Is mandating a CPL infringing and impairing on our Constitutional Rights?

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

gogodawgs wrote:

Sylvia Plath wrote:

<snip>

Click to expand...

The rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. I hope I am wrong, America is going to implode. Capitalism in America is being laid to rest--as I said, I hope I am wrong, but I do not think that I am.

Click to expand...

'the poor poorer'

This is untrue, the poor in America have become richer, they have more materialistic things now than ever before, food is more plentiful and less expensive than ever before.

Click to expand...

Sure. I went to the store the other day and bought a head of lettuce for nearly two bucks...ten years ago it was eighty-nine cents. Fuel prices have nearly tripled int he past ten years. Home prices have skyrocketed.

You are right, things are getting less expensive. Damn materialistic things like lettuce and petro, right? Let's get real here, it is tough to make ends meet these days, even with dual-income households.

Kind of makes me wonder what you think poor is, what you think middle class is.

Click to expand...

And have you noticed how many of the "poor" today have cellphones, X-boxes, two cars, a multi-room apartment, & cable TV? The "poor" in America live a helluvalot better than the poor in most other places in the world. Food may cost more at the register, but people are bringing home more money too. Inability to properly spend and budget it is another matter.

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

Yes, the words of the Constitution have meaning. I have read(e) the Constitution, it is written in English.

Fundamental rights are absolute--Constitutional rights are not. I never said that we do not have fundamental rights, I have stated clearly in prior posts that we have fundamental rights. The Constitution exists because a group of people felt it would be best to put fundamental rights down on paper, but that does not make them any more fundamental than they already were.

I have a question...what good is the Constitution? Do we really all need to write down on a piece of paper what are fundamental rights for all human's? I mean, by your own statement, the Constitution is not applied as intended anyhow. What good is a document of fundamental rights if the document is misinterpreted by liberals, conservatives, all financed by big business.

Click to expand...

Because that's what a Republic is. The founders wrote down our fundamental rights in order to protect them by law. The idea was (is), that by codifying them and protecting them with a Constitution, that they would be protected against government encroachment. It's our own greedy and apathetic society that has now corrupted that ideal. That does not, however, invalidate the original Document, it's validity, or its intent. It's like a computer that starts out nice & fast. Fail to be vigilant with it while surfing around, get apathetic about using it, and pretty soon it's so bloated & corrupted that it needs to be completely reformatted. But the underlying hardware is just as good.

Edit to add:

Oh, and do not confuse Republicans (GOP) with Conservatives :banghead:

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

Now I'll agree with you that a collapse is not only possible but likely, but it won't be Capitalism. It might be a Government or a Nation, but capitalism can't really collapse. It can go away for a while, even a long while, but not collapse. It, like freedom, is the default state of humanity. Put 100 people on a deserted island with no supplies but plenty of resources, and pretty soon they'll be bartering with each other in what is pure capitalism.

And we here in America have something rather unique. We're the only nation in history (at least modern history), to buy our own freedom with our own blood, AND do a better-than-historical-average job of maintaining that freedom. I think in any collapse that give Americans a unique advantage.

Click to expand...

I said Capitalism is being laid to rest--how long, probably a for a while.

I am totally in support of bartering. The true value of good an services are becoming more expensive because the piece of paper we use for them is worthless, as it should be. Every barter I have ever done (service for service) has been much more reflective of the true price of a service than our worthless dollar. I worked in construction for many years and used bartering when both parties had no money but had a service. I had a friend who bartered his house being built, from the foundation to the shingles.

America is truly unique and we are resilliant IMO.

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

And have you noticed how many of the "poor" today have cellphones, X-boxes, two cars, a multi-room apartment, & cable TV? The "poor" in America live a helluvalot better than the poor in most other places in the world. Food may cost more at the register, but people are bringing home more money too. Inability to properly spend and budget it is another matter.

Click to expand...

Ok, I see what you mean, you think that having things like a cell phone and an X-box is an indicator of less poverty. I hate to be argumentative, but having most of those items is not a reflection of less poverty.

Americans are much better of than other people in other countries, I completely agree. When someone says that they hate America I tell them to go live in Iran or North Korea.

