Video - More Than A Right: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[FrankRep]

More Than A Right: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

YouTube - More Than A Right: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFpEbDNPeTE)



This is a classic film from the 1970s that targets anti-gun hysteria. It shows not only how gun control legislation does not prevent criminal acts with firearms and puts citizens in more danger, but how government control over private firearms ownership is a totalitarian agenda to disarm law-abiding citizens. All totalitarian regimes in 20th Century from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to present day China and Cuba disarmed their subjugated populations as a key element of enslaving them.

[AxisMundi]

Firstly, I have never bought into the hysteria that gun control laws were some "totalitarian regime agenda".

There are some people who are convinced that gun control, check that, elimination laws are a good thing, and lobby g'ment for them. Understanding the underlying cause not only helps to resist overly intrusive gun control, ie elimination, laws, but such hysteria as you foward merely makes people roll their eyes and refuse the message for a basic Constitutional Right.

While gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens, the ones least likely to commit a gun crime, some control laws are, IMHO, necessary.

1. If your firearm is stolen, having it registered not only CYA's yourself if it is used in a gun crime and you have reported the theft, if located by LEO's, it can be returned.

2. They ensures that a firearm owner has had at least rudimentary safety and use training.

3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.

4. Lets face it, no one but an avid colelctor and/or museum needs military grade firearms. You're not going to snipe a deer from a half mile, and if you want to, perhaps you should be classified in the "insane" catagory above.

[Pericles]

Firstly, I have never bought into the hysteria that gun control laws were some "totalitarian regime agenda".

There are some people who are convinced that gun control, check that, elimination laws are a good thing, and lobby g'ment for them. Understanding the underlying cause not only helps to resist overly intrusive gun control, ie elimination, laws, but such hysteria as you foward merely makes people roll their eyes and refuse the message for a basic Constitutional Right.

While gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens, the ones least likely to commit a gun crime, some control laws are, IMHO, necessary.

1. If your firearm is stolen, having it registered not only CYA's yourself if it is used in a gun crime and you have reported the theft, if located by LEO's, it can be returned.

2. They ensures that a firearm owner has had at least rudimentary safety and use training.

3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.

4. Lets face it, no one but an avid colelctor and/or museum needs military grade firearms. You're not going to snipe a deer from a half mile, and if you want to, perhaps you should be classified in the "insane" catagory above.

Since I am feeling particularly benevolent today, apropros of nothing whatsoever:

1. If I have a firearm that is stolen , I can report it and the serial number to the police. Registration serves no purpose. You will also notice that in liberal hell holes especially, stolen firearms used in crimes are not returned to the rightful owners, but are confiscated and destroyed.

2. maybe people also need to pass a parent course before being allowed to have children?

3. A responsible member of society hardly needs a law to tell him not to sell dangerous stuff to obviously unstable people.

4. Restricting the type of weapons that one may bear to certain classes of people ensure those with access to superior weaponry will be the rulers of said society. The reason the founders of the US wanted the citizenry to have the same weapons as used by the professional military was to ensure that the country was ruled by its citizens,and not by a professional military class.

In summary - buzzzzzz wrong answer, but thanks for playing:)

[Dr.3D]

When I saw a sign today, it seemed like an oxymoron. The sign said, "For the safety of our employees and customers, weapons are not permitted on these premises."

I immediately thought to myself, how is having all law abiding individuals being disarmed contributing to anyone's safety? All I could think of was some criminal entering the place and using his weapon to kill as many people as he felt he wanted to.

What kind of mentality do people have who make up stupid signs like that one?

[Danke]

Firstly, I have never bought into the hysteria that gun control laws were some "totalitarian regime agenda".

There are some people who are convinced that gun control, check that, elimination laws are a good thing, and lobby g'ment for them. Understanding the underlying cause not only helps to resist overly intrusive gun control, ie elimination, laws, but such hysteria as you foward merely makes people roll their eyes and refuse the message for a basic Constitutional Right.

While gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens, the ones least likely to commit a gun crime, some control laws are, IMHO, necessary.

1. If your firearm is stolen, having it registered not only CYA's yourself if it is used in a gun crime and you have reported the theft, if located by LEO's, it can be returned.

