• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How far does it go?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Regulation fools and their regulation rules is how the state controls you.

The sooner one realizes that, the less tolerant one becomes of tyranny.

SNIP

I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to this. With what you're saying we should basically have zero government, for all governments are going to have rules and regulations.

While governments over time might push towards tyranny it is up to the people to push back and keep it in its agreed upon place.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Not if you mean a household NPK labelled 34-0-0 nitrate fertilizer. 100 w/w -NO[SUB]3[/SUB] is required. That is why anhydrous ammonium nitrate NH[SUB]4[/SUB]NO[SUB]3[/SUB] fertilizer is being regulated into obsolescence.
That certainly does not stop LE (fed/state) from charging folks who have a several bags of Scotts with possessing bomb making materials if they are looking for something to charge a citizen with. LE gives not a darn if the judge lets you off. They gotchya and that is all they need to do to modify a citizen's behavior from that point forward.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to this. With what you're saying we should basically have zero government, for all governments are going to have rules and regulations.

You sniped my post and take it out of context. That is against forum rules and dishonest. Try reading my entire post before you make comments that are made in ignorance.

While governments over time might push towards tyranny it is up to the people to push back and keep it in its agreed upon place.
Did you read the parable? probably not. How does it relate to RKBA? How many regulations are there that prohibit how you can carry a firearm? Can you carry open or concealed without a permit throughout the United States?

They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water,
it will leap out right away to escape the danger.

But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant,
and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling,
the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.
The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes.

This is a story that is used to illustrate how people might get themselves into terrible trouble.
This parable is often used to illustrate how humans have to be careful to watch slowly changing trends not just the sudden changes. Its a warning to keep us paying attention not just to obvious threats but to more slowly developing ones.



Regulation fools and their regulation rules is how the state controls you.

The sooner one realizes that, the less tolerant one becomes of tyranny.


Principles of Tyranny
by Jon Roland
Definition of tyranny

Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive. Therefore, rule that initially seems benign is inherently dangerous, and the only security is to maintain legitimacy — an unbroken accountability to the people through the framework of a written constitution that provides for election of key officials and the division of powers among branches and officials in a way that avoids concentration of powers in the hands of a few persons who might then abuse those powers.

Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before it becomes entrenched. to read more:http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm

emphasis added. To bad the American people became apathetic to the regulation fools and their regulation rules. Have you ever heard or read the parable of how to boil a frog?.......http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/boiled.html

We must ask ourselves if we want to be safe or have liberty. Remember, the frog felt safe and comfortable until he wasn't.

We The People have been boiled alive.

And just to be clear, I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution as it was written. I am a staunch supporter of the government and way of life our Founding Fathers envisioned. I love my country only behind God and my family.

"OURS is a system of governments, compounded of the separate governments of the several States composing the Union, and of one common government of all its members, called the Government of the United States. The former preceded the latter, which was created by their agency. Each was framed by written constitutions; those of the several States by the people of each, acting separately, and in their sovereign character; and that of the United States, by the same, acting in the same character — but jointly instead of separately.".......John C. Calhoun http://www.constitution.org/jcc/dcgus.htm

emphasis added.

We are the Sovereign, not the King, not the government. We The People.

Emphasis added and text increased for your convenience. I am not yelling as some might think.

Carry On.
 
Last edited:

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
I don't think anyone should have WMD's including the rulers.

Keep in mind that a computer can be considered a wmd if used to hack into, lets say a nuclear power plant to exaggerate the point, and cause a nuclear catastrophe.

So can a pressure cooker be classified as a wmd.

Remember, when we give the government and inch beyond what The Constitution permits, they take a mile.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Frog vs. water thing does not apply to the erosion of our rights by the state. Liberals erode these rights. Some of our fellow citizens refuse to call a liberal a liberal. Everybody knows what a liberal is and what they want to do. Yet, these citizens just can't bring themselves to believe that liberals will do what that have said they will do.

Obama told us all what Obamacare was and what his intention with it is, yet, folks wanted to believe his rhetoric and ignore his actions. No subterfuge, out for all to see...before it occured.

Does the frog recognize that you walk up and turn the burner on?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
If you can "bear" the arm, then you can "keep" it. Otherwise it does not fit the second amendment. Plus one right cannot be used to remove or violate other people's right, a nuclear bomb would certainly endanger the public, violating other people's right. Now considering the intent of the second amendment, if a nuke could be designed that would only target government, and not harm the rest of population, or deprive the people of property rights, you might have a case.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
If you can "bear" the arm, then you can "keep" it. Otherwise it does not fit the second amendment. Plus one right cannot be used to remove or violate other people's right, a nuclear bomb would certainly endanger the public, violating other people's right. Now considering the intent of the second amendment, if a nuke could be designed that would only target government, and not harm the rest of population, or deprive the people of property rights, you might have a case.