Budgeting 101.

We eat a lot of beans and rice in my house--healthier and you can make a million and one different meals with just those two items with some fruit and vegetables.

imported post

i think you can barter and still be a capitalist.
i think the core of each is the free market system which still works for the buyer and seller.
even though youre not exchanging money, the true and fare value is determined by market demand.

imported post

amlevin wrote:

Do I understand that the main sentiment in this thread is "any law that prevents firearm ownership or prohibits a manner of carry is unconstitutional??"

If this is the case than how about those laws that prohibit felons, those adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, and those who are under restraining order for domestic violence, from possessing firearms. Should we do away with them as well? Let EVERYONE have a firearm, regardless of his penchant for criminal acts?

Click to expand...

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who stated, "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms". If a person is not able to be trusted within society, they should not be considered free and let loose in society.

Also, in this part of your post, you are questioning whether a certain segment of society deserves the right to self defense. If they are considered free, do they deserve to be able to protect themselves or their families?

amlevin wrote:

I believe that this is why the courts have allowed reasonable restrictions, among them the right of States to require CPL's as well as restrict areas where a firearm can be carried.

Let's face it, the Constitution and Bill of Rights only says what the Supreme Court ultimately says it does. All the more reason that we, as citizens should pay more attention to who gets elected to Congress, especially the Senate, and the office of President. THEY are the ones that place Supreme Court Justices in the seats they hold for life. Those who are appointed will reflect the politics and policies of the fools that were elected by those WHO ACTUALLY VOTED, not those who just complained.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of a quote by Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I suppose you are happy with the safety that all the gun laws have given us? Remind me... how have these laws prevented bad people from obtaining guns?

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

And have you noticed how many of the "poor" today have cellphones, X-boxes, two cars, a multi-room apartment, & cable TV? The "poor" in America live a helluvalot better than the poor in most other places in the world. Food may cost more at the register, but people are bringing home more money too. Inability to properly spend and budget it is another matter.

Click to expand...

Ok, I see what you mean, you think that having things like a cell phone and an X-box is an indicator of less poverty. I hate to be argumentative, but having most of those items is not a reflection of less poverty.

Click to expand...

It is a reflection of less poverty, when the "poor" can afford these superfluities while still claiming to be poor. It is my experience that the overwhelming majority of the "poor" are that way either by choice, or due to their own poor decisions. Give any of "the poor" a million dollars, and in a year they'd be poor again.

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.", and I believe by mandating the possession of a Washington State Concealed Pistol License, it impairs our Washington Constitutional Right to bear arms in personal defense.

Isn't it up to the Supreme Court to determine if a bill is constitutional? Why would a judge blatantly rule in favor of an unconstitutional bill?

Who does one contact regarding a withdrawing of a law which has already been passed? One emails, or one letter may not be significant in itself, but I feel with numbers, consideration could be made.

Click to expand...

Personally, I believe it does. It is as much a violation as requiring you to register your religious or political beliefs with the government and give the government the opportunity to deny you those rights. But, it definitely one of the less invasive violations we could have, so I don't complain too much. At least we're a "shall issue" state.

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

It is a reflection of less poverty, when the "poor" can afford these superfluities while still claiming to be poor. It is my experience that the overwhelming majority of the "poor" are that way either by choice, or due to their own poor decisions. Give any of "the poor" a million dollars, and in a year they'd be poor again.

Click to expand...

On Oprah, this was an interesting story. A homeless man was given 100k... he blew it all rather foolishly....

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/95216/a_homeless_man_blows_100000_of_free.html

imported post

You go to the poorest nieghborhoods, ghetto's, and project and you will find a wealth of gold, (teeth, chains, rings, Huge gold hoop earings), you will find nice rides with lotsa bling bling, fancy phones, you will find thousands have been spent on Tat's, All the while these people will be sitting on the steps of their section 8 apt, complaining that America is not doing enough for them while they wait for their next check, so they can get their new ink colored in. Then they will tell you to leave cause you are killing their business and people will think your a cop.

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

...........................It's like a computer that starts out nice & fast. Fail to be vigilant with it while surfing around, get apathetic about using it, and pretty soon it's so bloated & corrupted that it needs to be completely reformatted. But the underlying hardware is just as good.