2. They ensures that a firearm owner has had at least rudimentary safety and use training.

3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.

4. Lets face it, no one but an avid colelctor and/or museum needs military grade firearms. You're not going to snipe a deer from a half mile, and if you want to, perhaps you should be classified in the "insane" catagory above.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ZxOwWvUtdlFVNM:http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu131/KevlarPaperclip/double-facepalm.jpg&t=1

[AxisMundi]

Since I am feeling particularly benevolent today, apropros of nothing whatsoever:

I feel so honored. :rolleyes:


1. If I have a firearm that is stolen , I can report it and the serial number to the police. Registration serves no purpose. You will also notice that in liberal hell holes especially, stolen firearms used in crimes are not returned to the rightful owners, but are confiscated and destroyed.

Links please. I don't have any, and I know it's not proof, but my comments are based on a neighbor's experience with the matter. His Model 1911 was returned after the perp's trial and conviction. I do realize, however, that the case may be different in other areas.

The example I used is but one of many advantages to society that registered firearms generates.


2. maybe people also need to pass a parent course before being allowed to have children?

Non sequitur. Children aren't potentially deadly weapons.

Why do you apparently not support safety training?

Besides, I happened to like my C&C training courses.


3. A responsible member of society hardly needs a law to tell him not to sell dangerous stuff to obviously unstable people.

Not all psychosis are obvious, and neither are criminal convictions either.

That's ignoring plain greed, of course.


4. Restricting the type of weapons that one may bear to certain classes of people ensure those with access to superior weaponry will be the rulers of said society. The reason the founders of the US wanted the citizenry to have the same weapons as used by the professional military was to ensure that the country was ruled by its citizens,and not by a professional military class.

Sorry, but I do not buy into this simple hysteria.

The Second dealt with not only a citizen's right to own firearms for personal protection and to put food on the table (if you will remember almost the entire Nation was "frontier" at the time), but as we did not have a large standing army at the time and we were a new Nation without a strong army/navy to protect ourselves, militias that could be raised in an instant in case of a foreign invader.

The Second wasn't made with any intention of giving We the People some form of ability towards armed insurrection or "protecting ourselves against the ebil gub'mint".

The ballot box is where We the People protect ourselves from a totalitarian regime.

And, neighbor, there wasn't any such thing as a "military grade" weapon at the time, so the idea that the g'ment wanted it's citizens and military to "have the same weapons" is rather silly, to be frank.

Also, "Infringe" means to invalidate, to remove, it does not mean that it eliminates some form of controls. The government is well within it's Constitutional mandate to regulate gun ownership.

It is up to We the People to determine how far those regulations span.

[Pericles]

I feel so honored. :rolleyes:



Links please. I don't have any, and I know it's not proof, but my comments are based on a neighbor's experience with the matter. His Model 1911 was returned after the perp's trial and conviction. I do realize, however, that the case may be different in other areas.

The example I used is but one of many advantages to society that registered firearms generates.



Non sequitur. Children aren't potentially deadly weapons.

Why do you apparently not support safety training?

Besides, I happened to like my C&C training courses.



Not all psychosis are obvious, and neither are criminal convictions either.

That's ignoring plain greed, of course.



Sorry, but I do not buy into this simple hysteria.

The Second dealt with not only a citizen's right to own firearms for personal protection and to put food on the table (if you will remember almost the entire Nation was "frontier" at the time), but as we did not have a large standing army at the time and we were a new Nation without a strong army/navy to protect ourselves, militias that could be raised in an instant in case of a foreign invader.

The Second wasn't made with any intention of giving We the People some form of ability towards armed insurrection or "protecting ourselves against the ebil gub'mint".

The ballot box is where We the People protect ourselves from a totalitarian regime.

And, neighbor, there wasn't any such thing as a "military grade" weapon at the time, so the idea that the g'ment wanted it's citizens and military to "have the same weapons" is rather silly, to be frank.

Also, "Infringe" means to invalidate, to remove, it does not mean that it eliminates some form of controls. The government is well within it's Constitutional mandate to regulate gun ownership.

