PDA

View Full Version : Repeal the 2nd Amendment



ConHog
01-22-2013, 08:35 PM
now , before anyone goes crazy - on either side - here it out.

The 2nd simply isn't adequate for the times. Not in protecting our right to own guns and not in protecting us from unlawful gun use.

We need a new amendment which does just that. I question how ANY gun control law can be ruled constitutional when the 2nd in fact says " can NOT be infringed" accepting of course that the court has ruled that the states are bound the by the 2nd as well. Which I'm not sure I agree with that either, but more on that later.

At the same, any sane person can recognize that there does need to be some form of checks allowed so that the government can provide for the safety of people. I know I know many argue that it is a person's own responsibility to protect themselves , and that is true - as far as it goes . In reality the government is also constitutionally bound to provide for the security of her citizens.

I propose that a new amendment be written that clearly identifies what we may own, and under what circumstances. The whole bit about militias and such can just be thrown out the window. We need no written reason to exercise our right to own firearms. Does the first supply a reason for needing the right to free speech? No, it simply states that we have that right.

As far as what we may own. We should be able to own anything up to and including what the Army defies as an assault rifle. That would include fully automatic weapons that utilize an intermediate sized ammunition. Sorry guys, no Ma Deuces.

The government on the other hand ought be able to set certain conditions and levy taxes on such weapons, and yes keep track of them. But not in the way you might think.

Every weapon should have to be registered with the local police department, such registration should include a photo of the gun, the serial number, and a bullet sample for forensic matching if necessary.

This information should be placed in a database that is available to police departments around the world .

A separate database should contain the fingerprints , picture, and identity of the registered owner of each weapon. THIS database should ONLY be accessible via a warrant obtained by probable cause . Meaning no one will EVER get access to your personal data unless one of your guns is used to commit a crime and police somewhere have enough evidence to prove specific weapon was used and get a warrant to track it back to the owner.

The penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime should be draconian in nature, and doubly so if it as unregistered weapon or one registered to someone other than yourself.

Right of ownership of a gun should not be conferred until a person reaches age 21.

States and cities SHOULD have the right to set their own laws regarding gun ownership and carry laws. If a city wishes to make guns illegal, that is their right. If you don't like it, move. That is your right.

This includes doing away with gun free zones if states wish, except of course on federal property located within the state.

Felons are absolutely , positively forbidden to own weapons and the penalty for having one should again be draconian.

NO federal law, executive order, or other federal edict shall be allowed to dictate what a state may do in regards to firearms within their borders except in the case of federal property within those borders.

The federal government retains the right to control the interstate trade of guns and may make laws pertaining to such which supersede any state laws to the contrary.












boo and hiss away lol

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-22-2013, 08:42 PM
now , before anyone goes crazy - on either side - here it out.

The 2nd simply isn't adequate for the times. Not in protecting our right to own guns and not in protecting us from unlawful gun use.

We need a new amendment which does just that. I question how ANY gun control law can be ruled constitutional when the 2nd in fact says " can NOT be infringed" accepting of course that the court has ruled that the states are bound the by the 2nd as well. Which I'm not sure I agree with that either, but more on that later.

At the same, any sane person can recognize that there does need to be some form of checks allowed so that the government can provide for the safety of people. I know I know many argue that it is a person's own responsibility to protect themselves , and that is true - as far as it goes . In reality the government is also constitutionally bound to provide for the security of her citizens.

I propose that a new amendment be written that clearly identifies what we may own, and under what circumstances. The whole bit about militias and such can just be thrown out the window. We need no written reason to exercise our right to own firearms. Does the first supply a reason for needing the right to free speech? No, it simply states that we have that right.

As far as what we may own. We should be able to own anything up to and including what the Army defies as an assault rifle. That would include fully automatic weapons that utilize an intermediate sized ammunition. Sorry guys, no Ma Deuces.

The government on the other hand ought be able to set certain conditions and levy taxes on such weapons, and yes keep track of them. But not in the way you might think.

Every weapon should have to be registered with the local police department, such registration should include a photo of the gun, the serial number, and a bullet sample for forensic matching if necessary.

This information should be placed in a database that is available to police departments around the world .

A separate database should contain the fingerprints , picture, and identity of the registered owner of each weapon. THIS database should ONLY be accessible via a warrant obtained by probable cause . Meaning no one will EVER get access to your personal data unless one of your guns is used to commit a crime and police somewhere have enough evidence to prove specific weapon was used and get a warrant to track it back to the owner.

The penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime should be draconian in nature, and doubly so if it as unregistered weapon or one registered to someone other than yourself.

Right of ownership of a gun should not be conferred until a person reaches age 21.

States and cities SHOULD have the right to set their own laws regarding gun ownership and carry laws. If a city wishes to make guns illegal, that is their right. If you don't like it, move. That is your right.

This includes doing away with gun free zones if states wish, except of course on federal property located within the state.

Felons are absolutely , positively forbidden to own weapons and the penalty for having one should again be draconian.

NO federal law, executive order, or other federal edict shall be allowed to dictate what a state may do in regards to firearms within their borders except in the case of federal property within those borders.

The federal government retains the right to control the interstate trade of guns and may make laws pertaining to such which supersede any state laws to the contrary.












boo and hiss away lol

The truth always outs. Suddenly you are so much more brilliant that the authors of the Constitution!
Now who didn't think you felt that way.
Here it comes the line you made famous. --- This thread is stupid... silly, infantile. --Tyr
And even downrightfunny considering who authored it ...

ConHog
01-22-2013, 08:44 PM
The truth always outs. Suddenly you are so much more brilliant that the authors of the Constitution!
Now who didn't think you felt that way.
Here it comes the line you made famous. --- This thread is stupid... silly, infantile. --Tyr
And even downrightfunny considering who authored it ...

So you have nothing to add to the actual conversation?

glockmail
01-22-2013, 08:51 PM
Sorry, but the 2nd is perfect the way it is. Especially the part about militias because that gives us the ability to defend ourselves against the government should the need arise as it has in so many other examples throughout history. This same government doesn't need to know what arms I own or how many of them, since in order to over power them I will require the assistance of tens of million of fellow patriots and GovCo won't know who we are or how we will hit them.

The right to bear arms means that we have the right to defend our persons and personal property against those who would do us harm. We don't have the right to indiscriminately kill people or inflict collateral damage while defending ourselves which is why "arms" doesn't include weapons of mass destruction.

CSM
01-22-2013, 08:56 PM
Hmm...the logic you apply to the first amendment should also apply to the second. The first does not list what type of speech should be considered "free" nor what vocabulary and accompanying definitions are acceptable. I am skeptical that the government (especially with the crop of clowns currently in office) would show any sort of competence in crafting an amendment that would not inadvertently over extend the powers of the federal government beyond reason.

ConHog
01-22-2013, 08:56 PM
Sorry, but the 2nd is perfect the way it is. Especially the part about militias because that gives us the ability to defend ourselves against the government should the need arise as it has in so many other examples throughout history. This same government doesn't need to know what arms I own or how many of them, since in order to over power them I will require the assistance of tens of million of fellow patriots and GovCo won't know who we are or how we will hit them.

The right to bear arms means that we have the right to defend our persons and personal property against those who would do us harm. We don't have the right to indiscriminately kill people or inflict collateral damage while defending ourselves which is why "arms" doesn't include weapons of mass destruction.

nothing that I proposed takes any of that away, indeed it actually strengthens your position in many ways, while also giving the government certain safeguards which under current law they have taken unconstitutionally.


the government will NOT know what guns you have , not even if one of your guns is committed in a crime, because that is the ONLY one that they would have access to the personal data for. IOW there is no cross reference that says if you own a M16 and a 1911 and the 1911 is used in a crime that they look up the 1911 and also see that you have an M16.

Though they might find it in a subsequent search should they obtain either permission or a warrant to do so.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-22-2013, 08:56 PM
So you have nothing to add to the actual conversation?

You mean my using your words was nothing!! I added in a few of my own for good measure. :laugh:
Should I quote where you said the exact same thing to jog your memory??
How about my declaration that you hardly qualify to discuss the topic with any authority IMHO... -Tyr

ConHog
01-22-2013, 08:59 PM
Hmm...the logic you apply to the first amendment should also apply to the second. The first does not list what type of speech should be considered "free" nor what vocabulary and accompanying definitions are acceptable. I am skeptical that the government (especially with the crop of clowns currently in office) would show any sort of competence in crafting an amendment that would not inadvertently over extend the powers of the federal government beyond reason.

I agree with you. the logic SHOULD extend and logically speaking we don't need the part about the militia in there take it out, and end the silly arguments. I'm tired of hearing some argue that we don't need a militia today so we should give up our guns. I don't have my guns in case I need to join a militia. So why should I care about that?

I also agree, whoever worded the amendment would have to be watched like a hawk. Personally I don't care for them, but I feel the NRA should be involved as a private watchdog during the process.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-22-2013, 08:59 PM
Hmm...the logic you apply to the first amendment should also apply to the second. The first does not list what type of speech should be considered "free" nor what vocabulary and accompanying definitions are acceptable. I am skeptical that the government (especially with the crop of clowns currently in office) would show any sort of competence in crafting an amendment that would not inadvertently over extend the powers of the federal government beyond reason.

He is touting the new liberal line. They also are advancing the plan that the Constitution should be abolished and rewritten. Just more socialist/leftist trash talk and Conhog advances it as if its brilliance and he is some genius authority on it !--:laugh2:-Tyr

ConHog
01-22-2013, 09:00 PM
You mean my using your words was nothing!! I added in a few of my own for good measure. :laugh:
Should I quote where you said the exact same thing to jog your memory??
How about my declaration that you hardly qualify to discuss the topic with any authority IMHO... -Tyr

Please stop, there is simply no reason for you to attempt to destroy EVERY thread I post in.

Kathianne
01-22-2013, 09:01 PM
Sorry, but the 2nd is perfect the way it is. Especially the part about militias because that gives us the ability to defend ourselves against the government should the need arise as it has in so many other examples throughout history. This same government doesn't need to know what arms I own or how many of them, since in order to over power them I will require the assistance of tens of million of fellow patriots and GovCo won't know who we are or how we will hit them.

The right to bear arms means that we have the right to defend our persons and personal property against those who would do us harm. We don't have the right to indiscriminately kill people or inflict collateral damage while defending ourselves which is why "arms" doesn't include weapons of mass destruction.