Click to expand...

Nice analogy.

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

It is a reflection of less poverty, when the "poor" can afford these superfluities while still claiming to be poor. It is my experience that the overwhelming majority of the "poor" are that way either by choice, or due to their own poor decisions. Give any of "the poor" a million dollars, and in a year they'd be poor again.

Click to expand...

A few years ago I saw a Documentary Where they gave a homeless guy like $150,000 cash. it was all gone in a few months and he had nothing to show for it.

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

Oh, and do not confuse Republicans (GOP) with Conservatives :banghead:

Click to expand...

I agree. I'm not in WA, but the County where I live just banned guns in parks. Although not affiliated with a party the board of commissioners voted 19-5 against guns and the recently elected republican sponsored sheriff had nothing good to say about guns in parks.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

Oh, and do not confuse Republicans (GOP) with Conservatives :banghead:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

GOP=Conservatives. Tea party types these days are trying to distance themselves from the GOP, Conservatives, just another name, same brand. It would be like arguing that Progressives are not Liberal, when we all know that they are.

I think the Tea party would have been in a better position had they came out when Bush Jr. was running us into Iraq and deregulating companies like BP.

Plus, the original Tea Party was about taxation without representation--they have a right to vote, shut up and vote.

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

It is a reflection of less poverty, when the "poor" can afford these superfluities while still claiming to be poor. It is my experience that the overwhelming majority of the "poor" are that way either by choice, or due to their own poor decisions. Give any of "the poor" a million dollars, and in a year they'd be poor again.

Click to expand...

I agree, drug dealers make good money. I think the stats are within 5 years of receiving a large sum of money the person is bankrupt. Money management is very important.

There are actually many poor single parents, single mothers in particular, who go to work everyday, bust their butt for little money and require assistance.

imported post

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

I suppose you are happy with the safety that all the gun laws have given us? Remind me... how have these laws prevented bad people from obtaining guns?

Click to expand...

I believe the real question is how many more of those who don't play well and follow society's rules will be allowed to obtain weapons legally? Nobody in their right mind would think that the laws of today prevent all "criminals" from obtaining firearms. Without some regulation or reasonable restriction, how many MORE would then be armed?

No, I do not feel comfortable that the laws of today are protecting us and keeping those who should not be armed, unarmed. I feel that there should be basic, common sense laws, that are designed to protect society from those who have no qualms against Murder, Mayhem, and Robbery. Then, those laws should be ENFORCED! I believe it can all be done within the confines of the Constitution.

Eveyone wants to see no restrictions on them but nobody wants to describe the results of a society with no limits.

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

Oh, and do not confuse Republicans (GOP) with Conservatives :banghead:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

GOP=Conservatives.  Tea party types these days are trying to distance themselves from the GOP, Conservatives, just another name, same brand.  It would be like arguing that Progressives are not Liberal, when we all know that they are.

I think the Tea party would have been in a better position had they came out when Bush Jr. was running us into Iraq and deregulating companies like BP.

Plus, the original Tea Party was about taxation without representation--they have a right to vote, shut up and vote.

Click to expand...

Not so. Again, words have meaning. The Republican party is an American political party, just like the Democrat party. Conservatism is a political ideology, just like liberalism (progressivism), communism, or libertarianism. A Republican can act like a liberal (Bush, et al), and a Democrat can act like a conservative (Reagan democrats). The ideologies don't change. If a person says they are conservative, but supports more taxes and bigger government, they are not conservative, and vice-versa with liberals. It's like someone can scream they are Muslim as much as they want, but if they do not believe in one God but Allah, and Muhammed as His prophet, they are not Muslim.

The "Tea Party" is a resurgence of the nascent conservatism that has always been the ideological majority in America. So far, the tea partiers have (very wisely) been running as Republicans and, as Regan said, trying to take back the party.