Do you think the Founders wanted to restrict the militia from owning cannon? No, they did not.

One only violates anothers rights when one infringes on them. Not before.

My fists or feet can be considered a lethal weapon. Do I violate someones rights just because I have them? No. Same with arms. The kind that go boom. Just because I own a tank, doesn't mean I am going to use it on someone without justifiable cause.

No victim. No crime.

No property damage. No crime

To put it simply.

One more thing, terrorists and criminals will obtain their arms illegally anyway. No stopping them.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
Frog vs. water thing does not apply to the erosion of our rights by the state. Liberals erode these rights. Some of our fellow citizens refuse to call a liberal a liberal. Everybody knows what a liberal is and what they want to do. Yet, these citizens just can't bring themselves to believe that liberals will do what that have said they will do.

Obama told us all what Obamacare was and what his intention with it is, yet, folks wanted to believe his rhetoric and ignore his actions. No subterfuge, out for all to see...before it occured.

Does the frog recognize that you walk up and turn the burner on?

What I am trying to get at is the people have had their rights eroded from the beginning. Slowly, methodically. We take it, we take it, and now we are in the mess we are in because of it. Liberals, conservatives, all of them.

for modern time example see "Patriot Act" read it. Executive orders, etc, etc,etc.....ad infinitum...
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Do you think the Founders wanted to restrict the militia from owning cannon? No, they did not.

One only violates anothers rights when one infringes on them. Not before.

My fists or feet can be considered a lethal weapon. Do I violate someones rights just because I have them? No. Same with arms. The kind that go boom. Just because I own a tank, doesn't mean I am going to use it on someone without justifiable cause.

No victim. No crime.

No property damage. No crime

To put it simply.

One more thing, terrorists and criminals will obtain their arms illegally anyway. No stopping them.

I read the second EXACTLY as it is written. If you can bear it, you can keep it. I don't spend my time like activists judges trying to read into the amendment, that is the problem with our government.

So far terrorists have been using conventional weapons, like guns, homemade bombs and airplanes. The WMD fear-mongering is the government to make excuses for their deeds. It is impossible to detonate a nuke without public property damage, and without violating the right to live by non combatants. A nuke is a useless arm for the public, it is not bearable, it is not usable, so NO it is not covered. Plus if criminals and terrorists were to illegally obtain them, it would be much easier to steal them from LAC with them. Who can't use them in the first place.

A arm is not viable if it cannot be used.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
bear1
[bair]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

verb (used with object), bore or (Archaic) bare; borne or born; bearing.
1.
to hold up; support:
to bear the weight of the roof.
2.
to hold or remain firm under (a load):
The roof will not bear the strain of his weight.
3.
to bring forth (young); give birth to:
to bear a child.
4.
to produce by natural growth:
a tree that bears fruit.
5.
to hold up under; be capable of:
His claim doesn't bear close examination.
6.
to press or push against:
The crowd was borne back by the police.
7.
to hold or carry (oneself, one's body, one's head, etc.):
to bear oneself erectly.


Many people confuse the word bear with just carry, or the purpose of bear in the second amendment. That is made clear by the first part of the second, bearing is to defend/deter governments from threats to freedom. This is not done in secret, or by killing mass amounts of innocent people, or by property damage to non government. This clearly leaves out a nuke.

Can jets, tanks, armed ships, be borne. YES they can, don't confuse bear with carry, though with small arms it is integral with carry. The question is can those arms be used specifically against the government without violating the rights of the people. If we are talking napalm, then no, IMO. If we are talking small targeted bombs that will only affect governments, foreign, or domestic, then yes.

Things that are not typically arms, that can be used as arms is silly to bring to this debate. Such as pressure cookers.
 

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
bear1
[bair]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

verb (used with object), bore or (Archaic) bare; borne or born; bearing.
1.
to hold up; support:
to bear the weight of the roof.
2.
to hold or remain firm under (a load):
The roof will not bear the strain of his weight.
3.
to bring forth (young); give birth to:
to bear a child.
4.
to produce by natural growth:
a tree that bears fruit.
5.
to hold up under; be capable of:
His claim doesn't bear close examination.
6.
to press or push against:
The crowd was borne back by the police.
7.
to hold or carry (oneself, one's body, one's head, etc.):
to bear oneself erectly.