I seldom agree with you, but have to here. I'd add that the right to bear arms if for all you've stated and furthermore against a tyrannical governing body, whether state or federal. Can the populace withstand modern weapons? No. Would the government employ they? Only if they want to take over the 'world' would they wipe out the country.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-22-2013, 09:07 PM
http://progreso-weekly.com/2/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=898%3Athe-2nd-amendment-should-be-repealed&catid=35%3A6172007-5202009&Itemid=60

Restricting firearms wont eliminate murder. People will always find means to kill. But surely it will reduce the number of homicides and suicides. There is a reason why those who commit mass murder in schools, offices, and civic centers use firearms rather than knives or axes. Guns are very efficient killing tools.

Given the political reality, the best we can hope for in the foreseeable future are small, incremental steps to regulate access to guns. But this is a very inadequate solution. Before the Supreme Court decision declaring Washington, D.C.s gun ban unconstitutional, it seemed possible to tightly regulate guns through laws at the local and state level. No more. The Court dismissed the argument that the right to bear arms should be interpreted in the context of a well-regulated militia rather than as an individual and almost absolute right. The consequence of gun ownership as a right is, as we have seen over the last weeks and months, that any nut case easily can acquire an arsenal and undertake a killing spree.

Thus the Second Amendment is one of those issues, like torture and the death penalty, where only abolition will qualify this country for full membership in the society of civilized nations

^^^^ Apparently you have been reading articles like this! And thinking brilliance just jumped out at you. -Tyr

ConHog
01-22-2013, 09:24 PM
http://progreso-weekly.com/2/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=898%3Athe-2nd-amendment-should-be-repealed&catid=35%3A6172007-5202009&Itemid=60

Restricting firearms wont eliminate murder. People will always find means to kill. But surely it will reduce the number of homicides and suicides. There is a reason why those who commit mass murder in schools, offices, and civic centers use firearms rather than knives or axes. Guns are very efficient killing tools.

Given the political reality, the best we can hope for in the foreseeable future are small, incremental steps to regulate access to guns. But this is a very inadequate solution. Before the Supreme Court decision declaring Washington, D.C.s gun ban unconstitutional, it seemed possible to tightly regulate guns through laws at the local and state level. No more. The Court dismissed the argument that the right to bear arms should be interpreted in the context of a well-regulated militia rather than as an individual and almost absolute right. The consequence of gun ownership as a right is, as we have seen over the last weeks and months, that any nut case easily can acquire an arsenal and undertake a killing spree.

Thus the Second Amendment is one of those issues, like torture and the death penalty, where only abolition will qualify this country for full membership in the society of civilized nations

^^^^ Apparently you have been reading articles like this! And thinking brilliance just jumped out at you. -Tyr

well, except that I advocate strengthening gun rights.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-22-2013, 09:31 PM
well, except that I advocate strengthening gun rights.

No, you don't. You talk in circles and have the audacity to think that YOU can correct the brilliance of the founders.
Nothing wrong with it and SCOTUS HAS UPHELD IT SO BLATHER ON HOSS. -TYR

CSM
01-22-2013, 09:39 PM
He is touting the new liberal line. They also are advancing the plan that the Constitution should be abolished and rewritten. Just more socialist/leftist trash talk and Conhog advances it as if its brilliance and he is some genius authority on it !--:laugh2:-Tyr

I think consideration of a new constitution has some merit IF (a really BIG "IF) the process as outlined is followed and IF (another BIG IF) the CItizens and States are the PRIMARY force behind it. I do not trust the current administration or the current members of Congress to craft anything!

Kathianne
01-22-2013, 09:41 PM
I think consideration of a new constitution has some merit IF (a really BIG "IF) the process as outlined is followed and IF (another BIG IF) the CItizens and States are the PRIMARY force behind it. I do not trust the current administration or the current members of Congress to craft anything!

Not disagreeing with your later comments. Have you seen anything about the initial comment by yourself? Sort of confusing. I'm referring to this regarding 'initial.'
I think consideration of a new constitution has some merit IF (a really BIG "IF) the process as outlined is followed and IF (another BIG IF) the CItizens and States are the PRIMARY force behind it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-22-2013, 09:43 PM
I think consideration of a new constitution has some merit IF (a really BIG "IF) the process as outlined is followed and IF (another BIG IF) the CItizens and States are the PRIMARY force behind it. I do not trust the current administration or the current members of Congress to craft anything!

IF, IF it were done those two things would not be a part of the process. Those in power wanting to destroy would see to that. Why redo it at all if not for the purpose of destroying it is their motto and plan.. -Tyr

ConHog
01-22-2013, 10:18 PM
I think consideration of a new constitution has some merit IF (a really BIG "IF) the process as outlined is followed and IF (another BIG IF) the CItizens and States are the PRIMARY force behind it. I do not trust the current administration or the current members of Congress to craft anything!

Personally, I believe we are better served to get ahead of the curve. In business who waits until their competition determines their future? Screw that, we get ahead now and propose SENSIBLE gun control coupled with ironclad guarantees and WE set the tone.


By the way, who calls a post dumb then thanks another for agreeing with that same post? LOL

CSM
01-22-2013, 10:25 PM
Not disagreeing with your later comments. Have you seen anything about the initial comment by yourself? Sort of confusing. I'm referring to this regarding 'initial.' [/B]

LOL! Now I'm confused. You lost me but you can attribute that to my old age.

CSM
01-22-2013, 10:28 PM
Personally, I believe we are better served to get ahead of the curve. In business who waits until their competition determines their future? Screw that, we get ahead now and propose SENSIBLE gun control coupled with ironclad guarantees and WE set the tone.


By the way, who calls a post dumb then thanks another for agreeing with that same post? LOL

There is much in the current Supreme Law of the Land that is worth keeping. There is no doubt in my mind that, were a Constitutional Convention to be held today, it would be as contentious (if not more so) as the first one. It would be a long, arduous task indeed!

ConHog
01-22-2013, 11:00 PM
There is much in the current Supreme Law of the Land that is worth keeping. There is no doubt in my mind that, were a Constitutional Convention to be held today, it would be as contentious (if not more so) as the first one. It would be a long, arduous task indeed!

Oh, I by no means suggest the COTUS needs a major rewrite. But this argument about guns isn't going anywhere.

Kathianne
01-22-2013, 11:05 PM
Oh, I by no means suggest the COTUS needs a major rewrite. But this argument about guns isn't going anywhere.

And your reading the tea leafs, says it's going where?

CSM
01-22-2013, 11:10 PM
Oh, I by no means suggest the COTUS needs a major rewrite. But this argument about guns isn't going anywhere.

IMO, the argument is going nowhere because those discussing the issue cannot even agree on the root causes of the problem nor are they being completely honest (some of them at least) in their reasoning. I most certainly would never agree that an inanimate object is the root cause of the issue. There are too many red herrings and strawman arguments floating around that truly interfere with any real progress towards solving anything.

ConHog
01-22-2013, 11:11 PM
And your reading the tea leafs, says it's going where?

Don't know, but what if it DOES head to constitutions amendment and gun owners out of their own sheer stubbornness don't have a seat at the table. You think Obama and his group will keep our best interests at heart?

Better to be in front offering our own actual solutions than sitting in the back just bitching about theirs.

Kathianne
01-22-2013, 11:13 PM
Don't know, but what if it DOES head to constitutions amendment and gun owners out of their own sheer stubbornness don't have a seat at the table. You think Obama and his group will keep our best interests at heart?

Better to be in front offering our own actual solutions than sitting in the back just bitching about theirs.

I'll wait to see what transpires. Personally what I'm seeing probably makes all our bickering moot. It's a coup, we just don't realize it yet.

ConHog
01-22-2013, 11:16 PM
I'll wait to see what transpires. Personally what I'm seeing probably makes all our bickering moot. It's a coup, we just don't realize it yet.

oh lawd...

listen, when obama's terms up he'll pack his bags and hit the speech circuit just like every past president, and in 2020 MO will run for office.

red states rule
01-23-2013, 07:00 AM
The truth always outs. Suddenly you are so much more brilliant that the authors of the Constitution!
Now who didn't think you felt that way.
Here it comes the line you made famous. --- This thread is stupid... silly, infantile. --Tyr
And even downrightfunny considering who authored it ...

http://www.common-sense-politics.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/gun-control-broom-v-gun.jpg

red states rule
01-23-2013, 07:34 AM
Oh, I by no means suggest the COTUS needs a major rewrite. But this argument about guns isn't going anywhere.

OK, then you rally both the House and Senate to pass your idea by a 2/3 majority - then you take your show on the road and get 2/3's of the states to pass it within the 2 year time limit - then you will get your wish

Until then, your idea is not worth the space it took up on the board

Nukeman
01-23-2013, 07:39 AM
nothing that I proposed takes any of that away, indeed it actually strengthens your position in many ways, while also giving the government certain safeguards which under current law they have taken unconstitutionally.


the government will NOT know what guns you have , not even if one of your guns is committed in a crime, because that is the ONLY one that they would have access to the personal data for. IOW there is no cross reference that says if you own a M16 and a 1911 and the 1911 is used in a crime that they look up the 1911 and also see that you have an M16.

Though they might find it in a subsequent search should they obtain either permission or a warrant to do so.Did you read what you posted in the OP?? You state they will NOT know yet you call for full registration of ALL guns,, guess what there skippy by registering them they know what you have!!!! Or did you skim over that??


well, except that I advocate strengthening gun rights.Really by letting the govt know exactly who has what and where?? YOU are advocating for stricter licensing and taxation for ALL firearms aas well as the registration of ALL firearms just look at the following quote of yours from the OP.. I honestly have a hard time believeing you wrote it if you contradict yourself within 2 posts!!!!



The government on the other hand ought be able to set certain conditions and levy taxes on such weapons, and yes keep track of them. But not in the way you might think.

Every weapon should have to be registered with the local police department, such registration should include a photo of the gun, the serial number, and a bullet sample for forensic matching if necessary.

This information should be placed in a database that is available to police departments around the world .

REALLY bad idea... The 2ns was put in place to keep the govt in check to the general popuation not fro them to reach into our homes to know what firearms we have, and that is EXACTLY what you are proposing with your forced registration and taxation of ALL firearms...

red states rule
01-23-2013, 07:45 AM
Conman does have many backers in his quest to pass more gun laws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNdIBZWhzO8

mundame
01-23-2013, 10:38 AM
I think consideration of a new constitution has some merit IF (a really BIG "IF) the process as outlined is followed and IF (another BIG IF) the CItizens and States are the PRIMARY force behind it. I do not trust the current administration or the current members of Congress to craft anything!