It is up to We the People to determine how far those regulations span.
Your post demonstrates an ignorance of history.

Contemporary sources clearly illustrate the purpose of the Militia and the second amendment - it is to provide the ultimate check on government power.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))


"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)


"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)


"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)


"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution )

And so on. If there be any further doubt, heed the Militia Act of 1792:

Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia
[B]Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.


...........................


The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792,

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

[AxisMundi]

Thanks for posting the Articles for me, you saved me some time and proved my point.

As for your quotes, I refuse to get into quote wars as quotes can be cherrypicked, fradulent, or fabricated outright, and for every quote forwrded, one from the same source can be found to support the opposing view.

What amtters are the laws that were formed by concensus.

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks for posting the Articles for me, you saved me some time and proved my point.

As for your quotes, I refuse to get into quote wars as quotes can be cherrypicked, fradulent, or fabricated outright, and for every quote forwrded, one from the same source can be found to support the opposing view.

What amtters are the laws that were formed by concensus.

Slavery is brought to the people by "consensus".

Understanding the difference between a right and privilege, fail.

-rep

[Dr.3D]

Thanks for posting the Articles for me, you saved me some time and proved my point.

As for your quotes, I refuse to get into quote wars as quotes can be cherrypicked, fradulent, or fabricated outright, and for every quote forwrded, one from the same source can be found to support the opposing view.

What amtters are the laws that were formed by concensus.

Why not show us at least one of those opposing views from the same source.
I would rather like to see that.

Seems to me, rather than proving your point, those quotes did just the opposite, and your refusal to participate in a 'quote war', seems more like a failure on your part to be able to find any quotes, supporting your point of view.

[osan]

Firstly, I have never bought into the hysteria that gun control laws were some "totalitarian regime agenda".

On the whole that is exactly what they add up to. What matters is the result.


While gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens, the ones least likely to commit a gun crime, some control laws are, IMHO, necessary.

Oh dear...


1. If your firearm is stolen, having it registered not only CYA's yourself if it is used in a gun crime and you have reported the theft, if located by LEO's, it can be returned.

Unnecessary. Serves no purpose whatsoever in those terms. Registration is, however, a great mechanism for streamlining confiscation, however broadly or narrowly those in power might choose.

More basically speaking, what is the moral basis for such a requirement?


2. They ensures that a firearm owner has had at least rudimentary safety and use training.

This presupposes the necessity for such, which further presupposes the moral basis for forcing such training upon people. Please provide that basis.


3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.


Who determines who is mentally fit to have firearms? Who establishes the standard? Upon what standard is the standard established?



4. Lets face it, no one but an avid colelctor and/or museum needs military grade firearms. You're not going to snipe a deer from a half mile, and if you want to, perhaps you should be classified in the "insane" catagory above.

Smells like troll dung from here. Upon what basis do you determine "need"? Who are you or is anyone else to act as arbiter of such need? What I own is none of you business and sticking your nose where it doesn't belong is a great way to get seriously injured. It seems you are either disingenuous, ignorant beyond all measure, or wholly void of respect for the rights of others.

Seems to me you may be more comfy over at the Brady Campaign.

[osan]

...your refusal to participate in a 'quote war', seems more like a failure on your part to be able to find any quotes, supporting your point of view.

That.

+1+

[Dr.3D]

That.

+1+

What, no +Rep. He, he, he..... :D

[AME3]

How about it Axis? Give us a couple of examples...
Yeah, I thought so...."troll dung".

[osan]

What, no +Rep. He, he, he..... :D

OK, done.

Wisenheimer.

[AxisMundi]

Slavery is brought to the people by "consensus".

Understanding the difference between a right and privilege, fail.

-rep

And slavery would have been removed by consensus as well.

Bad example on your part, I'm afraid, as slavery was considered moral and proper back in the day.

[bunklocoempire]

3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.


Big friggin' deal, "a little more difficult for the insane/criminal".

Try focusing on the innocent whom you mistakenly believe these laws protect instead of your personal fears. That applies to all four of your points.

All your points are bad, but I've had personal experience with this one.

