AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
AZkopper wrote:
Yes! This, exactly.
AZkopper wrote:
Yes! This, exactly.
-
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.
-
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.
A house divided against itself cannot stand
- Thread starter Darroll
- Start date
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Task Force 16 wrote:
How much name calling has happened here? If no one is getting stupid, there's no reason to call anyone stupid. As I told you in the other thread, it's that simple.
Task Force 16 wrote:
How much name calling has happened here? If no one is getting stupid, there's no reason to call anyone stupid. As I told you in the other thread, it's that simple.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
First let me say I probably fall inbetween groups 3 and 4 as well.
AZkopper wrote:
I agreee with the part about getting our rights back in "baby steps". I also agree with almost all of AZKopper's post.
I've never personally seen anyone here advocating that felons or mental defectsthat deserve to have their rights disabled should have guns. I think what get's lost in the noise is that if one is truly rehabilitated or if ones "felony" didn't have anything to do with firearms, they shouldn't have them taken away. I'm a proponent of due process for this. In other words, bring not only the felony charge against the individual but also petition the court to have his right disabled and let the jury decide. Also, later on, it should be easier for the "reformed" felon to petition to have his rights restored.
Sure the supreme court said that there should be "reasonable restrictions" but I believe they are incorrect. (so would our founding fathers, why the hell else would youput in "shall not be infringed" when the english bill of rights had "as allowed by law") I guess I'm one of those who believes that anything that doesn't cause "mass destruction" should be availlable for the civilian population. It's only fair right? In the very least we should have access to the same arms as the JBT's
That being said, once again I'd like to point out that I'm a proponent of baby steps to get to where I want to be. Just like if Ron Paul became president today, he couldn't repeal everything that's unconstiutional without causing pandemonium, we need to slowly take the reigns back as well. That's whey I was attracted to the OC movement. It's slowly normalizing what should never have become abnormal in the first place.
First let me say I probably fall inbetween groups 3 and 4 as well.
AZkopper wrote:
I agreee with the part about getting our rights back in "baby steps". I also agree with almost all of AZKopper's post.
I've never personally seen anyone here advocating that felons or mental defectsthat deserve to have their rights disabled should have guns. I think what get's lost in the noise is that if one is truly rehabilitated or if ones "felony" didn't have anything to do with firearms, they shouldn't have them taken away. I'm a proponent of due process for this. In other words, bring not only the felony charge against the individual but also petition the court to have his right disabled and let the jury decide. Also, later on, it should be easier for the "reformed" felon to petition to have his rights restored.
Sure the supreme court said that there should be "reasonable restrictions" but I believe they are incorrect. (so would our founding fathers, why the hell else would youput in "shall not be infringed" when the english bill of rights had "as allowed by law") I guess I'm one of those who believes that anything that doesn't cause "mass destruction" should be availlable for the civilian population. It's only fair right? In the very least we should have access to the same arms as the JBT's
That being said, once again I'd like to point out that I'm a proponent of baby steps to get to where I want to be. Just like if Ron Paul became president today, he couldn't repeal everything that's unconstiutional without causing pandemonium, we need to slowly take the reigns back as well. That's whey I was attracted to the OC movement. It's slowly normalizing what should never have become abnormal in the first place.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Brass Magnet wrote:
Then you haven't looked back far enough. Pamiam had a multi-million page thread arguing for the rights of all felons. Some of the moonbats even said felons should be able to carry guns IN JAIL, because, of course, as we all know, "shall not be infringed" means "unlimited." And you wonder why I call people names.
Brass Magnet wrote:
Then you haven't looked back far enough. Pamiam had a multi-million page thread arguing for the rights of all felons. Some of the moonbats even said felons should be able to carry guns IN JAIL, because, of course, as we all know, "shall not be infringed" means "unlimited." And you wonder why I call people names.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Well, "Shall not infringed" does mean what it says. I think what this particular person did not get is that rights may be disabled. If it's disabled, the wording doesn't mean anything.
We all have certain rights disabled before we reach the age of majority and the reason we do is that we are not deemed responsible enough to exercise the right. A violent felon is no different. With every right comes a responsibility and if you can't uphold your responsibility, you shouldn't have the right.
AWDstylez wrote:
Well, "Shall not infringed" does mean what it says. I think what this particular person did not get is that rights may be disabled. If it's disabled, the wording doesn't mean anything.
