• 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.

Second amendment slap in the

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
That is the function of the federal courts. If a State violates the agreement (the Constitution), then the courts should strike down any State actions that are in violation. This is not the purview of the Congress. Laws are a stupid way to ensure rights. When we make the lawmakers responsible for ensuring our rights, they will ensure what they think ought to be rights, and turn a blind eye towards State actions that limit activities that they think ought not be rights. It's the whole fox-guarding-the-hen-house thing.



Then we pull off another "When in the course of human events..." Of course, that means it had better be "We, virtually all of the People" severing the ties. There are a few extremists who forgot their tinfoil and think that we are at that point in the course of human events, but we clearly are not. Our nation is not perfect, but it is currently the most perfect governmental set-up in the world today, and (at one point in our history) was the most perfect ever in the history of the world.

We need to work toward full realization of the remarkable ideal that the Founders and Framers envisioned. This law is a small step in the wrong direction, away from Federalism, which is one of those remarkable ideals.

I didn't forget any tinfoil as I don't wear a tinfoil hat. I also don't think we're at the point of succession. But enough people in certain places don't feel that they have to follow the Constitution. But you come across as hoping that places such as New York will magically have a change of heart and that a majority will suddenly push for something they have been against nearly their whole life. That would be akin to expecting those who were for segregation to magically change their mind in great enough numbers that anything would have happened to change the situation in a reasonable timeframe.

Sometimes it is required for someone else to step in. And talking about the federal courts is still hoping for the feds to intervene. Only one is more likely to get somewhere with laws than they are in hoping for the courts to clarify the laws and in regards to the laws they can also help prevent future lawsuits.

Do I think a permit should be required for oc or cc? No, but I also don't think we will get to that point nationally any time soon unless someone can get the courts to step in. But I would rather work towards improvements without trying to rely on the courts. Of course we disagree on this being any type of improvement.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I didn't forget any tinfoil as I don't wear a tinfoil hat. I also don't think we're at the point of succession. But enough people in certain places don't feel that they have to follow the Constitution. But you come across as hoping that places such as New York will magically have a change of heart and that a majority will suddenly push for something they have been against nearly their whole life. That would be akin to expecting those who were for segregation to magically change their mind in great enough numbers that anything would have happened to change the situation in a reasonable timeframe.

Sometimes it is required for someone else to step in. And talking about the federal courts is still hoping for the feds to intervene. Only one is more likely to get somewhere with laws than they are in hoping for the courts to clarify the laws and in regards to the laws they can also help prevent future lawsuits.

Do I think a permit should be required for oc or cc? No, but I also don't think we will get to that point nationally any time soon unless someone can get the courts to step in. But I would rather work towards improvements without trying to rely on the courts. Of course we disagree on this being any type of improvement.

I hope you do not think the "tin foil" reference was directed at you. It was directed at folks who think it is time for another revolution--which may or may not be an apt description of you. It seems not, as you say you are against secession.

It is not so much a matter as to whether or not this law being an improvement as it is its being the exact backward approach, worsening matters. It hinders Liberty by setting up the Congress (the fox) as the protector of rights (the hens in the hen-house). Giving them that authority sets them up as the arbiter of rights. Government does not decide rights. We protect our rights from government, a necessary entity, but the natural enemy of rights.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Your response if packed with assumptions about my views. I figured responding to any of your responses to me would be a waste of time, and energy. I won't let that happen again. Of course, I will not 'ignore' you, but this is a waste of time.

Oh come on, I've seen you dodge tougher challenges than that with far more dignity.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
So, by your argument it should be left to the states to decide the age individuals can be married? So, if a state decides that ten years of age is appropriate, then you are good with that? The Federal Government should be directing all of these things, or you get a California, and Chicago situation.

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks, stalking, and harassing other members are all violations of the forum rules. If you disagree with another poster's positions, then address their positions and if they cross the line, then report it to me. Gunslinger has been given a 7 day timeout, after which I expect him to respect the rules. Anyone talking about him badly while he is not here to defend himself will face the same punishment. Let's keep it civil! JOHN
 

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
Sorry, Charlie, but yes, that's the way it's supposed to be. Ours is a unique nation of fifty sovereign states who have joined together voluntarily and have created a central government with limited power and authority. Read the U.S. Constitution.

