Why US liberals are now buying guns too

[countryclubjoe]

Had the founders simply added the words "for self defense" in the 2nd amendment there would be no ambiguity..

While the amendment seems crystal clear to us, 21st century jurist trying to interpret the language of a law from the 18th century causes problems..

Hence why did the best and brightest of their day not add the term " for self defense" in the amendment?..

I believe the concept was so basic and natural that the Fathers simply did not feel the need to articulate such an inalienable right in the text.. Therefore we need to study the long forgotten 9th amendment, I call it the common sense amendment, the amendment that covers all natural rights that are so basic they were omitted from the original contents of the constitution IE, right to privacy, right to associate, right to travel, right to express ones self via letters or speech or art.. and yes, ' for self defense of ones self and family and loved ones".. It would be unchristian like to leave ourself and our family at the mercy of those that wise to do us harm.

My .02

 

[color of law]

I'm assuming you are agreeing with me

All I'm saying is because you are handicapped your caregivers should be in a position to protect you and themselves. That's all I'm saying.

 

[countryclubjoe]

All I'm saying is because you are handicapped your caregivers should be in a position to protect you and themselves. That's all I'm saying.

Having a handicapped family member does not extend or grant extra rights under the 2nd A, .. The 2nd applies to all law abiding citizens nothing more nothing less...

Just like a Father of three girls is not afforded more 2nd amendment rights than a Father of three boys.. The 2nd grants us all the right to protect ourself and our family against those that wish to plunder or violate us..

My .02

 

[color of law]

Having a handicapped family member does not extend or grant extra rights under the 2nd A, .. The 2nd applies to all law abiding citizens nothing more nothing less...

Just like a Father of three girls is not afforded more 2nd amendment rights than a Father of three boys.. The 2nd grants us all the right to protect ourself and our family against those that wish to plunder or violate us..

My .02

I never said it did.....

 

[countryclubjoe]

IMHO, hunting to survive is a right, for sport is a privilege. Hunting was done long before firearms, from the beginning of man. The possession, carrying, training associated with firearms are all rights. But there are certain reasonable limitations on those rights when they infringe on other rights. I would be crazy to suggest that murder falls under the second amendment. I would believe a law preventing hunting on Michigan Ave in the middle of Chicago would not be an infringement. With all rights come responsibility, and that is where laws come in. Some people cannot be responsible if it is not spelled out. But only laws that protect the rights of others, as well as ourselves should be constitutional. Feel good laws never work.

Why is a license or fee required to hunt for survival or to fish to feed ones family? Why?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Why is a license or fee required to hunt for survival or to fish to feed ones family? Why?

I said nothing about fee, or license in my post. In fact I made it clear that hunting for food is a right. Your reading comprehension sux.

 

[countryclubjoe]

I said nothing about fee, or license in my post. In fact I made it clear that hunting for food is a right. Your reading comprehension sux.

I understand that you did not infer a license or fee is required, however both are required in some jurisdictions.. I simply asked you why?

The government could care less if a person is hunting or fishing for survival, they want their fee/tax to do so, I simply asked you again WHY?

 

[color of law]

I understand that you did not infer a license or fee is required, however both are required in some jurisdictions.. I simply asked you why?

The government could care less if a person is hunting or fishing for survival, they want their fee/tax to do so, I simply asked you again WHY?

The government understands, but the attorneys, game wardens and courts don't understand. I have a friend going through it right now. Beating them all over the head with the law at times seems fruitless. But, you must keep doing it all the way to the appeals court.

 

[countryclubjoe]

The government understands, but the attorneys, game wardens and courts don't understand. I have a friend going through it right now. Beating them all over the head with the law at times seems fruitless. But, you must keep doing it all the way to the appeals court.

Indeed, hence a deeper study of the 9th amendment is needed, to challenge all these statutes and ordinances that violate "natural rights"..

Fishing and hunting for food( survival) is a God given natural right.. And no license or fee or tax should be invoked...

If there is no commercial endeavor being practiced than no license, or fees or tax should be required..

My .02

 

[countryclubjoe]

The government understands, but the attorneys, game wardens and courts don't understand. I have a friend going through it right now. Beating them all over the head with the law at times seems fruitless. But, you must keep doing it all the way to the appeals court.

Be sure to advise your friend, to always request a jury trial or hearing in such matters.. If the amount in question exceeds $20 than your friend should exercise this simple right... If the local court refuses the jury request, his appeal will stand on much stronger legs..

Good luck.

My .02

 

[WalkingWolf]

I understand that you did not infer a license or fee is required, however both are required in some jurisdictions.. I simply asked you why?

The government could care less if a person is hunting or fishing for survival, they want their fee/tax to do so, I simply asked you again WHY?

You asked the wrong person, you should ask those who impose the fee/tax. Not somebody who makes your play dough hard.

 

[RadBanker]

Which would those be, please? The devil is in the details of the particular jurisdiction. Firearms forbade for self-defense but allowed for hunting and sport, is there one?

The UK is one example. I'm sure there are more.