We all have certain rights disabled before we reach the age of majority and the reason we do is that we are not deemed responsible enough to exercise the right. A violent felon is no different. With every right comes a responsibility and if you can't uphold your responsibility, you shouldn't have the right.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Brass Magnet wrote:
That's obvious to reasonable people like you and I, but oh man you should have read that thread. :quirky The argument was that rights CANNOT be disabled. I think that was the turning point when I started thinking that people around here truly are insane.
Brass Magnet wrote:
That's obvious to reasonable people like you and I, but oh man you should have read that thread. :quirky The argument was that rights CANNOT be disabled. I think that was the turning point when I started thinking that people around here truly are insane.
DMWyatt
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
For all intensive purposes, we CAN'T disagree on the interpretation, because I don't have a personalinterpretation of the right. If, as the founding fathers discussed, our rights are natural and present before the existence of the government; the only ethical restrictions on those rights are the responsibilities we have not to infringe on the rights of others. If you want an honest debate on what the right means, I suggest that you not continue a path relative to the period. If the discussion you want to have in this manner relates to ethics and law, then we need a further discussion of what laws are ethical with regard to the social contract that legitimizes the government and what legitimacy an evolving world has to modify natural rights.
The most revealing question in this regard would be whether or not you believe there is an ethical standard that exists outside the advent of modern law. If your argument is that without government there are no ethical standardseqalling law, then we absolutely will never agree on anything. To clarify, I'm not taking a religious stance on the issue.
As far as your insistence that the changing world would somehowrequire a changing standard ofethics in this issue, what has changed so drastically that theold standard of ethicsis no longer relevant? Has human nature itself changed, and the rest of us didn't get the memo? Did we evolve somehow and take on a physiological difference from our forefathers? Is the definition of crime today somehow different from the definition of crime then? Sure, technology advanced and the population grew. I suppose you're going to tell me that our forefathers, having lived through the most formative period of thought and technology in the history of western civilization aside from industrialization, somehow pictured a stagnantworld that wouldnever change?
As far as your irrational fear of what someone else may havethe intent of doing, I'm surprised you speak so adamantly about your position in full view of the internet. If you're so unnerved by what someone walking down the street may or may not have the intent to do, why would you expose yourself by debating the issue online? :lol:
AWDstylez wrote:
For all intensive purposes, we CAN'T disagree on the interpretation, because I don't have a personalinterpretation of the right. If, as the founding fathers discussed, our rights are natural and present before the existence of the government; the only ethical restrictions on those rights are the responsibilities we have not to infringe on the rights of others. If you want an honest debate on what the right means, I suggest that you not continue a path relative to the period. If the discussion you want to have in this manner relates to ethics and law, then we need a further discussion of what laws are ethical with regard to the social contract that legitimizes the government and what legitimacy an evolving world has to modify natural rights.
The most revealing question in this regard would be whether or not you believe there is an ethical standard that exists outside the advent of modern law. If your argument is that without government there are no ethical standardseqalling law, then we absolutely will never agree on anything. To clarify, I'm not taking a religious stance on the issue.
As far as your insistence that the changing world would somehowrequire a changing standard ofethics in this issue, what has changed so drastically that theold standard of ethicsis no longer relevant? Has human nature itself changed, and the rest of us didn't get the memo? Did we evolve somehow and take on a physiological difference from our forefathers? Is the definition of crime today somehow different from the definition of crime then? Sure, technology advanced and the population grew. I suppose you're going to tell me that our forefathers, having lived through the most formative period of thought and technology in the history of western civilization aside from industrialization, somehow pictured a stagnantworld that wouldnever change?
As far as your irrational fear of what someone else may havethe intent of doing, I'm surprised you speak so adamantly about your position in full view of the internet. If you're so unnerved by what someone walking down the street may or may not have the intent to do, why would you expose yourself by debating the issue online? :lol:
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
DMWyatt wrote:
Why is this sohard for people to understand? Let me try to be more clear.
The natural right is: "self-defense" Do we agree on that?
You have no natural right to own a gun. Do we agree on that?
You CAN makean argument for how you NEED a gun for adequateself-defense in this modern world. Do we agree on that?
The natural right DOES NOT CHANGE. You have always, and will always, have a right to defend yourself.
What DOES change is how, why, and with what society deems it acceptable for you to defend yourself.
You can defend yourself with a pistol.