Many people confuse the word bear with just carry, or the purpose of bear in the second amendment. That is made clear by the first part of the second, bearing is to defend/deter governments from threats to freedom. This is not done in secret, or by killing mass amounts of innocent people, or by property damage to non government. This clearly leaves out a nuke.

Can jets, tanks, armed ships, be borne. YES they can, don't confuse bear with carry, though with small arms it is integral with carry. The question is can those arms be used specifically against the government without violating the rights of the people. If we are talking napalm, then no, IMO. If we are talking small targeted bombs that will only affect governments, foreign, or domestic, then yes.

Things that are not typically arms, that can be used as arms is silly to bring to this debate. Such as pressure cookers.
So your definition is one that I am pretty in line with personally. So where does that leave chemical and biological weapons?

They seem to possibly fall in both catagories (wmd or arms)
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
So your definition is one that I am pretty in line with personally. So where does that leave chemical and biological weapons?

They seem to possibly fall in both catagories (wmd or arms)

IMO those fall into the same place as nukes. There is little way to target an oppressive government without harming the people.
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I believe a number of individuals privately owned and possessed cannons and such in the "early days," so it would seem apparent to me that they believed that individual ownership of arms other than, more powerful than, a personal weapon (forgive my forgetfulness of the actual term for this) was acceptable.

That doesn't really help answer the question of WMDs, sorry.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Well, time to check the weather forecast in Hell again. I'm largely in agreement with WalkingWolf.

I may have a little fun later with his claim that he doesn't use judicial like reasoning. :) But for now...

He has arrived at about the same place I have long been. And I enjoy the route he took to get there. I too look to the plain language of the amendment. That language must be understood in context of original intent. Original intent doesn't do much for WMDs since such were not much conceived at the time.

Or maybe they were. It had long been standard practice when besieging a castle or fortified city to throw dead animals and the corpses of deceased persons over the walls into the city. While a bit crude by modern standards, a corpse deceased from bubonic plague, or even measles, lobbed into a cramped city with limited sanitation facilities is a pretty scary biological weapon. Let us also not forget blankets used by small pox patients and then given (deliberately or otherwise) to some Indian tribes.

Is there any indication that the founders/framers, or their contemporary State and local governments even permitted, much less encouraged anyone to keep such items on hand in case it was needed to combat some enemy? No.

What is clear, is that the 2nd amendment protects those "arms" which would be useful to members of a militia, engaged in their duties to provide for the defense of their community, State, or nation. Certainly that defense might be against their own government. But the primary purpose of the militia is not to rebel or defend against their own government, but rather to reduce the risk that government poses by reducing the need for a standing or professional army. If the citizens at large can be relied upon to defend against foreign invaders, the justification for large standing armies is greatly diminished. Citizens don't tend to oppress themselves or their neighbors nearly as reliably as do professional armies brought in from some distant area (Ignore current voting patterns and class warfare.)

Notably, militias are not of much use in offensive actions--The War Between the States being a rare exception where Union Militias were used against the Confederacy. (And some might argue this point by claiming the State militias were really used to put down extreme civil unrest.) Militia members typically don't go far from home to wage war. Militias are a defensive tool to defend against attack, to repel invasions, to put down civil unrest.

Original intent is clear to see here as provided by numerous citations included in The Miller Decision. The decision came to the wrong conclusion regarding short barreled shotguns and the whole federal permit to own certain guns. But it has some great citations of the obligations imposed by 18th century colonies and States on keeping and bearing arms for the general defense.

Sane persons do not use WMDs including Nukes, Chemical, or Biological weapons on one's own soil. One's own people will be adversely affected. As has been pointed out, there is virtually no way a militia member or private law abiding citizen can use these weapons to defend his rights or community without inflicting such gross damage on his community as to constitute a violation of others' rights.

Of course, individual firearms including handguns, rifles, shotguns, short barreled rifles/shotguns, fully automatic firearms, easily concealed firearms, and disguised firearms all have tremendous usage for militia or guerrilla activity in defense of community, State, or nation. So too do edged weapons, explosives up to some limit I couldn't define at this time, and crew served weapons such as cannon, armored vehicles, and military capable aircraft and ships. Ammunition for such weapons is also protected as recognized even in the "Miller" decision we all hate so much.