Some states say you can get a full-fledged driver's license at age 16, yet a few others now require an older age. You certainly can't get a driver's license in New York City unless your 18 or over. Other states respect such laws. The individual sovereign states have agreed amongst themselves to honor each others' drivers licenses, and marriage certificates, and other such things (but not firearms licenses/permits). The Federal Government doesn't have the authority to tell the states what they will honor, or must honor, unless the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution comes into play, and then it's in the hands of the courts, not Congress.

I've not read all the posts so I only refer to this one. Driving is a priviledge. 2nd amendment is a RIGHT. SORRY STATKOWSKI Federal law trumps state law
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
*sigh*

Once again, federal law only trumps State law if the law implements one of the 18 enumerated powers. The States are sovereign, created the federal government, and limited its power.

Our government is not a hierarchy. That is the model used by centrally controlled (and by tyrannical) governments. Our model is bottom-up. The States derive their authority from the consent of the People. The federal government derives its authority from the Constitution that the States created.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
*sigh*

Once again, federal law only trumps State law if the law implements one of the 18 enumerated powers. The States are sovereign, created the federal government, and limited its power.

Our government is not a hierarchy. That is the model used by centrally controlled (and by tyrannical) governments. Our model is bottom-up. The States derive their authority from the consent of the People. The federal government derives its authority from the Constitution that the States created.

And we the PEOPLE need to STRONGLY REMIND the Federal and State Governments what the correct hierarchy is.:cuss:
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I've not read all the posts so I only refer to this one. Driving is a priviledge. 2nd amendment is a RIGHT. SORRY STATKOWSKI Federal law trumps state law

Can you cite? Why, how where and when it became considered a privilege?

I understand competency issues with driving but that has morphed into (at least in Washington) as it is now mostly a law enforcement tool.
 

3fgburner

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
150
Location
Northern, Virginia, USA
This bill may be supported by some near sited pro gun people. But you MUST resist! Do not be fooled by the NRA into giving up your rights. You can fight your state much easier then the fed. Spread the word. Think about liberty. Don't settle for another link in the chain of oppression.

There is nothing pro-gun about this bill. Boxer's idea of "uniform standards" for CHP issue, is essentially to enforce California style May Issue, on all the states.
 

silver

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
83
Location
CONUS
I believe that this bill is the first step in creating a national data base of firearms owners. Should we reach that unfortunate point, all the guns of law abiding citizens will be compromised. The government will know who has each serial number, and private transfers will likely be illegal as well. It happened the same way in england. first guns were registered for "safety reasons", then certain guns were outlawed because they were "dangerous" (any one have a .50 bmg?) then handguns became illegal, then rifles, and finally shotguns. The only people left with guns were and are criminals that bought/buy them in the black market. This is the first step to violating your right to life! Do not let it happen. Do not support any senator who votes for this bill for reelection.

I composed an email on the subject, I urge every single one of you to use this. I am emailing it to my senators, and mailing a paper copy as well. I urge you all to do the same as well.

I hereby release any intellectual property rights of this composition to any person who wishes to use it to prevent infringement of our rights. Feel free to cut and paste, verbatim if you wish, but add anything you feel is useful. if you do add something of value, please repost it.



Dear senator,

This email is in regards to Senate bill 176, entitled the ‘‘Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011." This bill is in no way common sense, and I urge you to vote to strike it down. My case is as follows:

As i am sure you are aware, the second amendment of the constitution reads;
"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."

The restrictions that would be placed on the obtaining of licensure directly violate the rights of any citizen over the age of eighteen (18), yet under the age of twenty-one (21), just as the current federal regulation on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition from registered dealers does. Requiring licensure in and of itself is an infringement on the second amendment as a man cannot bear such arms until he is properly licensed, nor until he has already lived three (3) years as a legal adult of this nation. This is a regulation in excess of those afforded the federal government by the constitution. Why should we be required to apply for permission to exercise our rights?

At the age of eighteen (18) years, being recognized as a legal and responsible adult, a man can sign his name on a contract for military duty in the service of this country, and when his appropriate training is completed, enter a war zone to fight for this country. Many of these brave young men do not return to america alive, often before they reach the age of 21. Why are these men not considered responsible enough to handle themselves properly when within our borders? The same applies for men who do not choose military duty. Should not a man, deemed responsible enough to fight in our wars, vote for our representatives and leaders, and assume legal responsibility for all his actions, be properly given the rights afforded him by our constitution?