You cannot defend yourself with a rocket launcher.
You can defend yourself with pepper spray.
You cannot defend yourself with anthrax.
You can defend your home with an alarm.
You cannot defend your home with land mines.
You can lock your door at night for safety.
You cannot razor wire your front yard.
Do you get what I'm saying? Society and an evolving world DO NOT CHANGE yourbasicnatural rights, but the circumstances surrounding those rights DO change and THAT is what we disagree on.
Group #4 has this idea in their head that they have a natural right to own a gun. They do not. They have a natural right to self-defense. The second amendment allows for self-defense by gun. So they have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own a gun, NOT a natural right. That leaves the interpretation of what kinds of guns they can own, and how they're allowed to usethem,up to the Constitution via the Supreme Court.
You DO NOT have a natural right to own a gun, just as you do not have a natural right to own a tank, fighter jet, or nuclear bomb for defense. Those are TOOLS for defense. Society and government will determine what TOOLS of defense you're allowed to use, how you're allowed to use them, and what hoops you have to jump through to get them.
Your right to self-defense never goes away. You've got two fists, start swinging. Your right to own guns is government granted and can be government revoked (if the Constitution is changed). You MUST drop the idea of a natural right to own a gun in order to understand where groups #1-3 are coming from.
DMWyatt wrote:
Why is this sohard for people to understand? Let me try to be more clear.
The natural right is: "self-defense" Do we agree on that?
You have no natural right to own a gun. Do we agree on that?
You CAN makean argument for how you NEED a gun for adequateself-defense in this modern world. Do we agree on that?
The natural right DOES NOT CHANGE. You have always, and will always, have a right to defend yourself.
What DOES change is how, why, and with what society deems it acceptable for you to defend yourself.
You can defend yourself with a pistol.
You cannot defend yourself with a rocket launcher.
You can defend yourself with pepper spray.
You cannot defend yourself with anthrax.
You can defend your home with an alarm.
You cannot defend your home with land mines.
You can lock your door at night for safety.
You cannot razor wire your front yard.
Do you get what I'm saying? Society and an evolving world DO NOT CHANGE yourbasicnatural rights, but the circumstances surrounding those rights DO change and THAT is what we disagree on.
Group #4 has this idea in their head that they have a natural right to own a gun. They do not. They have a natural right to self-defense. The second amendment allows for self-defense by gun. So they have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own a gun, NOT a natural right. That leaves the interpretation of what kinds of guns they can own, and how they're allowed to usethem,up to the Constitution via the Supreme Court.
You DO NOT have a natural right to own a gun, just as you do not have a natural right to own a tank, fighter jet, or nuclear bomb for defense. Those are TOOLS for defense. Society and government will determine what TOOLS of defense you're allowed to use, how you're allowed to use them, and what hoops you have to jump through to get them.
Your right to self-defense never goes away. You've got two fists, start swinging. Your right to own guns is government granted and can be government revoked (if the Constitution is changed). You MUST drop the idea of a natural right to own a gun in order to understand where groups #1-3 are coming from.
UtahRSO
Regular Member
imported post
First, let me agree that we can lose our rights by felonious actions. I also believethere should be a mechanismto have those rights considered for restoration. A never-never approach is as bad as an always-always approach.
Second, the Second Amendment right is NOT GRANTED by the Constitution. The Constitution simply recognizes the existence of that right, which would still be a right whether or not it was a part of the Bill of Rights. The "natural right" of self-defense encompasses the MEANS to do that. And the founders considered "keep and bear arms" as one of the means.
First, let me agree that we can lose our rights by felonious actions. I also believethere should be a mechanismto have those rights considered for restoration. A never-never approach is as bad as an always-always approach.
Second, the Second Amendment right is NOT GRANTED by the Constitution. The Constitution simply recognizes the existence of that right, which would still be a right whether or not it was a part of the Bill of Rights. The "natural right" of self-defense encompasses the MEANS to do that. And the founders considered "keep and bear arms" as one of the means.
AZkopper
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
The Right to Keeop and Bear Arms is just that....(small) arms.Pistols, rifles, swords, whatever.
105mm cannons, rocket launchers, anti-tank weapons, squad level weapons etc., are not 'arms' in the sense of the 2A. Some of those are ordinance, some are artillery. I know there are those herewho feel thatthe 2A does cover artillery, ordinance,and WMD's...but we're trying to discuss the world of reality, not freeman fantasyland.