Yeah..................that's what we need, a Constitutional Convention! This is exactly how the French Revolution started. Once there's a constitutional convention, anything, absolutely anything at all, can happen, and the powers-that-are will fight such a convention tooth and nail; the French monarchy lost that fight. Considering Madame Guillotine and "Terror is the Order of the Day!" I would agree with not wanting a constitutional convention.

I found the Second Amendment thread, good. I didn't see much I liked in the opening post, but I am very interested in this controversy generally.

I pointed out earlier that all sorts of weapons that SHOULD be protected under the Second Amendment, are in fact illegal.

Even given Scalia's current thinking that it only protects what a walking soldier can carry by himself (ummmmmmmmmm.............................interesti ng interpretation, but I'm not giving that one away just because Scalia sez it. Remind me again why six militia members can't carry a machine gun?), there are still lots of weapons commonly carried by troops that are already illegal ---

It is clear that the Second Amendment has already been infringed up one side and down the other.

This immediately became an IQ test here. Sadly too many people immediately claimed that there was no problem with this, OF COURSE grenades were illegal!!! (Why, if you treasure the Second like Holy Writ?) And all the many other weapons that have mysteriously and quietly disappeared from the roster of ways to kill your neighbor with the barking dog.

BUT, they would opine, it would be grossly illegal, worthy of instant rebellion, if the Second was infringed by banning assault rifles!!! (Wait, they were already banned for ten years --- what about that? Why didn't you all rebel then?)

This was all very confusing. How can people think in such water-tight compartments? At least two men earned my immediate respect by agreeing that of course grenades, rocket launchers, submachine guns, bayonets, etc., etc. were covered under the Second. Duh.

Well, thank you, let's do throw a little plain logic and fact onto the fire here. Okay, the Second has already been grossly infringed. This is because if weapons of mass destruction are available to the masses, the masses self-destruct, gaily using whatever nukes, bombs, grenades, assault rifles, machine guns, biological and chemical weapons they can get hold of to kill large numbers of people. Good-bye, Chicago.

Okay, so given that the Second is already grossly infringed, why not infringe it a little more and take away the psycho favorites, the assault rifles and high-capacity magazines? They already were banned for ten years: clearly it has not worked out well to unban them.

The argument now is we can't ban anything else because of the slippery slope.

I am not sure that's a good argument, but at least people have stopped claiming the Second Amendment is inviolate, pure as the Virgin Mary. In fact, that old Amendment has been living hard, whacked around till it's barely recognizable.

Thunderknuckles
01-23-2013, 11:06 AM
I disagree with you ConHog although I appreciate your point of view. The one thing you and I consistently disagree on is potential government abuse of power. You tend to put a little too much faith in the fderal gov't. You idea for a new 2nd gives the government far too much leeway. I think the worst part of the idea was this:

This information should be placed in a database that is available to police departments around the world .l
Not only is that offensive to me as an American but that is also a huge national security risk. Your making a globally available database detailing exactly who is armed and with what in the United States. Can you imagine any nation in the course of human history that would willingly make that information available where their enemies could get their hands on it? That is insanity.


REALLY bad idea... The 2ns was put in place to keep the govt in check to the general popuation not fro them to reach into our homes to know what firearms we have, and that is EXACTLY what you are proposing with your forced registration and taxation of ALL firearms...
That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. The 2nd is good the way it is.

tailfins
01-23-2013, 11:08 AM
Yeah..................that's what we need, a Constitutional Convention! This is exactly how the French Revolution started. Once there's a constitutional convention, anything, absolutely anything at all, can happen, and the powers-that-are will fight such a convention tooth and nail; the French monarchy lost that fight. Considering Madame Guillotine and "Terror is the Order of the Day!" I would agree with not wanting a constitutional convention.

A con-con only needs one amendment instead of the twenty-seven we now have:

The Federal Government shall do everything in its power to achieve Fairness, Social Justice and Diversity.

Who could be against fairness?

************************************************** ************************************************** ***
My point is that our freedom is the inheritance of a wiser generation. Changing the Bill of Rights would be akin to torching that inheritance.

mundame
01-23-2013, 11:11 AM
A con-con only needs one amendment instead of the twenty-seven we now have:

The Federal Government shall do everything in its power to achieve Fairness, Social Justice and Diversity.

Who could be against fairness?


Reminds me of the WSJ cartoon I saw with two Indians watching Columbus' three ships sail in --- "Don't worry," says one, "In diversity is our strength!"

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-23-2013, 11:14 AM
OK, then you rally both the House and Senate to pass your idea by a 2/3 majority - then you take your show on the road and get 2/3's of the states to pass it within the 2 year time limit - then you will get your wish

Until then, your idea is not worth the space it took up on the board


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to red states rule again.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 11:15 AM
I disagree with you ConHog although I appreciate your point of view. The one thing you and I consistently disagree on is potential government abuse of power. You tend to put a little too much faith in the fderal gov't. You idea for a new 2nd gives the government far too much leeway. I think the worst part of the idea was this:

Not only is that offensive to me as an American but that is also a huge national security risk. Your making a globally available database detailing exactly who is armed and with what in the United States. Can you imagine any nation in the course of human history that would willingly make that information available where their enemies could get their hands on it? That is insanity.


That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. The 2nd is good the way it is.

You , and others, have completely misread my thought about gun registration.

First there would be two databases. One that contained JUST gun information, and one that included gun ownership.

TO access the gun database a government entity would need reason. Say they found a bullet fired from a S&W .40. They could run a comparison and if a match came up they would have access to THAT file.

Similar to the way the national fingerprint database works. If they have my print and are running it for a match the system doesn't identify YOUR print. It only gives them access to the one that matches.

THEN if they found a match they could apply for a warrant for the other database. If they got it THEN they could match up the gun with the registered owner.

Appropriate security measures taken at all times

I'm not talking about a free for all www.wheretheguns.com where anyone can find out who has what and where.

and I don't trust the government any more than you do, I just unfortunately believe that most people are idiots and so we NEED the government whether we trust them or not.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need any of the enumerated rights to be enumerated. Nor would we need to make murder illegal, for example. But this isn't an ideal world, so let's deal with reality.

Thunderknuckles
01-23-2013, 11:28 AM
You , and others, have completely misread my thought about gun registration.

First there would be two databases. One that contained JUST gun information, and one that included gun ownership.

TO access the gun database a government entity would need reason. Say they found a bullet fired from a S&W .40. They could run a comparison and if a match came up they would have access to THAT file.

Similar to the way the national fingerprint database works. If they have my print and are running it for a match the system doesn't identify YOUR print. It only gives them access to the one that matches.

THEN if they found a match they could apply for a warrant for the other database. If they got it THEN they could match up the gun with the registered owner.

Appropriate security measures taken at all times

I'm not talking about a free for all www.wheretheguns.com (http://www.wheretheguns.com) where anyone can find out who has what and where.
I know you are not talking about freely available information. But if there's a database out there, it can be hacked into not only by our own government but our enemies as well. That's my fear. The amount of information we currently store about the citizenry of this nation is already frightening. Even more frightening is that the citizenry are willing releasing that information to be stored.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 11:52 AM
I know you are not talking about freely available information. But if there's a database out there, it can be hacked into not only by our own government but our enemies as well. That's my fear. The amount of information we currently store about the citizenry of this nation is already frightening. Even more frightening is that the citizenry are willing releasing that information to be stored.

well of course ANYTHING could be hacked. But there are reasonable measures to take to prevent that. And under MY system it would require a DOUBLE hack to obtain the total picture. That seems improbable.

glockmail
01-23-2013, 12:58 PM
nothing that I proposed takes any of that away, indeed it actually strengthens your position in many ways, while also giving the government certain safeguards which under current law they have taken unconstitutionally.


the government will NOT know what guns you have , not even if one of your guns is committed in a crime, because that is the ONLY one that they would have access to the personal data for. IOW there is no cross reference that says if you own a M16 and a 1911 and the 1911 is used in a crime that they look up the 1911 and also see that you have an M16.

Though they might find it in a subsequent search should they obtain either permission or a warrant to do so.


You are theorizing that GovCo can be trusted. The entire basis of the Constitution is that it can not.

fj1200
01-23-2013, 01:58 PM
The 2nd simply isn't adequate for the times. Not in protecting our right to own guns and not in protecting us from unlawful gun use.

...

I propose that a new amendment be written that clearly identifies what we may own, and under what circumstances. The whole bit about militias and such can just be thrown out the window. We need no written reason to exercise our right to own firearms. Does the first supply a reason for needing the right to free speech? No, it simply states that we have that right.

....

The federal government retains the right to control the interstate trade of guns and may make laws pertaining to such which supersede any state laws to the contrary.

To say the second is not adequate for our times would mean that after 100? years then it would require another rewrite because this rewrite is no longer adequate. It admits that rights change which is not something we should be OK with.

Even the First is not an absolute right and it's not unthinkable that the current Second is absolute. Clearly it's not when we are already under some restrictions.

I think the Commerce Clause would be sufficient for the last part.


Hmm...the logic you apply to the first amendment should also apply to the second. The first does not list what type of speech should be considered "free" nor what vocabulary and accompanying definitions are acceptable. I am skeptical that the government (especially with the crop of clowns currently in office) would show any sort of competence in crafting an amendment that would not inadvertently over extend the powers of the federal government beyond reason.

Well, the people could certainly be the ones to craft any change.


He is touting the new liberal line. They also are advancing the plan that the Constitution should be abolished and rewritten. Just more socialist/leftist trash talk and Conhog advances it as if its brilliance and he is some genius authority on it !--:laugh2:-Tyr

So, the Founding Fathers were the original touters of the liberal line? They were the ones that codified the amendment process.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 02:02 PM
You are theorizing that GovCo can be trusted. The entire basis of the Constitution is that it can not.

Trusted? to a point, yes.

Notice that in my proposal the databases are kept at a local level for example and that is they who decide who gets access to what.

Pretty easy to get the local sherrif unelected if you feel he's improperly giving access.

Now if you're uneasy that the NSA is going to break into the Podunk,NE gun registration database, not much I can do to assuage your fears there. lol


To say the second is not adequate for our times would mean that after 100? years then it would require another rewrite because this rewrite is no longer adequate. It admits that rights change which is not something we should be OK with.

Even the First is not an absolute right and it's not unthinkable that the current Second is absolute. Clearly it's not when we are already under some restrictions.

I think the Commerce Clause would be sufficient for the last part.



Well, the people could certainly be the ones to craft any change.



So, the Founding Fathers were the original touters of the liberal line? They were the ones that codified the amendment process.

It has came to light that Lincoln was a liberal as well LOL

Little-Acorn
01-23-2013, 02:08 PM
Don't repeal the 2nd amendment.

