• 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.

Washington Times EDITORIAL: Gun owners in cross hairs

Buttercup

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

Little Brother, you may be surprised to know that I was born in Ohio and we never locked our doors either; there was no need and the concept was foreign to us.

Like you, my father was a kind of 'contractor' (he gathered information) and I was then raised in quite a few countries overseas: Korea, Libya, Egypt, Iran, Turkey. My father, in fact, had confrontations with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, who was still a minor Sargent at the time. The United States appeared to not take this man as a threat at the time and I remember my father being angry that his reports seemed to be falling on deaf ears.

It has also been a very long time since I lived in a 'crack' community and I'm not and have never been comfortable in a city environment.......too much dirty and confining concrete. I spend a great deal of time exploring what you apparently find in common with me, the woods, water and grandeur of Maryland's still surviving bits of wilderness. These have always been where I have found greatest peace and awe partly because I simply love them, but in part because I do a good bit of research, some published on the web here; I am a naturalist, my husband a professor of biology and animal behavior.

So, again Little Brother, I may have more in common with you than would make you comfortable. I do not, however, have big biceps.

Incredibly too, I DO agree with the 2nd amendment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms
2nd - The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.[1]

Meant to wage War has the keenest interest to me. Which does not constitute OC all the time, or to simply make a statement that may be misinterpreted as deliberate and provocative 'strutting', 'posturing', etc. I do believe that common sense, and responsible behavior must be clearly outlined in this regard. OC should never be a resort unless there is a clear, evident and obvious danger.

My concern is a healthy line that is safe for everyone, not just those who want to carry these. How do you decide who has the mental ability and stability to carry these openly? At what age? I'm reminded that it's the most vulnerable of any society that need most protection, yet these are the ones who will not be able to defend either because they are too young, too feeble, too ill, emotionally or intellectually so limited that they cannot reasonably be responsible.

If Dad or Mom is carrying openly, what do they do with these weapons when they are home with their children? Do they lock them up and so make everyone vulnerable again? At what point can their children be considered stable and rationally mature enough to hold anger, curiosity and play at bay?

I would also hope that you will not limit your qualified principals to just this one amendment either. A goodly proportion of our amendments are still unstable, given to continual ratification and not always clearly interpreted. Some of these still make me uncomfortable. The 15th and 19th affect still a lot of people and believe it or not, some wording is still dubious enough to cause effects later on down the line as far as child labor laws, women's rights, and even the interpretation of the 13th amendment which seems to violate some employment methods.


18th - 21st - Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by Twenty-first Amendment)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax
16th - Allows federal income tax
An income tax is a tax levied on the income of individuals or business (corporations or other legal entities). Various income tax systems exist, with varying degrees of tax incidence. Income taxation can be progressive, proportional, or regressive.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
15th - and 19th Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude

Suffrage (from the Latin suffragium, meaning "voting tablet", and figuratively "right to vote", and originally a term for the pastern bone used to cast votes) is the civil right to vote, or the exercise of that right. It is also called "The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread." political franchise or simply the franchise. Suffrage may apply to elections, but also extends to initiatives and referendums. Suffrage is used to describe not only the legal right to vote, but also to the practical question of the opportunity to vote, which is sometimes denied those who have a legal right. In the United States, extensions of suffrage was part of Jacksonian democracy.

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
13th - Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount. (Voting rights for women were introduced into international law in 1948 when the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms
2nd - The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.[1]
 

SIGguy229

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
349
Location
Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
[a kick-ass reply].
Dreamer...that was a better reply than I could have put together...and you captured my beliefs and feelings regarding the State of MD and the gov't need for control over the people....

<break>

Buttercup...I haven't figured out yet whether you are a troll or not. OCDO has been in the news a lot in the last couple of months...so I'm reserving my decision.

Reading your last response...a lot of what you are bringing up: who decides, mental/emotional stability, age to carry...etc. has already been discussed...The law in many states is an 18 y/o can own/carry openly, a firearm. Why? It has already been established that 18 y/o is the age of majority (work, pay taxes, enlist, enter a contract)...yet the Federal law says you need to be 21 y/o to purchase a firearm from an FFL. Confusing, I know. Why shouldn't 18-20 y/o be able to exercise ALL of their rights?

In regards to all the other issues...it's already discussed that felons and mentally ill people are prohibited by law from owning firearms.