You've probably never had to wait 14 days and nights 'to aquire' a firearm after tweaker next-door neighbors shot up your property -My wife, mother-in-law, and myself have.

I was guilty until proven innocent concerning my right to protect life.:mad:

Keep reading the above sentence until you see the light, and realize that a government with easy access to military grade weapons, bought with MY money, enforces that bullshit law.



Bunkloco

[AxisMundi]

Big friggin' deal, "a little more difficult for the insane/criminal".

Try focusing on the innocent whom you mistakenly believe these laws protect instead of your personal fears. That applies to all four of your points.

All your points are bad, but I've had personal experience with this one.

You've probably never had to wait 14 days and nights 'to aquire' a firearm after tweaker next-door neighbors shot up your property -My wife, mother-in-law, and myself have.

I was guilty until proven innocent concerning my right to protect life.:mad:

Keep reading the above sentence until you see the light, and realize that a government with easy access to military grade weapons, bought with MY money, enforces that bullshit law.



Bunkloco

Thank you for exhibiting one of the basic problems with politics, and pretty much everything else, in this Nation today.

A black-and-white, us-versus-them mentality knee jerk response and the inability to even consider the other side, or any side other than your own, of the issue.

Not to mention jumping to conclusions.

I am a firearm owner and possess a C&C license.

I do not labour under some illusion that gun control laws effect criminals, who by their very definition, ignore laws.

However, I do believe that SOME laws are absolutely vital, such as the cool-down period and requiring a license for C&C.

[pcosmar]

However, I do believe that SOME laws are absolutely vital, such as the cool-down period and requiring a license for C&C.

Shall not be infringed.
I am infringed.

There should be NO Law regarding Open or Concealed carry. How one carries is a personal choice and none of the governments business.
Right to Bear Arms. It is a Right. Not a privilege.

[roho76]

Firstly, I have never bought into the hysteria that gun control laws were some "totalitarian regime agenda".

There are some people who are convinced that gun control, check that, elimination laws are a good thing, and lobby g'ment for them. Understanding the underlying cause not only helps to resist overly intrusive gun control, ie elimination, laws, but such hysteria as you foward merely makes people roll their eyes and refuse the message for a basic Constitutional Right.

While gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens, the ones least likely to commit a gun crime, some control laws are, IMHO, necessary.

1. If your firearm is stolen, having it registered not only CYA's yourself if it is used in a gun crime and you have reported the theft, if located by LEO's, it can be returned.

2. They ensures that a firearm owner has had at least rudimentary safety and use training.

3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.

4. Lets face it, no one but an avid colelctor and/or museum needs military grade firearms. You're not going to snipe a deer from a half mile, and if you want to, perhaps you should be classified in the "insane" catagory above.


I believe you clicked on the wrong link some how. Here is the correct one: http://www.bradycampaign.org/

[AxisMundi]

Shall not be infringed.
I am infringed.

There should be NO Law regarding Open or Concealed carry. How one carries is a personal choice and none of the governments business.
Right to Bear Arms. It is a Right. Not a privilege.

Infringed means "removed", not regulated.

People's rights in DC were ingringed, for example, my right here in NY is not even tho I must register and license.

There is no such thing as a right that cannot be regulated or have limitations applied. Been that way since day one.

[AxisMundi]

I believe you clicked on the wrong link some how. Here is the correct one: http://www.bradycampaign.org/

Wrong link for what?

I own multiple long- and side arms and have a C&C license.

I merely use my brain instead of having my opinions spoonfed to me like some people on this forum.

[LibertyEagle]

Thank you for exhibiting one of the basic problems with politics, and pretty much everything else, in this Nation today.

A black-and-white, us-versus-them mentality knee jerk response and the inability to even consider the other side, or any side other than your own, of the issue.

Not to mention jumping to conclusions.

I am a firearm owner and possess a C&C license.

I do not labour under some illusion that gun control laws effect criminals, who by their very definition, ignore laws.

However, I do believe that SOME laws are absolutely vital, such as the cool-down period and requiring a license for C&C.

Axis, it's like this. Why do you think our Founders wanted us to have guns and they wanted it badly enough to state it in the 2nd Amendment?