Just modify it. (Yes, you can amend an amendment.)

Get rid of the first thirteen words, whose purpose was to explain why the right could not be infringed. That will get rid of the gun-haters' most common dodge: Pretending that the 2nd only applied to people (or weapons) in the military.

Then add, "No exceptions but those decided for a particular case by Jury Nullification, are permitted for any reason."

This takes away ANY authority of any government, to decide who can or can't own and cary a gun.

Then only parents can decide whether their kids will be allowed to own and carry.

And if a cop takes away a gun from someone the cop thinks was going to use it illegally, and the guy sues the cop under the (modified) second amendment, a jury can decide whether to let the cop off or not... but no one else can. Including a judge.

The bad news is, convicted felons who have served their sentences, cannot have their right to own a gun, taken away. Serving his sentence, restores his right afterward. And non compos mentis also cannot have their guns taken away.

The good news is, government can never take YOUR guns away either, no matter how hard they try.

I submit that a society in which both the good news and the bad news above is true, will be a more peaceful, safer, and more prosperous society, than one where the govt is given ANY authority to restrict or take guns away. Because govt will always abuse and expand its power, as ours is doing today. Neither society is perfectly safe... but one is safer than the other.

Comment?

ConHog
01-23-2013, 02:30 PM
Don't repeal the 2nd amendment.

Just modify it. (Yes, you can amend an amendment.)

Get rid of the first thirteen words, whose purpose was to explain why the right could not be infringed. That will get rid of the gun-haters' most common dodge: Pretending that the 2nd only applied to people (or weapons) in the military.

Then add, "No exceptions but those decided for a particular case by Jury Nullification, are permitted for any reason."

This takes away ANY authority of any government, to decide who can or can't own and cary a gun.

Then only parents can decide whether their kids will be allowed to own and carry.

And if a cop takes away a gun from someone the cop thinks was going to use it illegally, and the guy sues the cop under the (modified) second amendment, a jury can decide whether to let the cop off or not... but no one else can. Including a judge.

The bad news is, convicted felons who have served their sentences, cannot have their right to own a gun, taken away. Serving his sentence, restores his right afterward. And non compos mentis also cannot have their guns taken away.

The good news is, government can never take YOUR guns away either, no matter how hard they try.

I submit that a society in which both the good news and the bad news above is true, will be a more peaceful, safer, and more prosperous society, than one where the govt is given ANY authority to restrict or take guns away. Because govt will always abuse and expand its power, as ours is doing today. Neither society is perfectly safe... but one is safer than the other.

Comment?

that in noway addresses the issue of illegal guns nor does is give society any way to put a check on anyone who shouldn't own a gun.


and such would never be passed.

Robert A Whit
01-23-2013, 02:52 PM
now , before anyone goes crazy - on either side - here it out.

The 2nd simply isn't adequate for the times. Not in protecting our right to own guns and not in protecting us from unlawful gun use.

We need a new amendment which does just that. I question how ANY gun control law can be ruled constitutional when the 2nd in fact says " can NOT be infringed" accepting of course that the court has ruled that the states are bound the by the 2nd as well. Which I'm not sure I agree with that either, but more on that later.

At the same, any sane person can recognize that there does need to be some form of checks allowed so that the government can provide for the safety of people. I know I know many argue that it is a person's own responsibility to protect themselves , and that is true - as far as it goes . In reality the government is also constitutionally bound to provide for the security of her citizens.

I propose that a new amendment be written that clearly identifies what we may own, and under what circumstances. The whole bit about militias and such can just be thrown out the window. We need no written reason to exercise our right to own firearms. Does the first supply a reason for needing the right to free speech? No, it simply states that we have that right.

As far as what we may own. We should be able to own anything up to and including what the Army defies as an assault rifle. That would include fully automatic weapons that utilize an intermediate sized ammunition. Sorry guys, no Ma Deuces.

The government on the other hand ought be able to set certain conditions and levy taxes on such weapons, and yes keep track of them. But not in the way you might think.

Every weapon should have to be registered with the local police department, such registration should include a photo of the gun, the serial number, and a bullet sample for forensic matching if necessary.

This information should be placed in a database that is available to police departments around the world .

A separate database should contain the fingerprints , picture, and identity of the registered owner of each weapon. THIS database should ONLY be accessible via a warrant obtained by probable cause . Meaning no one will EVER get access to your personal data unless one of your guns is used to commit a crime and police somewhere have enough evidence to prove specific weapon was used and get a warrant to track it back to the owner.

The penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime should be draconian in nature, and doubly so if it as unregistered weapon or one registered to someone other than yourself.

Right of ownership of a gun should not be conferred until a person reaches age 21.

States and cities SHOULD have the right to set their own laws regarding gun ownership and carry laws. If a city wishes to make guns illegal, that is their right. If you don't like it, move. That is your right.

This includes doing away with gun free zones if states wish, except of course on federal property located within the state.

Felons are absolutely , positively forbidden to own weapons and the penalty for having one should again be draconian.

NO federal law, executive order, or other federal edict shall be allowed to dictate what a state may do in regards to firearms within their borders except in the case of federal property within those borders.

The federal government retains the right to control the interstate trade of guns and may make laws pertaining to such which supersede any state laws to the contrary.












boo and hiss away lol


Nope.

Good luck trying to make that dumb post work.

Little-Acorn
01-23-2013, 02:56 PM
that in noway addresses the issue of illegal guns
It resolves that "issue" completely... by making all guns legal.

In fact, there is no such thing as an illegal gun. Only an illegal action with a gun, such as threatening, injuring, or murdering someone. (Those action are also illegal with a knife or baseball bat too.)

Even the original 2nd amendment named "the right of the people", not "the right of the weapon". And properly so. The Framers knew there was no such thing as an illegal gun.


nor does is give society any way to put a check on anyone who shouldn't own a gun.

Of course it does. A cop (or, for that matter, any citizen, such as a neighbor or friend who knows that Poindexter McFee is mentally unstable and so takes his gun away) can still take anybody's gun away. But he knows that he'll have to answer to a jury for his action, when the guy sues him for it for violating his (modified) 2nd amendment rights. If the cop thinks the jury will decide to let him off ("Jury nullification"), then the cop can take the gun away with confidence. If he thinks a jury of his peers wouldn't think he had good enough reason, then probably he shouldn't take the gun away.

As I said, this won't make society perfectly safe. Nothing can do that. But I submit that it will make society safer than it is now.

Robert A Whit
01-23-2013, 02:59 PM
Don't repeal the 2nd amendment.

Just modify it. (Yes, you can amend an amendment.)

Get rid of the first thirteen words, whose purpose was to explain why the right could not be infringed. That will get rid of the gun-haters' most common dodge: Pretending that the 2nd only applied to people (or weapons) in the military.

Then add, "No exceptions but those decided for a particular case by Jury Nullification, are permitted for any reason."

This takes away ANY authority of any government, to decide who can or can't own and cary a gun.

Then only parents can decide whether their kids will be allowed to own and carry.

And if a cop takes away a gun from someone the cop thinks was going to use it illegally, and the guy sues the cop under the (modified) second amendment, a jury can decide whether to let the cop off or not... but no one else can. Including a judge.

The bad news is, convicted felons who have served their sentences, cannot have their right to own a gun, taken away. Serving his sentence, restores his right afterward. And non compos mentis also cannot have their guns taken away.

The good news is, government can never take YOUR guns away either, no matter how hard they try.

I submit that a society in which both the good news and the bad news above is true, will be a more peaceful, safer, and more prosperous society, than one where the govt is given ANY authority to restrict or take guns away. Because govt will always abuse and expand its power, as ours is doing today. Neither society is perfectly safe... but one is safer than the other.

Comment?

I am with ya man.

Great post.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 03:03 PM
It resolves that "issue" completely... by making all guns legal.

In fact, there is no such thing as an illegal gun. Only an illegal action with a gun, such as threatening, injuring, or murdering someone. (Those action are also illegal with a knife or baseball bat too.)

Even the original 2nd amendment named "the right of the people", not "the right of the weapon". And properly so. The Framers knew there was no such thing as an illegal gun.



Of course it does. A cop (or, for that matter, any citizen, such as a neighbor or friend who knows that Poindexter McFee is mentally unstable and so takes his gun away) can still take anybody's gun away. But he knows that he'll have to answer to a jury for his action, when the guy sues him for it for violating his (modified) 2nd amendment rights. If the cop thinks the jury will decide to let him off ("Jury nullification"), then the cop can take the gun away with confidence. If he thinks a jury of his peers wouldn't think he had good enough reason, then probably he shouldn't take the gun away.

As I said, this won't make society perfectly safe. Nothing can do that. But I submit that it will make society safer than it is now.

and of course some guns (or rather some gun owners) should be illegal, and you don't address that at all.

you guys are end up losing a lot more than that. You're more interested in winning the battle than you are in winning the war.

Robert A Whit
01-23-2013, 03:04 PM
It resolves that "issue" completely... by making all guns legal.

In fact, there is no such thing as an illegal gun. Only an illegal action with a gun, such as threatening, injuring, or murdering someone. (Those action are also illegal with a knife or baseball bat too.)

Even the original 2nd amendment named "the right of the people", not "the right of the weapon". And properly so. The Framers knew there was no such thing as an illegal gun.



Of course it does. A cop (or, for that matter, any citizen, such as a neighbor or friend who knows that Poindexter McFee is mentally unstable and so takes his gun away) can still take anybody's gun away. But he knows that he'll have to answer to a jury for his action, when the guy sues him for it for violating his (modified) 2nd amendment rights. If the cop thinks the jury will decide to let him off ("Jury nullification"), then the cop can take the gun away with confidence. If he thinks a jury of his peers wouldn't think he had good enough reason, then probably he shouldn't take the gun away.

As I said, this won't make society perfectly safe. Nothing can do that. But I submit that it will make society safer than it is now.

I am awe of your clear thinking. Great post man. :clap:


It has came to light that Lincoln was a liberal as well LOL

In what way was the Rogue Abe Lincoln a liberal?


Sorry, but the 2nd is perfect the way it is. Especially the part about militias because that gives us the ability to defend ourselves against the government should the need arise as it has in so many other examples throughout history. This same government doesn't need to know what arms I own or how many of them, since in order to over power them I will require the assistance of tens of million of fellow patriots and GovCo won't know who we are or how we will hit them.

The right to bear arms means that we have the right to defend our persons and personal property against those who would do us harm. We don't have the right to indiscriminately kill people or inflict collateral damage while defending ourselves which is why "arms" doesn't include weapons of mass destruction.