 

[RadBanker]

so, to precipitate the possible contentious commentary, the best you can throw out is to start with vagueness?

nations referenced? meaning world nations?

then back to American's society on magazine capacity?

ipse

The UK does not allow the use of firearms for self-defense without a special license. This was what I had in mind when I mentioned nations.

Chapel Hill, NC does not allow "display" of firearms that are less than 8". They also do not recognize any valid reason for semi-automatic rifles to be carried within city limits, as there are no hunting grounds or firing ranges. This effectively makes semi-automatic rifles illegal for self-defense. Carrying a weapon with a magazine capacity exceeding 20 rounds and a calibre above 0.22 is considered a "weapon of mass death and destruction." This was what I had in mind when I mentioned municipalities.

And I think everyone has heard of the silly anti AR laws in states all over the US, but to avoid being vague, I'll reference the magazine capacity rule in California. This is what I had in mind when I referenced state laws on magazine capacity.

My apologies for being vague.

Edit: And just so there's no confusion, I am strongly against all above-referenced restrictions.

 

[WalkingWolf]

-snip-

Edit: And just so there's no confusion, I am strongly against all above-referenced restrictions.

So how did you vote? Did you vote?

 

[solus]

The UK does not allow the use of firearms for self-defense without a special license. This was what I had in mind when I mentioned nations.

(1) Chapel Hill, NC does not allow "display" of firearms that are less than 8".
(2) They also do not recognize any valid reason for semi-automatic rifles to be carried within city limits, as there are no hunting grounds or firing ranges. This effectively makes semi-automatic rifles illegal for self-defense.
(3) Carrying a weapon with a magazine capacity exceeding 20 rounds and a calibre above 0.22 is considered a "weapon of mass death and destruction." This was what I had in mind when I mentioned municipalities.

And I think everyone has heard of the silly anti AR laws in states all over the US, but to avoid being vague, I'll reference the magazine capacity rule in California. This is what I had in mind when I referenced state laws on magazine capacity.

My apologies for being vague.

Edit: And just so there's no confusion, I am strongly against all above-referenced restrictions.

so in the spirit of forum guidelines, please provide cites for both (1) & (2) & (3)...especially 3 since my OC pistol's mag holds 20+ and i am and do run all over the state, including Durham!!

everyone's heard...all over the US...truly?

and you failed to reference state laws whatsoever!

ipse

this member awaits your response to continue your discussion.

 

[Dario]

The marxists are being disingenuous when they say they support gun ownership, as everything belongs to the collective and not the individual.

 

[countryclubjoe]

The marxists are being disingenuous when they say they support gun ownership, as everything belongs to the collective and not the individual.

+1

same could be said about DJT.

My .02

Regards

 

[Vacuumulus]

The marxists are being disingenuous when they say they support gun ownership, as everything belongs to the collective and not the individual.

This is actually not the case. Marxism recognises the individual right to own property. The only property that Marxism suggests be collectively owned is that which can be used to produce goods (the means of production). In that case, Marxism holds that it should be collectively owned by all the people who work with it. That is to say, factory workers should own their factory, teachers should own their school, etc. When used for hunting, a gun could be considered a means of production. Assuming that you're hunting with your gun, and you're collecting the meat, then you are considered the rightful owner of that gun, since no one else has any valid claim to it.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Vacuumulus]

Actually this may not be the case. Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation. Marxism has developed into different branches and schools of thought, and there is now no single definitive Marxist theory.

("The German Marxists extended the theory to groups and issues Marx had barely touched. Marxian analyses of the legal system, of the social role of women, of foreign trade, of international rivalries among capitalist nations, and the role of parliamentary democracy in the transition to socialism drew animated debates ... Marxian theory (singular) gave way to Marxian theories (plural)." Wolff and Resnick, Richard and Stephen (August 1987). Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical. The Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 130. ISBN 0-8018-3480-5.)

Further, and the end of fascination with Marx and Engels, Karl Popper definitively falsified the dialectic of Marx in his The Open Society and Its Enemies, for men have freewill, in a word.

Unless you can find a precisely supportive quote from Karl Marx, the field is too large and complex to accept your argument on your authority. An assertion of nonexistance, as a phrase principal to Marxian principles, cannot be sustained without examination of the entire universe of discussion.

First, there is a distinction to be made between Marxist communism (the political ideology) and Marxian economics (the method of socioeconomic analysis). By "Marxism", I was referring to the former. I'm sorry if this has caused any confusion. Second, the breadth of writing that Marx produced is often described as less than it is. Marx's writings did include such topics as the role of women. In fact, The Communist Manifesto, which is one of his shortest works, even references such topics near the very beginning:

"The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex."

And later:

"The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production."

He then goes on to argue that this is unfair to women.

Third, you seem seem to discredit anything that was not written by Marx himself as not part of Marxism, even if the overwhelming majority of modern Marxists agree with it. Marx was not an advocate for LGBT rights, but most Marxists are now. If you really want citations from Karl Marx himself, though, I can give them to you. First, about gun ownership, Marx said the following at the Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League*in 1850:

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

As for the right to keep personal property:

"The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few."

Again, Marx was only against the individual private ownership of the means of production. All other property doesn't need to be collectivised.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Grapeshot]

Back on topic if you please.