The only real debate should be full-auto vs semi-auto. I would argue that while full-auto should probably be allowed, since the intent of the 2A was to have the militia (citizenry) as well armed as the government, I feel that such allowance would have to be regulated in some fashion, because as gun carrying cititzens, it is our duty to know where every round goes during a discharge, and minimize danger to those around us. It is socially irresponsible to let loose with a 10-20 round burst during an attempted street robbery, since there is no way to reasonably control your rounds. Hell, it gets hard enough with semi-auto in a stress situation.
just another $.02 worth, from a guy whose opinion is just that...his opinion.
AWDstylez wrote:
AZS....just when I was agreeing with you, you had to go moonbat on me....:banghead:
The Right to Keeop and Bear Arms is just that....(small) arms.Pistols, rifles, swords, whatever.
105mm cannons, rocket launchers, anti-tank weapons, squad level weapons etc., are not 'arms' in the sense of the 2A. Some of those are ordinance, some are artillery. I know there are those herewho feel thatthe 2A does cover artillery, ordinance,and WMD's...but we're trying to discuss the world of reality, not freeman fantasyland.
The only real debate should be full-auto vs semi-auto. I would argue that while full-auto should probably be allowed, since the intent of the 2A was to have the militia (citizenry) as well armed as the government, I feel that such allowance would have to be regulated in some fashion, because as gun carrying cititzens, it is our duty to know where every round goes during a discharge, and minimize danger to those around us. It is socially irresponsible to let loose with a 10-20 round burst during an attempted street robbery, since there is no way to reasonably control your rounds. Hell, it gets hard enough with semi-auto in a stress situation.
just another $.02 worth, from a guy whose opinion is just that...his opinion.
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
Stylez, I do not agree with you on the right being self defense.
Through a reading of the amendment, I fail to see where self defense is mentioned.
"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"
Quite obviously, no reference to self defense is made.
Now, through a reading of the declaration of independence, I could see where you may get the self defense reference, from the right to life.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
But note that it mentions the government deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Therefore, if the governed do not consent, through due process to any infringement on the 2nd amendment, then any such infringement is invalid, and a breach of contract.
Now, the laws are not due process, as they violate the highest law of the land, the US constitution.
Absent an amendment to the constitution, all gun laws on the books are unconstitutional, and should be considered null and void.
That is the basis of my beliefs, but the crux of the situation comes in as you have noted, when you start talking about felons and the like.
I myself do not believe VIOLENT felons should be able to own guns, but I do not believe that misdemeanor domestic violence charges should remove your 2a rights.
I also tend to think that if you have had your right to own weapons taken away, then you should not be on the street, mingling with the rest of society.
In order to do something like that, we of course would have to raise the bar for felonies a bit, and would result in many more people in prison.
Not wasting our time trying to enforce ridiculous bans on certain illegal substances would IMO relieve much of the problem with that situation. A discussion for another time of course.
Then of course, so long as the violent felons, mentally incapable, etc, are behind bars, the background checks would not be required.
I do not see an issue with owning full auto firearms, as they are really no more effective at killing than a semi auto, in the army, we use them mostly for suppressive fire. If some dip weed decides to run across our field of fire, then he wasn't smart enough to be suppressed anyway, either that or he's way braver than I.
When it comes to tanks, I just have to say that it is certainly not illegal to own them. I have a friend who owns one, he drives it in parades every summer.
Also, I can razor wire my yard. Might not make for the friendliest of neighbors, but it's no worse than having a yard full of cacti.
Ooh, sorry for all the extra I've added in, but I felt like getting in a little typing practice.
Stylez, I do not agree with you on the right being self defense.
Through a reading of the amendment, I fail to see where self defense is mentioned.
"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"
Quite obviously, no reference to self defense is made.
Now, through a reading of the declaration of independence, I could see where you may get the self defense reference, from the right to life.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
But note that it mentions the government deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Therefore, if the governed do not consent, through due process to any infringement on the 2nd amendment, then any such infringement is invalid, and a breach of contract.
Now, the laws are not due process, as they violate the highest law of the land, the US constitution.
Absent an amendment to the constitution, all gun laws on the books are unconstitutional, and should be considered null and void.
That is the basis of my beliefs, but the crux of the situation comes in as you have noted, when you start talking about felons and the like.