I would do as Acorn suggests. Without reading his post one more time, I would remove any ambiguity in the second and make the ownership of arms an absolute right with no weasel words. We have a serious problem with Democrats who believe they have the right to change our rights.

The gun is a machine. And it is personal property. Even bullets are personal property. The right to personal property is absolute. We value that right so much we include the right to not be searched with no warrant that itself must be legal.

Thus any laws trying to weasel out of our right is bogus.

As to laws saving people from criminals, lets review something else.

If guns kill people,
then pencils misspell words,
cars make people drive drunk,
and spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 04:05 PM
In what way was the Rogue Abe Lincoln a liberal?

That was the contention of another sir, not myself. So I fail to see how either. :laugh:

glockmail
01-23-2013, 04:06 PM
Trusted? to a point, yes.

Notice that in my proposal the databases are kept at a local level for example and that is they who decide who gets access to what.

Pretty easy to get the local sherrif unelected if you feel he's improperly giving access.

Now if you're uneasy that the NSA is going to break into the Podunk,NE gun registration database, not much I can do to assuage your fears there. lol

Right, because historically when federal governments turned on their people the local governments resisted. And the local government can be trusted to keep secrets. :laugh:

How did you get this gullible?

Kathianne
01-23-2013, 04:08 PM
Right, because historically when federal governments turned on their people the local governments resisted. And the local government can be trusted to keep secrets. :laugh:

How did you get this gullible?

Yep, forget that 'supremacy law' feature.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 04:09 PM
Right, because historically when federal governments turned on their people the local governments resisted. And the local government can be trusted to keep secrets. :laugh:

How did you get this gullible?

and traditionally democracies turn into monarchies unless the average citizen is allowed to keep his ak47 to battle their tanks.


:laugh2:

talk about guillable , you heard rush limbaugh say that Obama wants to be a dictator and you shit all over yourself on your way to the gun store.

Kathianne
01-23-2013, 04:11 PM
and traditionally democracies turn into monarchies unless the average citizen is allowed to keep his ak47 to battle their tanks.


:laugh2:

talk about guillable , you heard rush limbaugh say that Obama wants to be a dictator and you shit all over yourself on your way to the gun store.

Really? Where did he say that about Limbaugh?

mundame
01-23-2013, 04:40 PM
and traditionally democracies turn into monarchies unless the average citizen is allowed to keep his ak47 to battle their tanks.




ESPECIALLY when the citizens rise up and use their AK-47s, AR-15s, military flails, pikes to carry heads on, etc. The normal progression is monarchy >> democracy >> violent revolution >> strongman takeover, like Napoleon having his picture painted in floor-length ermines like Liberace a few years after the "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" revolution.

Really, the strongman takeover is the only hope we have at that point. And is usually a lot less bad than the bloodbath.

Robert A Whit
01-23-2013, 04:53 PM
Reminds me of the WSJ cartoon I saw with two Indians watching Columbus' three ships sail in --- "Don't worry," says one, "In diversity is our strength!"

I have an outstanding reference book. Also while we all know very well how well that worked for the native tribes, in my book is material on the execution of Mary Dyer in Mass.

So who was Mary Dyer? Mary Dyer stood up against the then political leaders that created a law stipulating that Quakers can be put on trial and executed. She and 3 other Quakers were executed for simply being in Mass.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ConHog http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610187#post610187)
and traditionally democracies turn into monarchies unless the average citizen is allowed to keep his ak47 to battle their tanks.



Mundame replies: ESPECIALLY when the citizens rise up and use their AK-47s, AR-15s, military flails, pikes to carry heads on, etc. The normal progression is monarchy >> democracy >> violent revolution >> strongman takeover, like Napoleon having his picture painted in floor-length ermines like Liberace a few years after the "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" revolution.

Really, the strongman takeover is the only hope we have at that point. And is usually a lot less bad than the bloodbath.

Believe it or not, there are ways to attack and defeat tanks.


You , and others, have completely misread my thought about gun registration.

First there would be two databases. One that contained JUST gun information, and one that included gun ownership.

TO access the gun database a government entity would need reason. Say they found a bullet fired from a S&W .40. They could run a comparison and if a match came up they would have access to THAT file.

Similar to the way the national fingerprint database works. If they have my print and are running it for a match the system doesn't identify YOUR print. It only gives them access to the one that matches.

THEN if they found a match they could apply for a warrant for the other database. If they got it THEN they could match up the gun with the registered owner.

Appropriate security measures taken at all times

I'm not talking about a free for all www.wheretheguns.com (http://www.wheretheguns.com) where anyone can find out who has what and where.

and I don't trust the government any more than you do, I just unfortunately believe that most people are idiots and so we NEED the government whether we trust them or not.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need any of the enumerated rights to be enumerated. Nor would we need to make murder illegal, for example. But this isn't an ideal world, so let's deal with reality.

I somehow got the idea that gun manufacturers already must fire a bullet and send it to the Feds to be on file and said bullet matches said weapon by serial number.

Is this true? I think odds are it is true.

I think most voters are not very welll informed. Watch CSPAN and listen to callers if you suspect they are well informed.

glockmail
01-23-2013, 07:43 PM
and traditionally democracies turn into monarchies unless the average citizen is allowed to keep his ak47 to battle their tanks.


:laugh2:

talk about guillable , you heard rush limbaugh say that Obama wants to be a dictator and you shit all over yourself on your way to the gun store.

No reason to get belligerent. :slap:

Think about it my friend, what would actually happen if some president, or faction of government, decided to start confiscating personal property, or decided that a certain group of Americans needed to be herded into camps "for their own protection". Or decided that a minority political party was dangerous and needed to be killed? While you're smirking on that understand that it has happened to civilized nations many times throughout history.

We do have a large military with tanks, aircraft, and missiles. But the situation is not unlike Washington faced during the revolution. That massive Army and Navy was ultimately defeated by cunning, deceit and bullets flying from many unknown directions.

In the US we currently have less that 5 active military per 1000 US citizens. How many of them do you think will follow unconstitutional orders? It's estimated that about 1/2 of those citizens own guns. How may do you think will use them to defend themselves?

ConHog
01-23-2013, 08:01 PM
No reason to get belligerent. :slap:

Think about it my friend, what would actually happen if some president, or faction of government, decided to start confiscating personal property, or decided that a certain group of Americans needed to be herded into camps "for their own protection". Or decided that a minority political party was dangerous and needed to be killed? While you're smirking on that understand that it has happened to civilized nations many times throughout history.

We do have a large military with tanks, aircraft, and missiles. But the situation is not unlike Washington faced during the revolution. That massive Army and Navy was ultimately defeated by cunning, deceit and bullets flying from many unknown directions.

In the US we currently have less that 5 active military per 1000 US citizens. How many of them do you think will follow unconstitutional orders? It's estimated that about 1/2 of those citizens own guns. How may do you think will use them to defend themselves?

None, well of course some would I mean people are idiots, but you know what I'm saying.

Thus there would be no Army coming to get your guns. Not now, not ever, it's not going to happen.

When Obama's term is up , he will pack his bags and leave, he isn't going to try to use the military to become a dictator. Good Lord, that belongs in the conspiracy theory. BUT even if he did, the military would tell him to go fuck himself.

aboutime
01-23-2013, 08:19 PM
No reason to get belligerent. :slap:

Think about it my friend, what would actually happen if some president, or faction of government, decided to start confiscating personal property, or decided that a certain group of Americans needed to be herded into camps "for their own protection". Or decided that a minority political party was dangerous and needed to be killed? While you're smirking on that understand that it has happened to civilized nations many times throughout history.

We do have a large military with tanks, aircraft, and missiles. But the situation is not unlike Washington faced during the revolution. That massive Army and Navy was ultimately defeated by cunning, deceit and bullets flying from many unknown directions.

In the US we currently have less that 5 active military per 1000 US citizens. How many of them do you think will follow unconstitutional orders? It's estimated that about 1/2 of those citizens own guns. How may do you think will use them to defend themselves?


glockmail. How easy it is to identify a Liberal in Denial. Look at how he refers to Rush. Too bad his liberalism got in the way, and exposed the idiocy of his ways.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-24-2013, 09:18 AM
No reason to get belligerent. :slap:

Think about it my friend, what would actually happen if some president, or faction of government, decided to start confiscating personal property, or decided that a certain group of Americans needed to be herded into camps "for their own protection". Or decided that a minority political party was dangerous and needed to be killed? While you're smirking on that understand that it has happened to civilized nations many times throughout history.

We do have a large military with tanks, aircraft, and missiles. But the situation is not unlike Washington faced during the revolution. That massive Army and Navy was ultimately defeated by cunning, deceit and bullets flying from many unknown directions.

In the US we currently have less that 5 active military per 1000 US citizens. How many of them do you think will follow unconstitutional orders? It's estimated that about 1/2 of those citizens own guns. How may do you think will use them to defend themselves?

As usual so often the naysayers have no historic references to use when forming their faulty opinions. Never was more true the old saying about those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
I blame the American Public Education System for the lion's share of that ignorance. I also note that its intentionally cultivated too. -Tyr

ConHog
01-24-2013, 09:35 AM
As usual so often the naysayers have no historic references to use when forming their faulty opinions. Never was more true the old saying about those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
I blame the American Public Education System for the lion's share of that ignorance. I also note that its intentionally cultivated too. -Tyr

can anyone point to one single instance where the government of the United States initiated a confrontation with her own citizens for which I can look to history to see that it is a likely result?

glockmail
01-24-2013, 12:14 PM
None, well of course some would I mean people are idiots, but you know what I'm saying.

Thus there would be no Army coming to get your guns. Not now, not ever, it's not going to happen.

When Obama's term is up , he will pack his bags and leave, he isn't going to try to use the military to become a dictator. Good Lord, that belongs in the conspiracy theory. BUT even if he did, the military would tell him to go fuck himself.Many would to avoid court martial. Many would not because it would be a suicide mission.

The other thing to understand is that a massive armed citizenry keeps you safe from foreign invaders. The reason that Japan didn't invade the coast of the US in WW2 is because they feared our armed citizenry. It's the main thing keeping us safe from 1 billion Chinese.


can anyone point to one single instance where the government of the United States initiated a confrontation with her own citizens for which I can look to history to see that it is a likely result?http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-ushers-in-japanese-american-internment

(http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-ushers-in-japanese-american-internment)http://news.yahoo.com/u-government-accused-spying-citizens-intercepting-trillions-emails-015047339.html

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html

ConHog
01-24-2013, 12:20 PM
Many would to avoid court martial. Many would not because it would be a suicide mission.