But most importantly, we must remember that nobody has ever credibly argued that private citizens should have legal access to WMDs. So those who bring them up in arguing against our individual RsKBA are engaging in the logical fallacy of reducto ad absurbum. They argue nukes and then turn around and claim their argument supports bans on machine guns, semi-auto guns with certain cosmetic features, and a host of other guns. Some of these gun grabbers will go so far as to claim the 2nd amendment is really about muskets. I think the best answer to that is simply:

"Unless you've limited your free publishing and reading to feather quills and ink wells, you don't believe that argument at all."

Charles
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Define WMD? How much destructive power should a weapon have to be classified as WMD?

Now that is an interesting question. One I don't have a clear cut answer too.
I think weapons like nukes that wipe out the innocent along with the combatants (if the combatants are targeted at all) are definitely WMD's and immoral along with similar things like biological warfare, gassing etc.

It is easy to imagine new technologies that can bring more and more incredible devastation. It is way more fundamental than the 2A.
When you've created a device to kill vast amounts of non-combatants for any reason it is a permanent ****-stain on the soul of humanity.
How long will it be before there are single payloads that can wipe out entire continents...or even an entire hemisphere... or worse.
No citizens should not have WMDs and neither should governments.
Ideally an arms regression should take place but it is a fantasy. We are doomed.
Someone will eventually develop a Molecular Disruption Device (ender's game) and that will be the end of our pathetic journey.

The invention that can create massive virtually unlimited energy for productive may be used for ill. (Definitely as long as states exist)

Keep in mind that a computer can be considered a wmd if used to hack into, lets say a nuclear power plant to exaggerate the point, and cause a nuclear catastrophe.

So can a pressure cooker be classified as a wmd.

Remember, when we give the government and inch beyond what The Constitution permits, they take a mile.

Disagree about the computer part. It would be what someone hacks that would be the WMD. I see where you are going though.

No a pressure cooker is a bearable arm that can be used to target specific targets.

Agree with the last sentence all the way.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Do you think the Founders wanted to restrict the militia from owning cannon? No, they did not.

A little off topic, but a cannon related story.

Somewhere along their march, members of the Mormon Battalion acquired a cannon. The story goes that it had been used by Napoleon's army. One version of the account is that it eventually ended up in Louisiana, was acquired as part of the Louisiana Purchase, and eventually found service in the US Army and was passed to the Mormon Battalion.

This Wiki article about the St. George LDS Temple claims the cannon was left in Russia when Napoleon retreated, was seized by the Russians, taken to Alaska, then eventually down to a fort in California where some individual members of the Mormon Battalion acquired it and brought into Southern Utah.

Whatever its origins and however the members of Battalion obtained the cannon, it was put to use not a weapon, but as a pile driver in the construction of the St. George LDS Temple. The site chosen for the Temple had a natural spring that caused part of the construction site to have soft ground. The cannon-turned-pile-driver was used to drive volcanic rock (from a nearby mountain) into the ground so as to create a solid foundation on which to construct the Temple.

The cannon has been on display at the Temple grounds ever since. When I was a child, it was laid horizontally on a concrete pilaster, similar to firing position. It has since been given a more prominent display, hung vertically similar to how it would have hung while being used to drive the rocks into the ground.

cannon01.jpg


Back to the subject at hand, it is notable to me that as late the 1850s, nobody seemed to think there much unusual about private citizens--even those who were members of an unpopular religious minority--hauling a cannon at least as far as from Cali to Southern Utah for use in defense of the city against what threats might be on the 19th century frontier.

Charles
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
The invention that can create massive virtually unlimited energy for productive may be used for ill. (Definitely as long as states exist)

Not so long as states exist. So long as human beings exist and have hatred in their hearts.

Whether one accepts the Genesis account of Cain and Abel or not, one must presume that men have been killing each other since long before any organized government existed.

Indeed, while any number of nutcase individuals may well have found cause to set of a nuke over the last 70 years, the half dozen or so nations that possess them have never used them in battle (the US used two Atomic bombs to convince Japan to surrender and end WWII).

Charles
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I believe a number of individuals privately owned and possessed cannons and such in the "early days," so it would seem apparent to me that they believed that individual ownership of arms other than, more powerful than, a personal weapon (forgive my forgetfulness of the actual term for this) was acceptable.

That doesn't really help answer the question of WMDs, sorry.

Remember that which is not illegal, is legal. So it would seem at the time it had more to do with lack of laws. Because certainly the constitution does stop government from passing unconstitutional laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top