YouTube - Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis)

History is replete with case after case of the citizenry of a country being disarmed by their government, before they started mass murdering them. So, can you see why it doesn't make sense to make it so easy for them to know exactly who has the guns? What it does is allow them to easily go down the list to confiscate owners' guns and to also know who the potential "troublemakers" might be.

I doubt any of us disagree with people learning how to shoot and take care of any guns that they own and keeping them away from little kids. No law is needed for that to happen. Moreover, the only people who pay any attention to laws are not the people that you should be worrying about. Criminals don't care about laws.

Axis, we all have to be very careful not to hand over our liberty for some fictitious level of safety. And that is what you are advocating here, in my opinion.

[LibertyEagle]

Infringed means "removed", not regulated.


Actually, that's not true.

in·fringe   

[in-frinj]
verb, -fringed, -fring·ing.
–verb (used with object)

1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringed

[pcosmar]

Infringed means "removed", not regulated.

People's rights in DC were ingringed, for example, my right here in NY is not even tho I must register and license.

There is no such thing as a right that cannot be regulated or have limitations applied. Been that way since day one.

Nope.Wrong again.
It has been that way since 1934. (after the socialist coup of 1913) Prior to that there was no restriction on owning any and all arms.

Anyone could walk into a hardware store and buy a machine gun.
You could order them through the mail.
There was NO registration. There was No wait. There was No Background Check.
There was no need.

There still isn't.
:(

[LibertyEagle]

When I saw a sign today, it seemed like an oxymoron. The sign said, "For the safety of our employees and customers, weapons are not permitted on these premises."

I immediately thought to myself, how is having all law abiding individuals being disarmed contributing to anyone's safety? All I could think of was some criminal entering the place and using his weapon to kill as many people as he felt he wanted to.

What kind of mentality do people have who make up stupid signs like that one?

Exactly. Remember Virginia Tech? Everyone was disarmed alright, EXCEPT the one murdering them.

The university was a gun-free zone. I guess the killer didn't care about that. But, I guess someone can go pin blue ribbons on the caskets of those dead, for following the law.

[AxisMundi]

Axis, it's like this. Why do you think our Founders wanted us to have guns and they wanted it badly enough to state it in the 2nd Amendment?

YouTube - Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis)

History is replete with case after case of the citizenry of a country being disarmed by their government, before they started mass murdering them. So, can you see why it doesn't make sense to make it so easy for them to know exactly who has the guns? What it does is allow them to easily go down the list to confiscate owners' guns and to also know who the potential "troublemakers" might be.

I doubt any of us disagree with people learning how to shoot and take care of any guns that they own and keeping them away from little kids. No law is needed for that to happen. Moreover, the only people who pay any attention to laws are not the people that you should be worrying about. Criminals don't care about laws.

Axis, we all have to be very careful not to hand over our liberty for some fictitious level of safety. And that is what you are advocating here, in my opinion.

Firstly, our Founders wished to preserve our right to bear arms due to the fact that almost the entire Nation was frontier at that time. Citizens needed firearms to protect and feed themselves. There was also the concern of an invasion by a more powerful foreign power as well, the reason the right to form militias is included in the Second.

Secondly, if you think everyone, or even most people, are responsible enough to pay for safety training on their own, I've a bridge you might like to buy.

Thirdly, I have already stated several times on this forum my views on gun control laws, and your comments mirror my own. Criminals, by definition, ignore laws.

For law abiding citizens, said laws should ONLY be for the issues of safety, both personal and public. Laws meant to eliminate the right to own/carry firearms I think we all agree are unconstitutional.

Regulations do not turn a right into a "privilege", that is a simple non sequitur.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, Axis, you don't want people to quote things for you so I won't, but I'm sorry to tell you that you are either misinformed or uninformed as to why our Founders felt it was so important to have the 2nd Amendment.

I guess you will either decide to go do some study on your own, or you won't.

[Anti Federalist]

Infringed means "removed", not regulated.

People's rights in DC were ingringed, for example, my right here in NY is not even tho I must register and license.

There is no such thing as a right that cannot be regulated or have limitations applied. Been that way since day one.