It would be an illegal order and probably ignored at the top, who would be court martialed? You won't face a court martial for disobeying an illegal order. In fact it's the other way around, a soldier can be ordered for obeying an illegal order.



The other thing to understand is that a massive armed citizenry keeps you safe from foreign invaders. The reason that Japan didn't invade the coast of the US in WW2 is because they feared our armed citizenry. It's the main thing keeping us safe from 1 billion Chinese.

debatable. I know the famous quote, but that was but one quote.

ALSO, I am NOT advocating taking guns from the general population anyway. Far from it.

mundame
01-24-2013, 12:25 PM
It's the main thing keeping us safe from 1 billion Chinese.


Good Lord, I hope not.

There's only 310 million of us altogether!

I am hoping the government is taking some responsibility for defending us from a billion Chinese.

red states rule
01-24-2013, 12:27 PM
Good Lord, I hope not.

There's only 310 million of us altogether!

I am hoping the government is taking some responsibility for defending us from a billion Chinese.
If the anti gun nuts in DC and in the liberal media get there way - what defense could we use? Harsh language?

CSM
01-24-2013, 12:33 PM
can anyone point to one single instance where the government of the United States initiated a confrontation with her own citizens for which I can look to history to see that it is a likely result?

Google "Bonus Army"; one of the government's (and some very famous generals') finer moments. In that particular incident, it was clearly demonstrated that members of the US Army were more than willing to attack US citizens with overwhelming force to include the use of tanks as ordered to do so by the CinC.

Nukeman
01-24-2013, 12:51 PM
can anyone point to one single instance where the government of the United States initiated a confrontation with her own citizens for which I can look to history to see that it is a likely result?Wako Texas!!!!! Ruby Ridge!!

ConHog
01-24-2013, 05:00 PM
Wako Texas!!!!! Ruby Ridge!!

Both incidents were police actions initiated by the illegal activities of the citizens.

Nukeman
01-24-2013, 05:06 PM
Both incidents were police actions initiated by the illegal activities of the citizens.
Wako was initiated by the USDOJ that would be the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. That my friend is a FEDERAL agency. I will note that the "leader" of that particular cult could have been picked up at anytime peacefully in town on a number of occasions instead of the death that resulted.. Ruby ridge was instigated by the FBI thats the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, and the UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE. Both of which are FEDERAL agencies. NOT state police.. EACH of those could have been handled peacefully at a later time but our friends in the FEDERAL govt decided to take action. YOU wanted specific times the United States Govt took action against the citizens well there are 2 of them, and your only response was those were police actions.. Maybe but instigated from the FEDERAL level for no good reason.....

Were they really "illegal activities by the citizens..


Randy Weaver, a former Iowa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa) factory worker and U.S. Army combat engineer often described as a Green Beret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_(United_States_Army)),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#cite_note-lewiston2Sept1992-1) moved his family to northern Idaho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Panhandle)during the 1980s in order to "home-school his children and escape what he and his wife Vicki saw as a corrupted world."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#cite_note-suprynowicz-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#cite_note-3) Vicki, the religious leader of the family, believed that the apocalypse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse) was imminent and believed her family would survive the apocalypse in a remote mountainous area. They bought twenty acres of land on Ruby Ridge in 1983 and began building a cabin.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#cite_note-4) The Weaver property was located in northern Idaho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho) in Boundary County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_County,_Idaho), on a hillside on Ruby Creek opposite Caribou Ridge near Naples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples,_Idaho).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#cite_note-5)
In 1984, Randy Weaver and neighbor Terry Kinnison had a dispute over a $3,000 land deal. Kinnison subsequently lost the lawsuit and was ordered to pay Weaver an additional $2,100 in court costs and damages. Kinnison wrote letters to the FBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation), Secret Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service), and county sheriff alleging Weaver had threatened to kill the Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope), the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States), and John V. Evans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_V._Evans), governor of Idaho. In January 1985, the FBI and the Secret Service started an investigation. In February, Randy and Vicki Weaver were interviewed for hours by two FBI agents, two Secret Service agents, and the Boundary County sheriff and his chief investigator.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#cite_note-Jess_Walter_2002.2C_pp._63.E2.80.9365-6) Although the Secret Service was told that Weaver was a member of the Aryan Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Nations) and that he had a large weapons cache at his residence, Weaver denied the allegations and no charges were filed.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#cite_note-OPRreportBeginning-7)
The investigation noted Weaver associated with Frank Kumnick, who was known to associate with members of the Aryan Nations. Weaver told the investigators that neither he nor Kumnick were members of the Aryan Nations, and described Kumnick as "associated with the Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_of_the_Lord)."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#cite_note-Professional_Responsibility_1994-8) On February 28, 1985, Randy and Vicki Weaver filed an affidavit with the county courthouse alleging that their personal enemies were plotting to provoke the FBI into attacking and killing the Weaver family.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#cite_note-Jess_Walter_2002.2C_pp._63.E2.80.9365-6) On May 6, 1985, Randy and Vicki Weaver sent a letter to President Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) claiming that Weaver's enemies may have sent the president a threatening letter under a forged signature. No evidence of a threatening letter surfaced; however, the 1985 letter was cited by the prosecutor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor) in 1992 asOvert Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overt_act) 7 of the Weaver family conspiracy against the federal government.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#cite_note-9)

aboutime
01-24-2013, 05:11 PM
Wako Texas!!!!! Ruby Ridge!!


Nukeman. I remember another. It was KENT STATE!

ConHog
01-24-2013, 05:11 PM
Wako was initiated by the USDOJ that would be the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. That my friend is a FEDERAL agency. I will note that the "leader" of that particular cult could have been picked up at anytime peacefully in town on a number of occasions instead of the death that resulted.. Ruby ridge was instigated by the FBI thats the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, and the UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE. Both of which are FEDERAL agencies. NOT state police.. EACH of those could have been handled peacefully at a later time but our friends in the FEDERAL govt decided to take action. YOU wanted specific times the United States Govt took action against the citizens well there are 2 of them, and your only response was those were police actions.. Maybe but instigated from the FEDERAL level for no good reason.....

If you want to debate that federal agencies can sometimes over react in a heavy handed manner. You will get no argument from me, but that is quite a different argument than stating that the US government initiated anything.

AGENCIES of the federal government over reacted to a perceived threat.

If you ask me if I think that could happen on a larger scale, I would regrettably have to answer yes.

I do not think they would ever start something, I DO think they could over react and turn something into a larger event than it needed to be.

Nukeman
01-24-2013, 05:22 PM
If you want to debate that federal agencies can sometimes over react in a heavy handed manner. You will get no argument from me, but that is quite a different argument than stating that the US government initiated anything.

AGENCIES of the federal government over reacted to a perceived threat.

If you ask me if I think that could happen on a larger scale, I would regrettably have to answer yes.

I do not think they would ever start something, I DO think they could over react and turn something into a larger event than it needed to be.
Dude who do those agencies work for??? The fed can and has initiated these type of actions and I agree that they can and probably will do so in the future I hope I am mistaken but it will happen on a much grander scale...

ConHog
01-24-2013, 05:26 PM
Dude who do those agencies work for??? The fed can and has initiated these type of actions and I agree that they can and probably will do so in the future I hope I am mistaken but it will happen on a much grander scale...

Even if true, the bottom line is both of those instances the agency was only REACTING to a crime. Or should I say over reacting, b/c I surely don't want someone to later imply I said otherwise.

They initiated NOTHING

Nukeman
01-24-2013, 05:28 PM
Even if true, the bottom line is both of those instances the agency was only REACTING to a crime. Or should I say over reacting, b/c I surely don't want someone to later imply I said otherwise.

They initiated NOTHINGHow so in the Ruby Ridge case. In Waco they were fired upon but I am still at a lose as to why they were so concerned with the weapons the Davidians had!?!?!?

ConHog
01-24-2013, 05:35 PM
How so in the Ruby Ridge case. In Waco they were fired upon but I am still at a lose as to why they were so concerned with the weapons the Davidians had!?!?!?

Don't hold me to this, I'm just going off memory and don't have the time right now to double check but I believe that in the case of Waco it initially started as a report of possible abuse of children and went from there. I believe Ruby Ridge was a case of federal weapons violations.

No need for you to initiate a discussion about those laws either. Because I believe that under current code ALL gun laws are unconstitutional.

gabosaurus
01-24-2013, 05:49 PM
Don't hold me to this, I'm just going off memory and don't have the time right now to double check but I believe that in the case of Waco it initially started as a report of possible abuse of children and went from there. I believe Ruby Ridge was a case of federal weapons violations.


Right on both.

ConHog
01-24-2013, 06:03 PM
Right on both.

I usually am :coffee:

jimnyc
01-24-2013, 06:05 PM
Don't hold me to this, I'm just going off memory and don't have the time right now to double check but I believe that in the case of Waco it initially started as a report of possible abuse of children and went from there. I believe Ruby Ridge was a case of federal weapons violations.

No need for you to initiate a discussion about those laws either. Because I believe that under current code ALL gun laws are unconstitutional.

Waco was ALSO about weapons, as they believed the Davidians were stockpiling illegal weapons, hence why the ATF was there.

Kathianne
01-24-2013, 06:06 PM
Right on both.

Were there convictions in either case? If so, is just an accusation enough to bring the FBI or any federal agency to a location and open fire?

ConHog
01-24-2013, 06:09 PM
Waco was ALSO about weapons, as they believed the Davidians were stockpiling illegal weapons, hence why the ATF was there.

Right, but it began as a child abuse case and the case workers who visited the compound reported all the guns to the ATF and that is what got the ball rolling.


Were there convictions in either case? If so, is just an accusation enough to bring the FBI or any federal agency to a location and open fire?

We don't usually put dead people on trial Kath.

jimnyc
01-24-2013, 06:20 PM
Repeal the 2nd? Dumbest-Idea-Ever

I like it just as it is. They need to repeal idiots in Washington trying to violate it.

ConHog
01-24-2013, 06:22 PM
Repeal the 2nd? Dumbest-Idea-Ever

I like it just as it is. They need to repeal idiots in Washington trying to violate it.

That would require just leveling the city, the sowing the earth with salt.

Kathianne
01-24-2013, 06:38 PM
We don't usually put dead people on trial Kath.

How expeditious, kill them and avoid the trial. Geez, that the founding fathers had thought of that!

ConHog
01-24-2013, 06:43 PM
How expeditious, kill them and avoid the trial. Geez, that the founding fathers had thought of that!

They killed themselves when they decided to resist. American law enforcement has a pretty long history of not just letting criminals shoot police dead or just walk away from an arrest because they don't want to shoot any suspects.

Kathianne
01-24-2013, 06:45 PM
They killed themselves when they decided to resist. American law enforcement has a pretty long history of not just letting criminals shoot police dead or just walk away from an arrest because they don't want to shoot any suspects.

You are off on this, you know it, yet won't walk it back. Sort of like what you accuse others of. It's fine, but if going to do, don't try to tell others to admit to wrongs and move along.

ConHog
01-24-2013, 06:46 PM
You are off on this, you know it, yet won't walk it back. Sort of like what you accuse others of. It's fine, but if going to do, don't try to tell others to admit to wrongs and move along.

I'm off on what? Are you seriously suggesting the government should have just ignored crimes?

Kathianne
01-24-2013, 06:49 PM
I'm off on what? Are you seriously suggesting the government should have just ignored crimes?

What crimes? They had accusations and killed people. What part of this are you claiming not to understand? Nothing came out subsequently to rise to level of capital punishment, yet that was meted out without trial.

Your response to my question of 'convictions?' They were dead, no trial held. How convenient.

ConHog
01-24-2013, 06:51 PM
What crimes? They had accusations and killed people. What part of this are you claiming not to understand? Nothing came out subsequently to rise to level of capital punishment, yet that was meted out without trial.

Your response to my question of 'convictions?' They were dead, no trial held. How convenient.

That's right and when law enforcement has evidence of a crime. Guess what they do? They attempt to take the person is question into custody. Are you seriously suggesting that they should if a person resists being taken into custody just walk away and forget it?

Kathianne
01-24-2013, 06:53 PM
That's right and when law enforcement has evidence of a crime. Guess what they do? They attempt to take the person is question into custody. Are you seriously suggesting that they should if a person resists being taken into custody just walk away and forget it?

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who 'resists' should be killed?

ConHog
01-24-2013, 07:06 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who 'resists' should be killed?

I'm seriously suggesting that law enforcement should be able to use whatever force is necessary to effect an arrest yes.

Kathianne
01-24-2013, 07:18 PM
I'm seriously suggesting that law enforcement should be able to use whatever force is necessary to effect an arrest yes.

Wow. Excessive force and out-of-control cops would abound. I happen to like the police, you do a good sale on Relevarts take though.

tailfins
01-24-2013, 07:32 PM
I'm seriously suggesting that law enforcement should be able to use whatever force is necessary to effect an arrest yes.

As long as it passes muster with a civilian review board, sure. It's one of the few good ideas coming out of Cambridge, Mass.

ConHog
01-24-2013, 07:38 PM
As long as it passes muster with a civilian review board, sure. It's one of the few good ideas coming out of Cambridge, Mass.

I am 100% okay with civilian review boards. I would prefer that each member be required to attend a ride a long on a regular basis.

Kathianne
01-24-2013, 07:48 PM
I'm seriously suggesting that law enforcement should be able to use whatever force is necessary to effect an arrest yes.

You would give equal weight to city cops, rural cops, state cops, federal cops: DEA, FBI, ATF, etc.,? How interesting. Each can go for 'resisting, "thus killed."

Robert A Whit
01-24-2013, 08:01 PM
can anyone point to one single instance where the government of the United States initiated a confrontation with her own citizens for which I can look to history to see that it is a likely result?

One good example is the use of Federal troops by President Eisenhower to force a Governor to open a school. Said school was at all times under the control of the state and not the invader of Normandy.

You must realize a lot of shit happens that is not constitutional and finally somebody has enough money to take it all the way. When it reaches the Supreme Court, since they can't initiate such things but can rule on such things, finally the issue is settled.

CA infringes on our rights. One might think the ACLU would have got this overturned by the Supreme court. Damned few citizens can gather suffient funds to fight the Democrats who are so fond of passing laws that simply are illegal.

aboutime
01-24-2013, 08:03 PM
Our 2nd Amendment at work....

http://youtu.be/vsVCHE7ayPE

ConHog
01-24-2013, 08:07 PM
One good example is the use of Federal troops by President Eisenhower to force a Governor to open a school. Said school was at all times under the control of the state and not the invader of Normandy.

yes how dare Ike send in federal troops to order a school to integrate in accordance with the COTUS.

by the way, at the time, using the Army for such a purpose was not illegal, it now is.




You must realize a lot of shit happens that is not constitutional and finally somebody has enough money to take it all the way. When it reaches the Supreme Court, since they can't initiate such things but can rule on such things, finally the issue is settled.


oh no, you mean you're expected to follow the COTUS to solve your disputes with the government?


CA infringes on our rights. One might think the ACLU would have got this overturned by the Supreme court. Damned few citizens can gather suffient funds to fight the Democrats who are so fond of passing laws that simply are illegal.

Kathianne
01-24-2013, 08:13 PM
I'm sure that Robert has some citations to call the Little Rock incident unconstitutional, but I can't find a way to argue against the results.

I'll assume that Ike went about it regarding Brown v Bd of Edl, but it was the right thing to do.

Robert A Whit
01-24-2013, 08:14 PM
11 Branch Davidians were put on trial by the Feds. All were acquitted.

I once read the search warrant and it talked not of children, but of guns.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ConHog http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610843#post610843)
Don't hold me to this, I'm just going off memory and don't have the time right now to double check but I believe that in the case of Waco it initially started as a report of possible abuse of children and went from there. I believe Ruby Ridge was a case of federal weapons violations.
Right on both.

Ruby is an example of the Feds infringing on the second amendment. I know that the survivor husband was handsomely paid by the Feds when it was ruled they were wrong.

The length of the shotgun barrel is an infringement on rights.

ConHog
01-24-2013, 08:31 PM
11 Branch Davidians were put on trial by the Feds. All were acquitted.

I once read the search warrant and it talked not of children, but of guns.


yes robert , that's because the welfare agents who visited the compound determined that there were no kids being endangered , but they DID report the guns they saw to the ATF. An ATF went to the gate and was turned away, so then based on the eyewitness accounts of the welfare agents they obtained a duly sworn WARRANT to search the place for illegal weapons.






Ruby is an example of the Feds infringing on the second amendment. I know that the survivor husband was handsomely paid by the Feds when it was ruled they were wrong.

The length of the shotgun barrel is an infringement on rights.

Certainly federal agencies didn't REACT correctly in the Ruby Ridge situation, but that situation was precipitated when Weaver sold illegal firearms to undercover ATF agents.

Now you're certainly argue whether the law is constitutional or not, but there is a legal procedure for challenging such laws.

Fighting it out with the ATF is not part of that procedure.

Kathianne
01-24-2013, 08:53 PM
[/B][/COLOR]yes robert , that's because the welfare agents who visited the compound determined that there were no kids being endangered , but they DID report the guns they saw to the ATF. An ATF went to the gate and was turned away, so then based on the eyewitness accounts of the welfare agents they obtained a duly sworn WARRANT to search the place for illegal weapons.





Certainly federal agencies didn't REACT correctly in the Ruby Ridge situation, but that situation was precipitated when Weaver sold illegal firearms to undercover ATF agents.

Now you're certainly argue whether the law is constitutional or not, but there is a legal procedure for challenging such laws.

Fighting it out with the ATF is not part of that procedure.

So the government opened fire on the site, why? How many died? That's a good use of federal police powers, in your opinion? Because they balked at arrest?

Robert A Whit
01-24-2013, 09:03 PM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610920#post610920)
One good example is the use of Federal troops by President Eisenhower to force a Governor to open a school. Said school was at all times under the control of the state and not the invader of Normandy.





Conhog hits back by being a smart ***.
yes how dare Ike send in federal troops to order a school to integrate in accordance with the COTUS.

by the way, at the time, using the Army for such a purpose was not illegal, it now is.



Have you such a short attention span that you forgot your own question? I am checking to see if I am correct, but I believe that Posse Comatitus started in the late 1800s rather than in the 1950s. If wrong, I will get back to the forum.



Robert continued

You must realize a lot of shit happens that is not constitutional and finally somebody has enough money to take it all the way. When it reaches the Supreme Court, since they can't initiate such things but can rule on such things, finally the issue is settled.



Conhog keeps smarting off
oh no, you mean you're expected to follow the COTUS to solve your disputes with the government?
Yes I do.


Robert continued
CA infringes on our rights. One might think the ACLU would have got this overturned by the Supreme court. Damned few citizens can gather suffient funds to fight the Democrats who are so fond of passing laws that simply are illegal.

No comment by Conhog.

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_federal_law) (18 U.S.C. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code) 1385 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html), original at 20 Stat. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large) 152 (http://books.google.com/books?id=CTA3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA152)) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States) and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Insurrection_Act)) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces) from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Police), or peace officer (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer) powers that maintain "law and order (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Law_and_order_(politics))"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress (which it currently does not except under the Insurrection Act).{Federalist 29 (Hamilton, 1788) (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18/pg18.html)} Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.
The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security), is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.


[/B][/COLOR]yes robert , that's because the welfare agents who visited the compound determined that there were no kids being endangered , but they DID report the guns they saw to the ATF. An ATF went to the gate and was turned away, so then based on the eyewitness accounts of the welfare agents they obtained a duly sworn WARRANT to search the place for illegal weapons.





Certainly federal agencies didn't REACT correctly in the Ruby Ridge situation, but that situation was precipitated when Weaver sold illegal firearms to undercover ATF agents.

Now you're certainly argue whether the law is constitutional or not, but there is a legal procedure for challenging such laws.

Fighting it out with the ATF is not part of that procedure.

One problem. Koresh was a duly licensed fire arms dealer. The Warrant was nothing more than a fishing expedition. As to the claims about the kids, so what? You admit they found nothing and you claim they reported guns. The church was very large. They must have not noticed he was a weapons dealer.

I believe he did not rush out to fight, but was attacked.

ConHog
01-24-2013, 09:33 PM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png






Have you such a short attention span that you forgot your own question? I am checking to see if I am correct, but I believe that Posse Comatitus started in the late 1800s rather than in the 1950s. If wrong, I will get back to the forum.




Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

I suggest you read

Cooper v Aaron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_v._Aaron


The Supreme Court ruled that states were absolutely bound by Supreme Court rulings , and that Arkansas violated that when they refused to enforce the ruling in Brown v Board of Education.


They further ruled that Arkansas violated the Equal Protection Clause of the COTUS and therefor Eisenhower was well within his powers under the Posse Comitataus act to send in federal troops as a policing unit to enforce the COTUSIn 1981 the Act was amended so that under NO conditions could the US military act as a police agency in the US (excepting the National Guard when under state control and the Coast Guard)




Yes I do.


No comment by Conhog.