Those who break the law....well, they are already beyond anyone's control--thus the State (of MD) believes they should attempt to control everyone...you know, for security. That is not what a free society is about....

There isn't freedom if the State wants security. People shouldn't turn to the State for Security in their homes/neighborhoods...because it will infringe on law-abiding.
 

SIGguy229

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
349
Location
Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
imported post

Buttercup wrote:
Incredibly too, I DO agree with the 2nd amendment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms
2nd - The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.[1] This is why wikipedia is a poor source for debate..."to wage war"? I have no desire to wage war...just to protect me and my family. Maybe this is why we have divergent views of the 2A.

Meant to wage War has the keenest interest to me. Which does not constitute OC all the time, or to simply make a statement that may be misinterpreted as deliberate and provocative 'strutting', 'posturing', etc. I do believe that common sense, and responsible behavior must be clearly outlined in this regard. OC should never be a resort unless there is a clear, evident and obvious danger.

I think you need to get out more...I have yet to see an OCer "strut" or "posture"...I think you are making this up.

My concern is a healthy line that is safe for everyone (how do you define "safety"?--that is the most basic of questions to this discussion), not just those who want to carry these. How do you decide who has the mental ability and stability to carry these openly? At what age? The state of VA says 18...the age of majority. I'm reminded that it's the most vulnerable of any society that need most protection, yet these are the ones who will not be able to defend either because they are too young, too feeble, too ill, emotionally or intellectually so limited that they cannot reasonably be responsible. That's what parents or responsible adults are for. This is a free society--bad things happen...and the State can't prohibit bad people from doing bad things.

If Dad or Mom is carrying openly, what do they do with these weapons when they are home with their children? Do they lock them up and so make everyone vulnerable again? Really none of your (or the State's) business--the PARENTS, NOT THE STATE are charged with the responsibility for these questions. However, the parents are subject to any/all legal consequences of not securing a firearm from theft or misuse. At what point can their children be considered stable and rationally mature enough to hold anger, curiosity and play at bay? Until the age of majority--they are no longer legally "children"...or until they are out of the house....whichever happens first.

The rest of your response is not relevant to the 2A and distracts from the argument...meanwhile, your responses for "the children" makes me question how you support the 2A...since the "for the children" rationale is one that is used by those who wish to strip away the 2A....except for the military or police.


ETA: Holy crap! I just went back and looked at your "source" in Wiki. This is what your "source" Garry Wills, PhD, had to say about the 2A:

Garry Wills interprets the Second Amendment as a cynical maneuver by James Madison...The final clause of the Amendment, referring to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and commanding that this right "shall not be infringed" for Wills really means that Congress faces no constitutional barriers at all if, for example, it determines that the Militia should consist only of a relatively few number of people, all vetted by federal authority, and that no one else shall have any protected constitutional right "to keep and bear arms."
(from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1720)


Did you vet your source? If you didn't and truly believe this drivel...you are a troll looking to stir stuff up. We all like an honest debate...using sources and facts...but don't tell us you "support the 2A"...and not back it up.
 

Buttercup

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

Perhaps this will make you feel better?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03scotus.html
Supreme Court Still Divided on Guns By ADAM LIPTAK Published: March 2, 2010
WASHINGTON — At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms on Tuesday, judging from comments at an unusually intense Supreme Court argument.


By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago’s gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.

While such a ruling would represent an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, its short-term practical impact would almost certainly be limited. Just how much strength the Second Amendment has in places that regulate but do not ban guns outright will be worked out in additional cases.

The new case, McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521, was a sequel to the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which placed limits on what the federal government may do to regulate guns. The issue before the court in the new case was whether the Second Amendment also applied to state and local laws. It appeared that at least the justices in the Heller majority would say yes without reservation because they considered the rights protected in the Second Amendment as basic as those in other provisions of the Bill of Rights.

“If it’s not fundamental, then Heller is wrong,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in the majority in Heller.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote a dissent in Heller, suggested Tuesday that important questions remain unresolved.

“I’m asking you what is the scope of the right to own a gun?” he said. “Is it just the right to have it at home, or is the right to parade around the streets with guns?”
Heller itself struck down parts of the gun control law in the District of Columbia, then the strictest in the nation. But the majority opinion, by Justice Antonin Scalia, suggested that all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership might pass Second Amendment muster.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who also wrote a dissent in Heller, peppered the lawyers with questions about how the court might apply the Second Amendment to the states in a limited way. The Second Amendment says, “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.”