No, it does not.

In the other thread you attempted to make the case that "infringe" does not mean "encroach", when it clearly does, the two are direct synonyms.

ETA - Whoa, sorry missed this...


my right here in NY

That explains it.



Originally Posted by osan
Well fuck me. What in bleeding hell is wrong with people in NJ?
He should have been acquitted. I don't have the words to describe how happy I am to have left that god-forsaken shit hole. Unfortunately for me, most of my friends and family are still there.

Why has this poor bastard not been set free?

Fuck NJ.

No, really.

Originally Posted by Anti Federalist

You lived there osan.

I was born and raised there.

We both know what's wrong with people there, they have been "institutionalized".

Just like long term prisoners, they see their oppression and oppressors as familiar, friendly, known facets of their lives.

They would no more think of rebellion or going against an "authority figure" than a convict would against the "Captain".

Of the few people and family I have left there, I really can't even talk to them any more, they are so far gone.

Then again, maybe it's toxins in the water.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2947643&postcount=28

Some weird Stockholm Syndrome affects people from NY and NJ and CT.

Same thing in IL and CA.

[LibertyEagle]

Axis, here is a book I recommend.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51xxuy%2BpvbL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Second-Amendment-Origins-Right/dp/1566637929/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287942477&sr=1-1

[Anti Federalist]

And slavery would have been removed by consensus as well.

Bad example on your part, I'm afraid, as slavery was considered moral and proper back in the day.

You make my point.

People should not be enslaved based on public consensus, plebiscite or voting.

Nor are rights to be infringed, encroached upon or dismissed by the same means.

Congress shall make no law and Shall not be infringed, mean just what they say, period.

Now, if you think that is too "extreme" and that "some limits" are necessary then, just like I am told, ad nasuem, to work "within the system, so should you.

Amend the Constitution if you think it's needed.

[rmodel65]

Infringed means "removed", not regulated.

People's rights in DC were ingringed, for example, my right here in NY is not even tho I must register and license.

There is no such thing as a right that cannot be regulated or have limitations applied. Been that way since day one.



regulated means to make regular...it doesnt mean what you think it means

[Sola_Fide]

There is no such thing as a right that cannot be regulated or have limitations applied. Been that way since day one.

Day one huh? No. It's the opposite. A right is something that cannot be regulated or alienated from anyone.

[Dr.3D]

So now, while some people believe law abiding citizens should have to wait or go through a lengthy process of being able to have a firearm, those who have no compulsion to obey the law have no wait and just obtain firearms whenever they need them.

Seems like a great idea doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[AxisMundi]

Day one huh? No. It's the opposite. A right is something that cannot be regulated or alienated from anyone.

Do you have a "right" to scream "Kill the prez" at the White House fence? If you owned a newspaper, would you have a right to print outright slanderious lies?

Also, do you agree or disagree with a convicted criminal loosing gun ownership rights?


regulated means to make regular...it doesnt mean what you think it means

I am well aware of what regulated means, thank you.

[Anti Federalist]

Do you have a "right" to scream "Kill the prez" at the White House fence? If you owned a newspaper, would you have a right to print outright slanderious lies?

Also, do you agree or disagree with a convicted criminal loosing gun ownership rights?

Yes, you have the right to say whatever you want, regardless of "fire in a theater" arguments.

Yes, you have the right to print whatever you want. This has already been decided in numerous court cases. Search Larry Flynt v. Jerry Falwell.

Yes, by all means, if you have served your prison time, parole and/or probation, all rights should be restored, including Second Amendment rights.

[Sola_Fide]

Do you have a "right" to scream "Kill the prez" at the White House fence?

Yes.


If you owned a newspaper, would you have a right to print outright slanderious lies?

Yes. Have you read a newspaper lately? Almost every word is a slanderous lie. Free speech is our right. What's better? Protected speech? No thanks...


Also, do you agree or disagree with a convicted criminal loosing gun ownership rights?


I think criminals have a right to defend themselves using a weapon after they have served their time...yes.

[pcosmar]

Also, do you agree or disagree with a convicted criminal loosing gun ownership rights?
Disagree. Adamantly.
And until recent times, guns were returned at the end of a sentence. Rights were restored at the end of a sentence.
Most still are.



I am well aware of what regulated means, thank you.

I rather doubt that. You seem to accept the modern Brady definition.

[AxisMundi]

Yes.

Yes, you have the right to say whatever you want, regardless of "fire in a theater" arguments.

Then why, pray tell, would this result in nother set of Rights bing read to you as you are arrested? Seems to me that a "right" would not result in one being arrested.

The "yelling fire in a thearter" argument is quite valid in this instance.


Yes. Have you read a newspaper lately? Almost every word is a slanderous lie. Free speech is our right. What's better? Protected speech? No thanks...

Yes, you have the right to print whatever you want. This has already been decided in numerous court cases. Search Larry Flynt v. Jerry Falwell.

Firstly, if a newspaper prints serious allegations that are unfounded, a person has a right to sue said publication for damages and retractions.

Secondly, Hustler parodied FellFar, they did not slander him.


I think criminals have a right to defend themselves using a weapon after they have served their time...yes.

Yes, by all means, if you have served your prison time, parole and/or probation, all rights should be restored, including Second Amendment rights.

Thanks for clarifying. I support the return of all rights to convicted criminals after they serve their time. I also support and advocate a complete restructuring of not only the prison system, but the very mentality of said institution away from "rehabiitation" and towards punishment.

[xd9fan]

YouTube - Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g)

[The Freethinker]

America is still a great country. Even though we have clueless Keynesians running ruining the economy, liberals in northern states limiting gun ownership... and even though I live in a state I'll define as a "communist people's republic" given its ultra-liberal gun laws...

... I am nonetheless legally allowed to purchase ammunition online. Picked up 10 cases of 50-round ammo tonight.

Man, I'm happy. I might order again soon so I'll have a meager 1k bullets at home. :D

[bunklocoempire]

Big friggin' deal, "a little more difficult for the insane/criminal".

Try focusing on the innocent whom you mistakenly believe these laws protect instead of your personal fears. That applies to all four of your points.

All your points are bad, but I've had personal experience with this one.

You've probably never had to wait 14 days and nights 'to aquire' a firearm after tweaker next-door neighbors shot up your property -My wife, mother-in-law, and myself have.

I was guilty until proven innocent concerning my right to protect life.:mad:

Keep reading the above sentence until you see the light, and realize that a government with easy access to military grade weapons, bought with MY money, enforces that bullshit law.



Bunkloco




Thank you for exhibiting one of the basic problems with politics, and pretty much everything else, in this Nation today.

A black-and-white, us-versus-them mentality knee jerk response and the inability to even consider the other side, or any side other than your own, of the issue.

Not to mention jumping to conclusions.

I am a firearm owner and possess a C&C license.

I do not labour under some illusion that gun control laws effect criminals, who by their very definition, ignore laws.

However, I do believe that SOME laws are absolutely vital, such as the cool-down period and requiring a license for C&C.

:confused:

Uh... you're welcome?

I can't make heads or tails of your reply, except for your fear of not having a "cool-down period", and, the belief that buying a piece of paper somehow keeps you safer.

So you're considering my family and I waiting 14 days and nights 'to aquire' after having our property being shot up as a "cool-down period"?

A "cool-down period" for who exactly?

I'm talking about an innocent family protecting life and you bring up a "cool-down period" like we're some kind of vigilante group.

How exactly do you think we'd react?


Mmmm... tweaker next-door neighbors hailing from the 'nothin' to lose' crowd and obviously armed. Let me see.... maybe I'll "cool-down", get some 'training', and buy a piece of paper, and then, THEN I'll know what to do or what not to do.:rolleyes:


Who do you think these "cool-down" laws protect? :confused:

Not the innocent. The innocent don't need a "cool-down period", because the innocent don't make stupid moves.

You've told us time and time again about your C&C license, training, and multiple guns.

Did you require 'training' and a waiting period so as not to react in a stupid vigilante manner had the circumstance presented itself?

Maybe you did need those things.:confused:

Again, who do you figure these "cool-down" laws protect? And how?




Bunkloco