I myself do not believe VIOLENT felons should be able to own guns, but I do not believe that misdemeanor domestic violence charges should remove your 2a rights.
I also tend to think that if you have had your right to own weapons taken away, then you should not be on the street, mingling with the rest of society.
In order to do something like that, we of course would have to raise the bar for felonies a bit, and would result in many more people in prison.
Not wasting our time trying to enforce ridiculous bans on certain illegal substances would IMO relieve much of the problem with that situation. A discussion for another time of course.
Then of course, so long as the violent felons, mentally incapable, etc, are behind bars, the background checks would not be required.
I do not see an issue with owning full auto firearms, as they are really no more effective at killing than a semi auto, in the army, we use them mostly for suppressive fire. If some dip weed decides to run across our field of fire, then he wasn't smart enough to be suppressed anyway, either that or he's way braver than I.
When it comes to tanks, I just have to say that it is certainly not illegal to own them. I have a friend who owns one, he drives it in parades every summer.
Also, I can razor wire my yard. Might not make for the friendliest of neighbors, but it's no worse than having a yard full of cacti.
Ooh, sorry for all the extra I've added in, but I felt like getting in a little typing practice.
AZkopper
Regular Member
imported post
UtahRSO wrote:
Arizona has just that. If you commit a felonly, you loose certain rights (primarily voting, firearm ownership). If you loose your rights, you can petition the govenor to have them restored. There is a formal process, but I am completely ignorant of it.
Your second point is also dead on.
UtahRSO wrote:
Arizona has just that. If you commit a felonly, you loose certain rights (primarily voting, firearm ownership). If you loose your rights, you can petition the govenor to have them restored. There is a formal process, but I am completely ignorant of it.
Your second point is also dead on.
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
AZkopper wrote:
IMO, this is a grievous infringement on the 2a. Especially as PDs will hand out these charges if a couple is merely arguing, someone calls the police, and they get there to find someone has a scratch on their arm that is completely unrelated.
I am of course, not aware of any process for removing such a charge, but that's more that I have never had to deal with anything like that.
AZkopper wrote:
Ah, but what about misdemeanor DV charges? This is not a felony, yet it keeps many people from their 2a rights.
IMO, this is a grievous infringement on the 2a. Especially as PDs will hand out these charges if a couple is merely arguing, someone calls the police, and they get there to find someone has a scratch on their arm that is completely unrelated.
I am of course, not aware of any process for removing such a charge, but that's more that I have never had to deal with anything like that.
AZkopper
Regular Member
imported post
thx, you are right that many laws are "shall" concerning DV's...wrongly so.
I've already stated that in my first post on this that I'd like to see misd. DV laws, restraining orders, and misc. misdeamor laws be prevented from barring 2A rights.
Only those who have actually been CONVICTED of felonies should be barred. Even those convicted should have a mechanism in place to appeal for rights restoration.
thx, you are right that many laws are "shall" concerning DV's...wrongly so.
I've already stated that in my first post on this that I'd like to see misd. DV laws, restraining orders, and misc. misdeamor laws be prevented from barring 2A rights.
Only those who have actually been CONVICTED of felonies should be barred. Even those convicted should have a mechanism in place to appeal for rights restoration.
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
Oh, must have missed that part of your post.
Oh, must have missed that part of your post.
45acpForMe
Newbie
imported post
thx997303 wrote:
All "ownership" gun laws should be null & void. Restrictions of where I shoot is still something the state can regulate. I agree "Personel Self Defense" is a natural right but it has nothing to with the 2A.
As far as violent felons having guns or not. The answer is simple. If you commit a violent felony (murder/rape/torture)we apply the death penalty. Any other offense needs to be taken out of the criminals hides (and or pocketbook). So no prisons to run and noviolent felons to worry about getting guns.
Current people that had a felony in the past should be able to own guns. Either you served your time or not. I have a friend that has a felony conviction from 30 years ago for a bar fight. He is an upstanding business man has a wife and two kids and goes to church. Yet the govt is so fearful of this man owning a gun for self defense. Bullshit!
Of couse we won't all agree but it would be nice for Washington to listen to the people for a change rather than banking and oil cartels.
thx997303 wrote:
The 2nd ammendment is a check/balance against Tyranny from without or within. If the govt is allowed to tell us what guns we can or can't own, they can under-arm the citizens giving vast superior firepower to their jack-booted thugs. The govt is SUPOSSED to fear the citizens. Also if we were ever invaded by a foreign power, my semi-automatic rifle (thank you for limiting my purchase govt!) ain't going to let me last long against fully auto models spraying me.
All "ownership" gun laws should be null & void. Restrictions of where I shoot is still something the state can regulate. I agree "Personel Self Defense" is a natural right but it has nothing to with the 2A.
As far as violent felons having guns or not. The answer is simple. If you commit a violent felony (murder/rape/torture)we apply the death penalty. Any other offense needs to be taken out of the criminals hides (and or pocketbook). So no prisons to run and noviolent felons to worry about getting guns.
Current people that had a felony in the past should be able to own guns. Either you served your time or not. I have a friend that has a felony conviction from 30 years ago for a bar fight. He is an upstanding business man has a wife and two kids and goes to church. Yet the govt is so fearful of this man owning a gun for self defense. Bullshit!
Of couse we won't all agree but it would be nice for Washington to listen to the people for a change rather than banking and oil cartels.
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
Are you refuting something I said, or something?
You really aren't disagreeing with me. As a matter of fact, most of what you are saying is exactly inline with my beliefs.
Though, I question the validity of discharge laws.
Are you refuting something I said, or something?
You really aren't disagreeing with me. As a matter of fact, most of what you are saying is exactly inline with my beliefs.
Though, I question the validity of discharge laws.
45acpForMe
Newbie
imported post
thx997303 wrote:
As far as discharge laws, I would think the state can make any law saying you can't dischargea weapon in certain areas (carry always allowable though since it is "bearing"). Like I don't want anyone getting target practice in a crowded elementary school playground. You could possibly negate those "preventative" laws and simply prosecute the idiot when and if they injur someone. Remember violent felons would be jumping into eternity.
thx997303 wrote:
I was agreeing with you. I was just listing the areas I wanted to comment on. And a free state doesn't mean a free Virginia. In my book it means freedom as a state of existence.
As far as discharge laws, I would think the state can make any law saying you can't dischargea weapon in certain areas (carry always allowable though since it is "bearing"). Like I don't want anyone getting target practice in a crowded elementary school playground. You could possibly negate those "preventative" laws and simply prosecute the idiot when and if they injur someone. Remember violent felons would be jumping into eternity.
JT
Regular Member
imported post
There are alot of posts and I'm not reponding to anyone in particular but I think there is sometimes some confusion about where the right to self defense is derived. I think most of us would agree that the unalienable right to life mentioned in the Declaration of Independence includes the right to self defense. The just purpose of government is to secure these unalienablerights to the people.
The right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated rightin our constitution. Those enumerated rights are designed tocodify as the law of the landthe means to retain the unalienable rights. To secure them to the people. The preamble to the constitution often seems to be overlooked when interpreting the constitution but it clearly gives us the intent, which should, in my opinion anyway, factor heavily into any interpretation of law.
What many people don't seem to know is that there is also a preamble to the Bill of Rights that describes it's purpose and should be factored into any interpretation of the amendments.
There are alot of posts and I'm not reponding to anyone in particular but I think there is sometimes some confusion about where the right to self defense is derived. I think most of us would agree that the unalienable right to life mentioned in the Declaration of Independence includes the right to self defense. The just purpose of government is to secure these unalienablerights to the people.
The right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated rightin our constitution. Those enumerated rights are designed tocodify as the law of the landthe means to retain the unalienable rights. To secure them to the people. The preamble to the constitution often seems to be overlooked when interpreting the constitution but it clearly gives us the intent, which should, in my opinion anyway, factor heavily into any interpretation of law.
What many people don't seem to know is that there is also a preamble to the Bill of Rights that describes it's purpose and should be factored into any interpretation of the amendments.
The preamble clearly states that the primary purpose of theBill of Rightsis to prevent "misconstruction or abuse" ofthe powers granted by the Constitution. Consequently the right to keep and bear arms is not merely an extension of the right to life. It has a specific application which is to secure the means of defense against misconstruction and abuse of power by government should it become necessary. It cannot be held in the hands of the those that it is designed to protect againstso it rests in the hands of the people. While it may be possible to derive support for a right to self defense from the 2nd Amendment, it is not the basis of the right to self defense. That comes from the unalienable right to life.
DMWyatt
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Initial thoughts capitalized and red. More in-depth post to follow.