Drawing on the first clause of the amendment, Justice Breyer said that a right tied to state militias might be worthy of protection, while the right to bear arms “to shoot burglars” might not be.


The lead plaintiff in the case, Otis McDonald, has said he wants to keep a handgun in his home for protection from drug gangs. Justice Breyer asked Alan Gura, a lawyer for residents of Chicago challenging its gun control law, whether the city should remain free to ban guns if it could show that hundreds of lives would be saved. Mr. Gura said no.

Justice Scalia objected to the inquiry. A constitutional right, he said, cannot be overcome because it may have negative consequences.

But Justice Scalia was less receptive to an idea that has excited constitutional scholars in recent months. “What you argue,” he told Mr. Gura, “is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it’s also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence.”
Justice Scalia was referring to Mr. Gura’s assertion that the court has been making parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states in the wrong way.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted only the power of the federal government. The Supreme Court later ruled that most but not all of the protections of the Bill of Rights applied to the states under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.

Many judges and scholars, including Justice Scalia, have never found that methodology intellectually satisfactory. “Due process,” after all, would seem to protect only procedures and not substance. The very name given to the methodology — substantive due process — sounds like an oxymoron.

Mr. Gura, supported by scholars all along the political spectrum, argued that the court should instead rely on the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” There is evidence that the authors of the clause specifically wanted it to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves.

Justice Scalia was unimpressed. He said Mr. Gura should focus on winning his case rather than remaking constitutional law.

“Why do you want to undertake that burden,” Justice Scalia asked, “instead of just arguing substantive due process, which as much as I think it’s wrong, even I have acquiesced in it?”

Unless, the justice added, Mr. Gura was “bucking for a place on some law school faculty.”

James A. Feldman, a lawyer for the City of Chicago, urged the justices to treat the Second Amendment differently from its cousins because it concerns a lethal product. “Firearms, unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights, are designed to injure and kill,” Mr. Feldman said.

Now it was the chief justice’s turn to give advice to the lawyer before him.
“All the arguments you make against” applying the Second Amendment to the states, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, “it seems to me are arguments you should make in favor of regulation under the Second Amendment. We haven’t said anything about what the content of the Second Amendment is beyond what was said in Heller.”
 

SIGguy229

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
349
Location
Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
imported post

Again with deflection....

What's your point of the article?? The SCOTUS disagreeing with the interpretation of the 2A? Shocker.

It's funny how the 2A is the ONLY amendment that states "shall not be infringed"--yet is the most legislated right in the country.

So, do you admit you are a troll with an agenda?
 

Buttercup

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

Naw, no agenda, I live in my own little world Little Brother, but it's always good to debate with people who really DO have a brain.............seems like that's getting harder to come by!
 

DaedalEVE

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6
Location
, ,
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
You have the freedom to actively exercise any, all, or none of your Natural Rights as enumerated in our Constitution.
Just wanted to try and clarify something here that a lot of people seems to be a little confused about.
The Constitution itself does not grant people rights, and the Bill of rights itself does not really apply to the people in the way most believe it does.

We as the people of this country are born with rights. They are, as the Constitution says, given by god. This means that we inherently have any and all rights you can think of by default.
Article 1, Section 8 lays out the general powers of government (congress, who are the ones that hold all legislative powers, and which can NOT be delegated to other branches). Article 1 Section 9 places restrictions on those powers. The Bill of Rights (and subsequent Amendments) further restrict those powers.

I'd recommend everyone do a search for the 8 part "Constitution Lectures" series on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hzMHLK93TA

[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/hPkUGYDAfGc&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash]

Knowledge is Power
 

DaedalEVE

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6
Location
, ,
imported post

Oh and Dreamer... I just had to commend you for your last post on page 1. You pretty much said it all my friend. *claps*
 

Buttercup

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

I listened to a couple of these videos and then visited : http://www.youtube.com/user/shanedk
Shane's Stuff shanedk's Channel

Well delivered lectures, but who is this gentleman? I can't find anything on his information page that identifies or clarifies his background.
 

Buttercup

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

Thank you. I'm a member of the same party. Yes, what he says makes much sense to me and clearly he has done indepth research to provide a basis for his views.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

Having read all of this... I've come to a personal conclusion that Buttercups's head is full of 'clutter'. Not uncommon among myopic , subjugatedMarylanders.

