Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Inalienable Right, Constitutional Right, Permitted Right

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI ,
    Posts
    5

    Inalienable Right, Constitutional Right, Permitted Right

    When debating what laws we should have, I often hear these statements:
    "The Constitution says this . . . "
    "It only applies to a well regulated militia."
    "We must protect the general public, through training and permits . . . just like driving school or hunters safety."
    "With rights come responsibility."

    I always go back to the inalienable right for an individual to protect his or her life. The core belief.

    I'm sure no one would argue that I have the right to put up my arms if someone is started throwing punches at me for no apparent reason. What makes firearms so concerning is the power. Power is not good or bad, but neutral. It's really about who has the power and how it's used.

    I believe what concerns people, is that proper engagement actions and state of mind needs to be discussed before someone enters into a situation with a firearm. Permitting thus forces the discussion and debate with the person about to carry with experts. It also is an opportunity to discuss best practices and studies that were done . . . perhaps even examples.

    However, I go back to the inalienable right. The courts have ruled that calling 911 or having a police officer near does not guaranty safety, because there is no duty to protect you. So how can the government be authorized to punish me for not having permission to carry a firearm, yet have no duty to protect me individually? Is the governments basis that the masses are more important than me as a single person?


    Hi Doug . . . I liked your thoughts too. Debate and conflict is not good or bad . . . it is neutral; just like the power to take a thread off topic and get it locked. I only mean to discuss issues starting from a premise and influencing with logical supporting ideas of the premise. I appreciate the opportunity to post on this forum and do not mean to harm the firearm movement. I believe exposing ideas help, otherwise people tend to just chant slogans back and forth.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by bmtpbm View Post
    When debating what laws we should have, I often hear these statements:
    "The Constitution says this . . . "
    "It only applies to a well regulated militia."
    "We must protect the general public, through training and permits . . . just like driving school or hunters safety."
    "With rights come responsibility."

    I always go back to the inalienable right for an individual to protect his or her life. The core belief.

    I'm sure no one would argue that I have the right to put up my arms if someone is started throwing punches at me for no apparent reason. What makes firearms so concerning is the power. Power is not good or bad, but neutral. It's really about who has the power and how it's used.

    I believe what concerns people, is that proper engagement actions and state of mind needs to be discussed before someone enters into a situation with a firearm. Permitting thus forces the discussion and debate with the person about to carry with experts. It also is an opportunity to discuss best practices and studies that were done . . . perhaps even examples.

    However, I go back to the inalienable right. The courts have ruled that calling 911 or having a police officer near does not guaranty safety, because there is no duty to protect you. So how can the government be authorized to punish me for not having permission to carry a firearm, yet have no duty to protect me individually? Is the governments basis that the masses are more important than me as a single person?


    Hi Doug . . . I liked your thoughts too. Debate and conflict is not good or bad . . . it is neutral; just like the power to take a thread off topic and get it locked. I only mean to discuss issues starting from a premise and influencing with logical supporting ideas of the premise. I appreciate the opportunity to post on this forum and do not mean to harm the firearm movement. I believe exposing ideas help, otherwise people tend to just chant slogans back and forth.
    Here in WI, we can set the debate regarding the 2nd Amendment to the CONUS aside because our right to bear arms "for any lawful purpose" is affirmed in our State Constitution with no mention of militia.
    In addition to the CONUS affirming our inalienable right to life, we have a State Statutory "right" to use deadly force if we reasonably believe that our life is in immenant danger. The only place we may not carry a firearm in WI is on school grounds or in a public building without permission. All other Statutes merely regulate the manner of carry. Our current CCW prohibitive Statute is unconstitutional because it leaves us no manner of carry in a vehicle and is quite impractically restrictive in other places.
    Requiring training is simply unjustified even though any responsible hangun owner would seek it out on their own if they are highly ignorant of the essentials of carry. Neither hunting nor driving an automobile are rights affirmed by our State Constitution. There are simply no statistics to support any claimed justification for mandatory training and plenty of statistics which demonstrate evidence of responsible carry in several other states which require no training before carrying concealed. The record speaks for itself.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Neither hunting nor driving an automobile are rights affirmed by our State Constitution. There are simply no statistics to support any claimed justification for mandatory training and plenty of statistics which demonstrate evidence of responsible carry in several other states which require no training before carrying concealed. The record speaks for itself.
    Not so IK. Article 1, Section 25-26 reaffirms our right to hunt, however, Section 26 muddies the waters by saying "and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as
    prescribed by law." How can one have a right if there are restrictions?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  4. #4
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Neither hunting nor driving an automobile are rights affirmed by our State Constitution.
    Right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game. SECTION 26.
    [As created April 2003] The people have the right to fish, hunt,
    trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as
    prescribed by law.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Not so IK. Article 1, Section 25-26 reaffirms our right to hunt, however, Section 26 muddies the waters by saying "and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as
    prescribed by law." How can one have a right if there are restrictions?
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game. SECTION 26.
    [As created April 2003] The people have the right to fish, hunt,
    trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as
    prescribed by law.
    Apparently, required training is a "reasonable restriction as prescribed by law".....

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •