Our Guns are at risk

[NikatKimber]

You guys's heads are in the sand...... What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon" do you not understand??

How can anyone justify or think that it is Constitutional to charge a "tax" before their 2nd Amendment right can be exercised?? That's equivalent to thinking a permit & fee is required before you can speak openly in public.

Move along sheeple.....nothing here for you to see....

Please see this:

I think these reasonable people, or "sheeple" as you prefer to call them, believe that much like every other right, the 2nd isn't an absolute in the same way that you can't claim your 1st Amendment right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

But I accept that absolutes are what you understand.

Michael Brown

and this:

Okie dokie. Your rambling response means about as much as the "press release" in the original post.

Is our 2nd Amendment right at risk? Yes. But junk press releases like the one in the OP actually hurt the cause.

There are "sheeple" on both sides of the issue. Those that believe everything they read and then regurgitate and parrot it without any independent research.

I agree with these.

The difference between the First Amendment and the Second is vast. In the First, it deals with the use of something (language), the Second does not cover use. The Second only covers keep and bear. You can keep and bear language just as innocently as you can keep and bear arms, but in the First you have 'freedom of speech' protected but have no 'right to free speech' protected. Otherwise, you could lie all you wanted without consequence. There is no prohibition in the Second Amendment limiting certain governments from governing how you can USE your arms. Ergo, your right to keep and bear is absolute as far as government is concerned.

A law that says you can't discharge arms in the middle of town except in self defense would be quite constitutional for local government(The Feral(Federal) government has no power to create such law in the Constitution except for the military, Washington DC, needful buildings, forts, and dockyards.)

Woody

Sort of right. Except that the use of guns CAN be illegal. Shooting someone or something without reasonable justification can (and should) be illegal.

As it relates to this topic - self defense being prosecuted as a means of gun control - I agree that the 2A is not endangered at all currently.

No one has said in this thread that there aren't any infringements on the 2A, just that there aren't currently any in the method claimed by the article in the original post.

 

[henschman]

Of course rights are not absolute... their limits are drawn by the equal rights of others. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose... or more accurately, at the point at which you would reasonably think that I am about to strike you and could legitimately act in self defense. Your right to free speech certainly includes the right to lie like a rug if you want; but not the right to lie in order to defraud someone, depriving them of their property rights, or to use words in a way that is reasonably likely to be the direct and proximate cause of bodily harm to someone else (like yelling fire in a theater).

So when it comes to the right to bear arms, you have to ask yourself the point at which bearing arms becomes a threat to someone else's equal rights. It is hard for me to think of any situation in which the mere carrying of a gun would constitute a violation of anyone's rights, regardless of whether it is carried openly or concealed. The limits of gun rights would be the point at which your conduct causes others to reasonably believe that you are a threat to their rights, such as pointing a gun at innocent people, or brandishing a gun in a threatening way (possibly coupled with threatening speech). You could also violate people's property rights with a gun, such as by shooting bullets into someone else's land or sending sound waves onto their property in a way that impairs their right to use and enjoy it. The ways in which you could violate people's right to be free from the initiation of force with a gun are pretty obvious.

But actual violations of people's rights ought to be the only kind of activity that laws prohibit. If they go beyond this role, the laws themselves become a threat to the rights of individuals, giving people a right to defend themselves against the enforcement thereof. A "prior restraint" on a right, such as requiring a license in order to engage in that right, is clearly a violation of people's rights... it is overly broad, and applies to many people who do not and never will threaten anyone else's rights by engaging in the licensed activity.

So yes, obviously our gun rights are threatened by many laws. But I agree with you about the CCRKBA... they are shills who try to use groundless fear in order to generate donations and support. They frequently warn about legislation that is proposed perenially and never makes it out of committee, and has no chance of passing. I somehow wound up on the CCRKBA's e-mail list for a long time, and every few days they would come out with another fear-mongering e-mail about how Obama is about to take all our guns and whatnot.

The ability to tell when someone is trying to sell you a bill of goods is an eminently vital skill in our society, and is unfortunately not very widely taught. If I had anything to say about it, every kid would take a course on "Spotting BS 101" before he graduates high school (in a voluntary, non-state-supported free market school system in a free society, of course).

 

[DirtyDawg]

C&P from http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/07/gunwalker-goes-to-the-hoosier-state/

An excerpt of the from the article, dead-nuts on...

" There was never any mechanism within Fast and Furious to intercept the thousands of Gunwalker weapons once they left the gun shops, and the multi-agency team (DOJ, ATF, FBI, DEA, IRS, DHS) acted as nothing more or less than a shield to prevent straw purchasers and smugglers from being intercepted by local or state law enforcement.

The apparent purpose of the operation was to lend the thinnest veneer of truth to the 90-percent lie spread by Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton from the very beginning of the Obama administration. It makes sense only as a plot to manufacture evidence for the punitive gun control laws that Obama has championed his entire political career. Indeed, even after Gunwalker was exposed, the number of U.S. guns in Mexico, many of which were put there by the actions of the government itself, was still brazenly used as the excuse for ATF long gun reporting requirements currently being challenged in courts.

Likewise, what Codrea has dubbed as “Gangwalker” appears to be another attempt to provide guns to criminals in order to generate more gun crime and then more calls for gun control.

The biggest difference between the two operations at this early date only seems to be that Gangwalker is a purposeful attempt to create the deaths of American citizens in order to pursue the administration’s fanatical anti-gun agenda."


One can only view the ethic, direction and past actions of government, particularly those who are currently driving the wagon, then couple that with the facts and circumstances of the 'operation', juxtaposed with the previous proven-false claims of the numbers of guns used in crimes that came from our 'lax' gun laws and gun shows...one then makes a reasoned assessment.

The picture is clear to me. Our guns are at risk.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Except that the use of guns CAN be illegal.

Yes, and I said that in my dissertation. To reiterate, the USE of arms is not covered in the Second Amendment, only keep and bear.

'Henschman' mentions, "The limits of gun rights would be the point at which your conduct causes others to reasonably believe that you are a threat to their rights, such as pointing a gun at innocent people, or brandishing a gun..." which goes beyond the simple, benign, and innocuous keeping and bearing of arms into the USE of arms. Such things are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment's protection of the RKBA. The simple, benign, and innocuous keeping and bearing of arms is not any form of conduct. It's no different than wearing a pair of socks, or keeping a handkerchief in a pocket.

Woody

 

[Seth247]

Of course rights are not absolute... their limits are drawn by the equal rights of others. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose... or more accurately, at the point at which you would reasonably think that I am about to strike you and could legitimately act in self defense. Your right to free speech certainly includes the right to lie like a rug if you want; but not the right to lie in order to defraud someone, depriving them of their property rights, or to use words in a way that is reasonably likely to be the direct and proximate cause of bodily harm to someone else (like yelling fire in a theater).

So when it comes to the right to bear arms, you have to ask yourself the point at which bearing arms becomes a threat to someone else's equal rights. It is hard for me to think of any situation in which the mere carrying of a gun would constitute a violation of anyone's rights, regardless of whether it is carried openly or concealed. The limits of gun rights would be the point at which your conduct causes others to reasonably believe that you are a threat to their rights, such as pointing a gun at innocent people, or brandishing a gun in a threatening way (possibly coupled with threatening speech). You could also violate people's property rights with a gun, such as by shooting bullets into someone else's land or sending sound waves onto their property in a way that impairs their right to use and enjoy it. The ways in which you could violate people's right to be free from the initiation of force with a gun are pretty obvious.

But actual violations of people's rights ought to be the only kind of activity that laws prohibit. If they go beyond this role, the laws themselves become a threat to the rights of individuals, giving people a right to defend themselves against the enforcement thereof. A "prior restraint" on a right, such as requiring a license in order to engage in that right, is clearly a violation of people's rights... it is overly broad, and applies to many people who do not and never will threaten anyone else's rights by engaging in the licensed activity.

So yes, obviously our gun rights are threatened by many laws. But I agree with you about the CCRKBA... they are shills who try to use groundless fear in order to generate donations and support. They frequently warn about legislation that is proposed perenially and never makes it out of committee, and has no chance of passing. I somehow wound up on the CCRKBA's e-mail list for a long time, and every few days they would come out with another fear-mongering e-mail about how Obama is about to take all our guns and whatnot.

The ability to tell when someone is trying to sell you a bill of goods is an eminently vital skill in our society, and is unfortunately not very widely taught. If I had anything to say about it, every kid would take a course on "Spotting BS 101" before he graduates high school (in a voluntary, non-state-supported free market school system in a free society, of course).

I was going to post but you just said everything worth saying. There isnt an emoticon for a handshake but let's pretend I just used one.

 

[Seth247]

Yes, and I said that in my dissertation. To reiterate, the USE of arms is not covered in the Second Amendment, only keep and bear.

'Henschman' mentions, "The limits of gun rights would be the point at which your conduct causes others to reasonably believe that you are a threat to their rights, such as pointing a gun at innocent people, or brandishing a gun..." which goes beyond the simple, benign, and innocuous keeping and bearing of arms into the USE of arms. Such things are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment's protection of the RKBA. The simple, benign, and innocuous keeping and bearing of arms is not any form of conduct. It's no different than wearing a pair of socks, or keeping a handkerchief in a pocket.

Woody

Yes but remember the second amendment isn't the only part of the constitution.

For instance. If I was to kill someone with a handgun in cold blood, that WOULD be illegal under the constitution, but not in relation the the gun. I would not be guilty of a firearm homicide, simply a homicide, since I would have violated said persons Right to Life.(capitalized on purpose) The firearm would not enter into the matter. So while it's true that the second amendment doesn't address the mis-use of the Arm, other parts of the constitution do address the consequences of that mis-use.

This is the reason I believe the American constitution is one of the most inspired and well thought out pieces of governmental planning ever recorded. A person has the right do whatever they please, as long as the activity does not violate those same rights of another person.

Civilization literally cannot be any more free than that and still be civilization.

Of course, that's all assuming we lived in an era where lawmakers payed attention to the WORD of the constitution and not simply what they can fool the Mob into believing it means.

 

[Werewolf]

Yes, and I said that in my dissertation. To reiterate, the USE of arms is not covered in the Second Amendment, only keep and bear.

Woody

A literal interpretation of Keep and Bear would lead to one believing that regulating is constitutional. Except for that to be true one would have to believe that the founders were total morons; either that or they were trying to put one over on those who insisted that a bill of rights be part of the constitution they were trying to get ratified.

Personally I don't think the founders were either morons or hucksters.

Bear means carrying around. What possible good would being able to carry around a firearm be if you couldn't use it when you needed it in some place that some goobermint prohibited its use. That would be tantamount to a ban and I think we can all agree that prohibiting a ban is exactly what the founders were trying to achieve.

 

[DirtyDawg]

While we have all the sheeple scared about their guns...now would be a good time to impose ludicrous taxes, fees, and licenses on knife dealers to run them out of town too!! Once we get knives off the streets, then we can take away wooden and aluminum baseball bats and replace them with woofle bats.

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/09/09/knife-control/

 

[DirtyDawg]

Straight from the NRAILA RSS feed on the OSA Home Page..."Georgia: Macon City Council Wants to Ban Your Guns"

I know several people here say that our guns are not at risk...and I opine otherwise. I guess we don't need the NRA anymore then.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7074

Monday, September 12, 2011


A blatant act of disregard for Georgia’s Constitution and its statewide firearms preemption law is underway, driven by Macon City Councilman Virgil Watkins.

The Macon City Council Public Safety Committee is scheduled to meet this Thursday, September 15, at 4:00 p.m. to discuss a city-wide gun ban, based on language from a Cook County, Illinois proposed gun ban. The proposed ordinance would ban the future sale and ownership of all semi-automatic firearms outlined in the ordinance and would require current owners to either render their classified guns inoperable or surrender them to law enforcement officers within ninety days.

You can view the proposed ordinance here.

This overreaching effort to illegally enact local gun ordinances is an infringement of your Second Amendment rights. We urge you to attend this meeting and tell the City Council members that you OPPOSE the banning of lawfully owned and purchased firearms. This meeting will be held in the City Council Conference Room at Macon City Hall located at 700 Poplar Street in Macon.

If you are unable to attend, have your voice be heard by calling AND e-mailing the Council members before 4 p.m. this Thursday. City Council members can be contacted by calling (478) 751-7260. E-mails can be sent to each member by using the e-mail addresses below.

James E. Timley, President
[email protected]

Larry Schlesinger, President Pro Tem
[email protected]

Rick Hutto, Ward 1
[email protected]

Lonnie Miley, Ward 1
[email protected]

Elaine Lucas, Ward 1
[email protected]

J. Michael Cranford, Ward 2
[email protected]

Ed DeFore, Ward 2
[email protected]

Henry C. Ficklin, Ward 3
[email protected]

Tom Ellington, Ward 3
[email protected]

Charles Jones, Ward 4
[email protected]

Virgil Watkins Jr., Ward 4
[email protected]

Lauren Benedict, Ward 5
[email protected]

Nancy White, Ward 5
[email protected]

Jamie Kaplan, Ward 5
[email protected]

 

[Michael Brown]

I know several people here say that our guns are not at risk...and I opine otherwise. I guess we don't need the NRA anymore then.

It is ridiculous absolutes like this that make you difficult to take seriously.

Cars are mechanically safer than they've been, but I still need to pay attention to the road.

Of course our guns are at risk; thank you for stating the obvious.

What we disagree on is how imminent the risk and whether the sky is indeed falling.

Michael Brown