I believe in the principles this country was founded on, each citizen has certain inalienable rights that shall not be infringed. I proudly and vocally support my second amendment rights and the second amendment rights of my fellow citizens. I will not support for reelection any of my senators who vote for further regulation on the second amendment

A concerned citizen,

Include name
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
There is nothing pro-gun about this bill. Boxer's idea of "uniform standards" for CHP issue, is essentially to enforce California style May Issue, on all the states.

it's a privilege because it's not in the bill of rights....?
 

Ponch

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
50
Location
Western PA
It's interesting how the Second Amendment (Federal) is such an important Amendment to the Constitution, but the "right to bear arms" should be left to the states to decide just how far the Constitution should go. I wonder, how does that work?

The entire Constitution exists to enumerate the powers of the Federal government, and the Bill of Rights exists to spell out certain limitations on the Federal government. None of it is about "granting" rights to the people, and even the "bill of rights" is not about our rights so much as "things the Federal government isn't allowed to do to us."

Imposing the bill of rights on the states is mostly redundant, because most state constitutions already contain similar protections. But it's also wrong-headed, because it actually expands federal power by giving them authority to override the states--which they will NOT then use to increase our freedom, but to decrease it. They already interpret the bill of rights in anti-freedom ways at the federal level; incorporation gives them the unconstitutional power to impose those interpretations lower down.

The second amendment, for example, was severely weakened in McDonald v. Chicago by the holding that "reasonable restrictions" are permissible. "Shall not be infringed" is officially history. There are no practical limits on infringement now, as long as some government officials (i.e., executive or legislative) can convince other government officials (i.e., judicial) that a restrict is "reasonable" or that there's a "compelling public need" that outweighs our rights.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
The entire Constitution exists to enumerate the powers of the Federal government, and the Bill of Rights exists to spell out certain limitations on the Federal government. None of it is about "granting" rights to the people, and even the "bill of rights" is not about our rights so much as "things the Federal government isn't allowed to do to us."

Imposing the bill of rights on the states is mostly redundant, because most state constitutions already contain similar protections. But it's also wrong-headed, because it actually expands federal power by giving them authority to override the states--which they will NOT then use to increase our freedom, but to decrease it. They already interpret the bill of rights in anti-freedom ways at the federal level; incorporation gives them the unconstitutional power to impose those interpretations lower down.

The second amendment, for example, was severely weakened in McDonald v. Chicago by the holding that "reasonable restrictions" are permissible. "Shall not be infringed" is officially history. There are no practical limits on infringement now, as long as some government officials (i.e., executive or legislative) can convince other government officials (i.e., judicial) that a restrict is "reasonable" or that there's a "compelling public need" that outweighs our rights.

Either the Federal Government, or the states are going to be behind the wheel of what form your Freedom takes. You seem to think that the states would be much more 'freedom-friendly' than the Federal Government. When a state is 'freedom-friendly', it is exclusive to that state. When the Federal Government is 'freedom-friendly' it is a blanket, or tends to be a blanket 'freedom-friendly' that is the Law of the Land over all laws.

'rights' afforded, affirmed, whatever, by the Constitution are merely Privileges in application. A Natural Right requires no enumeration. By enumerating any 'Right' it becomes part of a social construct, and the result in application renders the 'Right' a 'Privilege'.

There have never been practical limits on infringement. Infringement inherently is approached with practicalities in mind.

The reason that the Supreme Court's finding was such in both D.C., and Chicago is that " ... shall not be infringed" is not absolute. That is, 'infringing' on, or not 'infringing' on is a matter of degree. Not because 'infringement' has been somehow 'distorted', but rather, 'infringement' has never been meant to absolutely occupy one singular concept where there is 'not infringe', and then 'infringe'.

The notion of 'being infringed' is completely subjective. When an individual asserts that one of their 'rights' has been "infringed," I just laugh a bit, because I know that there is likely another individual experiencing the same degree of infringement who does not feel the same way.
 
Last edited:
Top