• 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.

Inalienable Right, Constitutional Right, Permitted Right

bmtpbm

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5
Location
Milwaukee, WI ,
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.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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?
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
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?

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".....
 
Top