, and that is no game. Nor did I indicate that I played soldier. The intimation one has to be a soldier to comment in of itself is contrary to the founding of the Republic, that war was fought by farmers, in fact a standing army was considered to be the bane of liberty. Moreover, There is no need to debate God, it is firmly established in the Declaration of Independence that the Creator is where our rights come from. (or would your "living" interpretation of that document mean that the Creator refers to the states that ratified the Declaration of Independence)

 

The Constitution is an amendable document, but it is not a living document because the meaning of the words do not change, nor does its purpose to guarantee our rights (not grant them). Your concept of the commerce clause could be used to do to us every single bit of centralized planning that the soviet union did. By your logic the commerce clause gives the government the authority to tell us which foods to buy and eat; heck they could even use it to tell us who to marry and not to marry.

 

"The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make "normal" or "regular" commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of "commerce" such as tariffs, quotas and taxes." if you want to know more read this

http://mises.org/daily/1841

 

You are right that the founding fathers gave us methods for correcting the wrongs that have been done, and we should. But, your argument has been that the only solution is to compromise on the very document/principals on which our republic is based. Even worse you seem to deny that those founding principals, or claim that they have either changed because they were all "living" or never existed. I wonder how long until your "living" interpretation of the commerce clause will be used to tell us how many children to have (is there any stronger influence on interstate commerce than having children?).

 

You seem to have a strong interest in weapons and statisim but very little interest in liberty and freedom (a dangerous mix indeed). Yet you say you have literally fought for freedom, and simultaneously your "living" definition of the word/concept of freedom is confusing; that is why I asked you to expound on it. And now you say you have taken an oath on a living document, so I wonder how that oath can mean ANYTHING if its meaning is "living". How can one legitimately take an oath to something where those words are "living" and their meaning can evolve over time as is required by those in power?

 

I apologize if you have taken any of my inquires or comments as disparaging because that was not my intent. However, you have piqued my interest in so much as your expounded views and desire to influence seem to be directed towards creating an even greater foundation for a medium to far term destruction of our freedoms by compromising on the near term destruction of those freedoms.

 

Seldom does one run into someone with such distrust of weapons in the hands of others, combined with such a strong love of statisim (certainly a dangerous mix, see the JPFO Genocide Chart) . I typically only expect those behaviors from people who are paid shills for the gun control lobby; However to think that some one with your mindset might exist independently in the wild is interesting. In that regard let me ask you this, is there any "societal problem" that you can imagine that would actual require a reduction in governmental power, size, and control?

 

#1 That is some condescending bull#$@^.

#2 Who's Creator do you refer to? Certainly not mine, as I'm sure my father's sperm cell, and my mother's egg had no concern whatsoever as to whether I could hold a gun in my hand or not. Furthermore, the word Creator implies ambiguity as to the nature of such an entity; it is not an endorsement of your god. Many of the founding fathers were agnostic or pantheistic. Now these are certainly matters of interpretation, but it has been my belief that the word Creator is meant to reinforce these rights as being natural rights, inherited as a birthright by all (of course at the time, this didn't include blacks, natives, or anybody that wasn't anglo-saxon for that matter, so don't tell me the Constitution isn't a living document.)

#3 You are correct about the original purpose of the commerce clause, but that was the original purpose. Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court has expanded that purpose because times change, and issues that were relevant two hundred years ago no longer are, and new problems need to be addressed based on a document that is only a few hundred words long.

#4 ...Well I have to leave the cafe now, so to be continued... maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@tktm - Unless you have taken that oath yourself and served i dont want to hear it....you can talk a big game and go out and play soldier all you want...but unless you have stood up and made that oath, and been called to make good on it...please refrain from labeling me. Furthermore, I'm not going to get into theology with anyone...you can believe in God if you want, but leave me out of it...And the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are living...and as proof of that I give you the 18th and 21st Amendments...the Constitution was changed by will of the people to prohibit the sale of alcohol, and then repealed by a further will of the people...if you dont call that a "living document" then I dont know what is....a non-living document is one that by its very nature CANNOT change...and as far as I can tell thats about as far away from freedom as you can get...truth.

 

I dont think anyone here is debating the words written in the Constitution...but put 10 people in a room and ask them what it means and you will get ten different answers...such is the case with politicians, the supreme court, and yourself...it doesnt make you right by default...

 

..and for those of you who are so quick to label folks as hippies, liberal or Nazis...there was another group that liked labels...they liked to call people "undesireables" and "Jews"...the Nazis....lets reflect on that shall we....

 

It seems very easy for some in this thread to disregard other sections of the constitution to attempt to make your point...No one is debating that individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms which was held up in Heller vs. DC...However other amendments to the Constitution and the Commerce clause provide the federal government the authority to regulate commerce between states, as such has the ability to regulate firearms sales how they see fit...hence I mentioned the Montana Gun Sovereignty Law, which directly addresses the point I'm making...

 

...and yes...the people have the right to make changes to the constitution as the people see fit...just because you dont like how it could change doesnt give you the right to deny that right to others...that gentlemen is the definition of freedom...and if you dont like that....theres the door....

 

 

Please don't read more into my comments then there is ; I never said this was a game. I did say my interest is in protecting the liberty of my children, and that is no game. Nor did I indicate that I played soldier. The intimation one has to be a soldier to comment in of itself is contrary to the founding of the Republic, that war was fought by farmers, in fact a standing army was considered to be the bane of liberty. Moreover, There is no need to debate God, it is firmly established in the Declaration of Independence that the Creator is where our rights come from. (or would your "living" interpretation of that document mean that the Creator refers to the states that ratified the Declaration of Independence)

 

The Constitution is an amendable document, but it is not a living document because the meaning of the words do not change, nor does its purpose to guarantee our rights (not grant them). Your concept of the commerce clause could be used to do to us every single bit of centralized planning that the soviet union did. By your logic the commerce clause gives the government the authority to tell us which foods to buy and eat; heck they could even use it to tell us who to marry and not to marry.

 

"The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make "normal" or "regular" commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of "commerce" such as tariffs, quotas and taxes." if you want to know more read this

http://mises.org/daily/1841

 

You are right that the founding fathers gave us methods for correcting the wrongs that have been done, and we should. But, your argument has been that the only solution is to compromise on the very document/principals on which our republic is based. Even worse you seem to deny that those founding principals, or claim that they have either changed because they were all "living" or never existed. I wonder how long until your "living" interpretation of the commerce clause will be used to tell us how many children to have (is there any stronger influence on interstate commerce than having children?).

 

You seem to have a strong interest in weapons and statisim but very little interest in liberty and freedom (a dangerous mix indeed). Yet you say you have literally fought for freedom, and simultaneously your "living" definition of the word/concept of freedom is confusing; that is why I asked you to expound on it. And now you say you have taken an oath on a living document, so I wonder how that oath can mean ANYTHING if its meaning is "living". How can one legitimately take an oath to something where those words are "living" and their meaning can evolve over time as is required by those in power?

 

I apologize if you have taken any of my inquires or comments as disparaging because that was not my intent. However, you have piqued my interest in so much as your expounded views and desire to influence seem to be directed towards creating an even greater foundation for a medium to far term destruction of our freedoms by compromising on the near term destruction of those freedoms.

 

Seldom does one run into someone with such distrust of weapons in the hands of others, combined with such a strong love of statisim (certainly a dangerous mix, see the JPFO Genocide Chart) . I typically only expect those behaviors from people who are paid shills for the gun control lobby; However to think that some one with your mindset might exist independently in the wild is interesting. In that regard let me ask you this, is there any "societal problem" that you can imagine that would actual require a reduction in governmental power, size, and control?

 

This.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see another on here who enjoys mises.org.

 

Just a point of clarification when it comes to referring to a "living document" as some on here seem to convoluting two things. There is an ability to change a document and there is the ability to reinterpret a document.

 

To me a living document (and I don't think I am alone in this definition) is one where the text remains unchanged but its interpretation changes in time. Thus if the Constitution is living means that it can mean anything depending on what those with "authority" decides that it means.

 

Living documents are dangerous because they mean nothing. Who would enter into a contract with someone if they thought that the other party would treat it as "living" and reinterpret it to mean whatever they want. See my last paragraph before the aside.

 

Certainly the Constitution may be amended but Congress doesn't bother with that anymore because it is too difficult and slow so they just ignore it or use tortured "living" interpretations to justify their actions.

 

This whole discussion is why I don't believe that any form of government is conducive to a free society. Pelosi is elected by a small number of people in CA but used her position to influence others and use the guns of government to help enact policies that are unpopular. Well she is no longer Speaker but the point could be made by someone on the left that Boehner has undue influence and act against the interest of those aligned with Pelosi et al. Most of this whole discussion is centered on some group of people trying to use the implicit or explicit threat of violence via government to have their pet policies enacted.

 

An aside:

I would like to suggest as an interesting exercise that those who advocate for law and order may want to try thinking about things in terms of truth and justice. The latter not being synonymous with the former. Even if you don't change your mind, it is a different perspective from which to observe and think about events/positions/etc. I know that when I changed my focus three years ago it was really weird but today I have radically different viewpoints from those that I held most of my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...