Here's the way this LAC thing goes B'cup... You get up in the whenever... get dressed, holster your pistol and be on your way. There are over 6 million people in Arizona... 'n any one of 'em not otherwise prohibited (18USC) can do that on any given day.That's been going on since Territorial days 'n finally when the state constitution was created in 1912.It's worked out pretty well, all in all.Not everybody carries... but everybody can. There's no 'strutting' or 'statements' made. It's NORMAL! There's eleven states that don't infringe on thatright. That is... no permit or other government contrivance required. 'Just 'do it' or not.

"1. Is it just a 'statement' to wear a weapon openly or do you feel threatened?It's a comfort in being prepared. Similar to wearing a seatbelt.
2. Would it make you feel safer knowing that everyone around you, in their cars, on the streets, walking past your home, strangers are also wearing weapons? Many already are... and not all of 'em are legitimate.
3. Would you trust those strangers intentions knowing you cannot possibly read their minds? 'Same way you trust an on-coming car in the opposite lane.
4. If everyone else is wearing weapons might that encourage your own need to make sure you, too, wear yours? It wouldn't make any difference.
5. Should we permit our children to wear weapons as well and at what age should they have that right? Stupid question. Age of majority is 18. Some statespermit OC at 16.
6. What about our children at school or playing in our yards unprotected when there are adults and older children duly garbed walking among them? That's already generally prohibted under Federal Law. Faculty should be allowed to carry to prevent 'fish in a barrel' scenarios in these silly 'GFZ's' however.
7. Or would carrying give you a sense of power? I carry everyday... and it gives me a sense of nothing other than the means to defend myself if need be.


All in all... the aboveis pretty much standard VPC inspired drivel. I personally think you're a troll.
 

Buttercup

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

I believe the age of permission to carry in Montana is 14. I do agree with you though that there are probably a LOT of people carrying and I'm not even aware. And you are also right about drivers along the road. There is no way to know their temperament at any given time. In all, I do think that people who do open-carry legitimately are also responsible folks.

I can also see some circumstances when I would want to be able to carry as well. Because I'm small and not nearly as strong as most adults, my first regard would be 'how easily could this be taken from me and used on me'.

It would be great if there were no dangers here or anywhere, but there are and that's an ugly truth.

And pleas stop calling me a troll (I actually had to look that up because I didn't know what you were talking about at first and thought you meant those fairy tale things that lived under bridges) I finally looked it up as it applies to the internet. The truth is, I really wanted to know from all sides, why this is a fairly large issue. I can see better both sides of the argument and it is also quite clear that shackling the hands or citizens can easily put them at peril. In this I understand your points very well.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

Buttercup wrote:
I believe the age of permission to carry in Montana is 14. I do agree with you though that there are probably a LOT of people carrying and I'm not even aware. And you are also right about drivers along the road. There is no way to know their temperament at any given time. In all, I do think that people who do open-carry legitimately are also responsible folks.

I can also see some circumstances when I would want to be able to carry as well. Because I'm small and not nearly as strong as most adults, my first regard would be 'how easily could this be taken from me and used on me'.

It would be great if there were no dangers here or anywhere, but there are and that's an ugly truth.

And pleas stop calling me a troll (I actually had to look that up because I didn't know what you were talking about at first and thought you meant those fairy tale things that lived under bridges) I finally looked it up as it applies to the internet. The truth is, I really wanted to know from all sides, why this is a fairly large issue. I can see better both sides of the argument and it is also quite clear that shackling the hands or citizens can easily put them at peril. In this I understand your points very well.
As an open carrier... it's never been documented to have happened to an open carry LAC(Lawfully Armed Civilian) anywhere. Retention holsters are recommended (such as a Serpa). Those of us who carry will and must defend the gun from that possibility. If you pull it... don't have a conversation over wether or not you'll shoot the SOB. This ain't the movies. It's happened with concealed carriers 'cause they look like the rest of the sheep. The element of surprise will always be with the attacker. If you can't 'get at' your weapon... it's useless.
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

echo6tango wrote:
And for all those advocating "running" from the State...whatever. It takes more of a man to face and fight adversity than it takes to run from it.
Personally, I'd say take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Now, stepping away from silly internet memes....


I follow each and every gun bill in Maryland every year, and since I’ve lived here, it’s always the same outcome. This year shows very little signs of any difference....
Have fun beating your head against the wall. Good luck. :uhoh:
 
Top