Yes, there are many poor single parents who honestly bust their butts and never seem to get ahead. My wife came from such an upbringing. Those are the kinds of people who, if you gave them a million dollars, would NOT be poor again in a year. But they are the needles lost in the haystack of lazy non-producers content to sit around and leech off the labor of others. Yes, those single-parent types DO need some assistance. But it is not the roll of Government to provide it, and government has done a piss poor job of attempting to do so.

imported post

amlevin wrote:

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

I suppose you are happy with the safety that all the gun laws have given us?  Remind me... how have these laws prevented bad people from obtaining guns?

Click to expand...

I believe the real question is how many more of those who don't play well and follow society's rules will be allowed to obtain weapons legally?  Nobody in their right mind would think that the laws of today prevent all "criminals" from obtaining firearms.  Without some regulation or reasonable restriction, how many MORE would then be armed?

No, I do not feel comfortable that the laws of today are protecting us and keeping those who should not be armed, unarmed.  I feel that there should be basic, common sense laws, that are designed to protect society from those who have no qualms against Murder, Mayhem, and Robbery.  Then, those laws should be ENFORCED!  I believe it can all be done within the confines of the Constitution.

Eveyone wants to see no restrictions on them but nobody wants to describe the results of a society with no limits.

Click to expand...

Just such a society actually existed in the storied "Old West." Anyone who wanted, and could afford a gun, could get one. Sears sold them mail-order (ah, those were the days). And for the most part, despite what the movies would have you believe, the crime rate was very, very low. Petty criminals usually didn't survive long enough to reoffend.

Dude, those intent on murder & mayhem will always, ALWAYS find the tools to carry it out, if they are so intent. Look at China. No guns there, so the monsters use hammers or knives to mass murder school children. If every single citizen in this country were armed, or even just a large majority of us, the crime rate would be virtually nothing. Yes, there would be occasional instances of violence by criminals, such is inevitable in life, and those criminals would by and large also not survive to reoffend.

imported post

amlevin wrote:

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

I suppose you are happy with the safety that all the gun laws have given us? Remind me... how have these laws prevented bad people from obtaining guns?

Click to expand...

I believe the real question is how many more of those who don't play well and follow society's rules will be allowed to obtain weapons legally? Nobody in their right mind would think that the laws of today prevent all "criminals" from obtaining firearms. Without some regulation or reasonable restriction, how many MORE would then be armed?

No, I do not feel comfortable that the laws of today are protecting us and keeping those who should not be armed, unarmed. I feel that there should be basic, common sense laws, that are designed to protect society from those who have no qualms against Murder, Mayhem, and Robbery. Then, those laws should be ENFORCED! I believe it can all be done within the confines of the Constitution.

Eveyone wants to see no restrictions on them but nobody wants to describe the results of a society with no limits.

Click to expand...

There should be one gun law:

"It is illegal to use a gun in the commission of a crime"

With that one gun law we can prosocute those who use firearms unwisely. There has never been a gun law that has prevented criminals from arming themselves. By thier nature, laws only restrict honest citizens and do nothing to disarm those who wish to do harm to others.

imported post

amlevin wrote:

Do I understand that the main sentiment in this thread is "any law that prevents firearm ownership or prohibits a manner of carry is unconstitutional??"

If this is the case than how about those laws that prohibit felons, those adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, and those who are under restraining order for domestic violence, from possessing firearms. Should we do away with them as well? Let EVERYONE have a firearm, regardless of his penchant for criminal acts?

I believe that this is why the courts have allowed reasonable restrictions, among them the right of States to require CPL's as well as restrict areas where a firearm can be carried.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I agree with that.

If a felon has paid their debt to society, why couldn't they be armed like any other free man? Of course, that works better if murderers and rapists are put to death and not released after a few years.

If someone is mentally incompetent enough that they can't be trusted with a gun then they should not be roaming free in society. They should be a ward of a family member or the state. Otherwise, just because Joe had a small bout with PTSD when he came back from the war shouldn't keep him from owning and carrying arms.

In some states you get a RO just for filing divorce, or because the woman says she's scared when she tries to leave. You ban someone for that cause and you're denying them a right without due process of law. If the individual has committed a crime, by all means lock them up, keep them from having guns as terms of their bail, or something along those lines, but if there's no crime then there should be no punishment.

If we didn't have such a weak justice system and didn't coddle criminals in general, then we wouldn't have so many of them wandering around outside of cells or coffins.