One problem. Koresh was a duly licensed fire arms dealer.



is that so?

The widespread rumor that David Koresh, Paul Fatta or other Davidians had a gun dealers license is not accurate.

http://murderpedia.org/male.K/k/koresh-tdm-02.htm


The Warrant was nothing more than a fishing expedition. As to the claims about the kids, so what? You admit they found nothing and you claim they reported guns. The church was very large. They must have not noticed he was a weapons dealer.

I believe he did not rush out to fight, but was attacked. [/QUOTE]

what you believe is irrelevant in the face of facts.

where did Robert go?


LOL

Robert, don't argue history with me.:laugh:

fj1200
01-25-2013, 04:42 AM
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who 'resists' should be killed?

I don't think anyone was suggesting that resisters be targeted and 'killed.' It just happens to be the outcome when those being arrested push back, suicide by cop if you will. I recall we had a whole thread about the legality of resisting arrest and that there are several laws that deem it illegal.

glockmail
01-25-2013, 08:28 AM
Good Lord, I hope not.

There's only 310 million of us altogether!

I am hoping the government is taking some responsibility for defending us from a billion Chinese.

In WW2 we had 1000# of munitions per soldier vs. every one pound that the Japanese soldiers did. That's how we beat them. That's how we'd beat the Chinese if they ever marched over here.


It would be an illegal order and probably ignored at the top, who would be court martialed? You won't face a court martial for disobeying an illegal order. In fact it's the other way around, a soldier can be ordered for obeying an illegal order.



debatable. I know the famous quote, but that was but one quote.

ALSO, I am NOT advocating taking guns from the general population anyway. Far from it.

ObamaCare is illegal and I don't see any high level defectors on that. We've turned into 'what the President says is legal is legal' and there is no turning back on that. Gun grabbing will be the same way.

mundame
01-25-2013, 08:51 AM
ObamaCare is illegal and I don't see any high level defectors on that. We've turned into 'what the President says is legal is legal' and there is no turning back on that. Gun grabbing will be the same way.


Interesting point, a system sliding into whatever the monarch or dictator says is law IS law. Because "le roi le veult," the king wills it. Henry VIII tried it on explicitly, and got away with it, but he had a strong personality.

Louis XVI, who did not have much of a personality at all and very likely had Aspergers, also tried it.

Boy, did that not work. They guillotined him and his wife and abused the heir to death.

So it's an iffy political strategy.

Then the French allowed Napoleon to take over and did whatever he told them to, including losing a lot of wars. So it just depends on the personality of the ruler, really.


I'd say Obama doesn't have the sort of alpha male personality to carry it off.

ConHog
01-25-2013, 12:39 PM
I don't think anyone was suggesting that resisters be targeted and 'killed.' It just happens to be the outcome when those being arrested push back, suicide by cop if you will. I recall we had a whole thread about the legality of resisting arrest and that there are several laws that deem it illegal.

That's right, some people need to learn that semantics and the law count in a debate. If a police officer is trying to effect an illegal arrest you have the right to resist , up to and including killing the cop. The burden however is on you to prove the arrest attempt was illegal, not the other way around.

Likewise if the arrest is in good faith, you have NO right to resist and police can respond with deadly force to effect that arrest if necessary.

cadet
01-25-2013, 09:25 PM
It is simply amazing to see the arrogant ignorance of so many of our politicians and the media regarding our Constitution and the intent of our Founding Fathers regarding the Second Amendment. After studying the 2,300-year history of failed democracies back to ancient Greece and Rome, our brilliant Founding Fathers understood, as Plato explained, that all democracies eventually fail and turn into dictatorships.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting; it is about freedom and the right of self-defense against individuals who may do us harm and to defend ourselves against tyranny.
George Washington said, "A free people . . . should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Most Americans simply don't understand how fragile freedom is. Just visit Prague, Budapest or East Germany and ask people there how they lost their freedom to the Soviet Union.
The first thing any tyranny does is take away the people's ability to defend themselves.
Almost all legal gun owners never harm a soul. What is killing innocent Americans is the moral decline of our culture.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-vp-0119voicelettersbriefs-20130119,0,1341868.story

Little-Acorn
01-26-2013, 05:13 PM
Eleven posts on this page, **one** of them is about the 2nd amendment.

(sigh)

Another thread hijacked.

I'm getting tired of my own complaints on the subject. I'm becoming as big a whiner as some of the rest of you.

There's getting to be very little point in posting anything on this forum.

That's a damned shame. It used to be my favorite forum.

ConHog
01-26-2013, 05:15 PM
Eleven posts on this page, **one** of them is about the 2nd amendment.

(sigh)

Another thread hijacked.

I'm getting tired of my own complaints on the subject. I'm becoming as big a whiner as some of the rest of you.

There's getting to be very little point in posting anything on this forum.

That's a damned shame. It used to be my favorite forum.

i was truly wanting to get some alternative perspective on my opinion. I haven't seen much just "your idea sucks you're an idiot"

bummer.

jimnyc
01-26-2013, 05:30 PM
Eleven posts on this page, **one** of them is about the 2nd amendment.

(sigh)

Another thread hijacked.

I'm getting tired of my own complaints on the subject. I'm becoming as big a whiner as some of the rest of you.

There's getting to be very little point in posting anything on this forum.

That's a damned shame. It used to be my favorite forum.

I just happened here at the end of this thread because it's one of the last 10 shown at the top of the board. I am going to go through the thread now and split off the "off topic" posts. Understand, staff isn't always aware that certain threads are being deteriorated, we don't read every thread. A simple report and it will always be looked at though, and fixed accordingly.

ConHog
01-26-2013, 05:34 PM
I just happened here at the end of this thread because it's one of the last 10 shown at the top of the board. I am going to go through the thread now and split off the "off topic" posts. Understand, staff isn't always aware that certain threads are being deteriorated, we don't read every thread. A simple report and it will always be looked at though, and fixed accordingly.

now that you're here, about an opinion on the OP. Maybe we can get the topic back online with some fresh commentary.

jimnyc
01-26-2013, 05:40 PM
Thread cleaned up and other posts moved to the cage. These last few were left for an explanation of sorts. Please continue on topic...

Robert A Whit
01-26-2013, 07:02 PM
i was truly wanting to get some alternative perspective on my opinion. I haven't seen much just "your idea sucks you're an idiot"

bummer.


So, wny did you blurt this out?


what you believe is irrelevant in the face of facts.

where did Robert go?


LOL

Robert, don't argue history with me.:laugh:

ConHog
01-26-2013, 07:47 PM
So, wny did you blurt this out?

Because Robert, the discussion veered from one of opinions to one of facts. Your OPINIONS matter, but not when you ignore facts to come to those opinions.

You, and to be fair others on here, seem to conveniently forget that opinions are not facts and facts are not opinions. Try debating my opinions with your opinions or my facts with your own facts, but stop trying to mix the two.

Marcus Aurelius
01-29-2013, 10:31 AM
Conman does have many backers in his quest to pass more gun laws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNdIBZWhzO8

Everyone in the government who wants stricter gun control laws should be made to watch this.

ConHog
01-29-2013, 10:36 AM
Everyone in the government who wants stricter gun control laws should be made to watch this.

Of course RSR gets it wrong, again.

I do not advocate new gun laws. I advocate a new amendment which allows certain laws we currently have which are unconstitutional to now become constitutional, and even makes certain laws we now have moot.

For example, we already have a law that says that felons can't own a firearm. How is that Constitutional? Under my plan, it would be PART of the Constitution.

logroller
01-29-2013, 11:30 AM
Of course RSR gets it wrong, again.

I do not advocate new gun laws. I advocate a new amendment which allows certain laws we currently have which are unconstitutional to now become constitutional, and even makes certain laws we now have moot.

For example, we already have a law that says that felons can't own a firearm. How is that Constitutional? Under my plan, it would be PART of the Constitution.
Already two PARTS of the Constitution that deal with that-- Due process clause in the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

ConHog
01-29-2013, 11:42 AM
Already two PARTS of the Constitution that deal with that-- Due process clause in the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

Really? Please show me where either of those state that the 2nd amendment can be abridged by due process.

What's next, arguing that if convicted of a crime after due process that a person for the rest of their life no longer is protected by the 4th, just as an example.

Sure would make it easier to get repeat offenders I suppose......

logroller
01-29-2013, 01:33 PM
Really? Please show me where either of those state that the 2nd amendment can be abridged by due process.

What's next, arguing that if convicted of a crime after due process that a person for the rest of their life no longer is protected by the 4th, just as an example.

Sure would make it easier to get repeat offenders I suppose......
Thought I referenced it, but here's part of the fifth.
"[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
You get convicted of a felony by due process, you lose certain liberties: firearms, voting, and yes, even privacy (incarceration is certainly an infringement of personal privacy rights). Often the fourth amendment rights are suspended as a condition of parole/probation...they could stay incarcerated instead i guess. Really, probation and parole are part of the process for having one's rights restored-- it need not be for the rest of their life-- but is a process, often an arduous one.

ConHog
01-29-2013, 01:35 PM
Thought I referenced it, but here's part of the fifth.
"[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
You get convicted of a felony by due process, you lose certain liberties: firearms, voting, and yes, even privacy (incarceration is certainly an infringement of personal privacy rights). Often the fourth amendment rights are suspended as a condition of parole/probation...they could stay incarcerated instead i guess. Really, probation and parole are part of the process for having one's rights restored-- it need not be for the rest of their life-- but is a process, often an arduous one.

yes, and I would argue that any infringement upon other rights once a person has been released from jail are in fact unconstitutional as well.

One violation does not make another okay.

Robert A Whit
01-29-2013, 01:48 PM
Of all the Rights named in the Bill of rights, only one states formally and explicitly that it may not be infringed.

Yet I read knuckle draggers still claiming it not only can be infringed, but MUST be infringed.

Yet they cling to the words of the other Bill of Rights as if sacred.

Yes folks, some sure baffle we non knuckle draggers.

ConHog
01-29-2013, 01:54 PM
Of all the Rights named in the Bill of rights, only one states formally and explicitly that it may not be infringed.

Yet I read knuckle draggers still claiming it not only can be infringed, but MUST be infringed.

Yet they cling to the words of the other Bill of Rights as if sacred.

Yes folks, some sure baffle we non knuckle draggers.

LOL @ knuckle dragger. Tell you what gramps, you pick a subject and if Jim and Gabby leave anything left to be had in the one on one forum I'll be glad to give you another spanking.

Now tell us more about how the 2nd AMendment couldn't be repealed by an AMendment. LOL

Robert A Whit
01-29-2013, 02:00 PM
What happened? Did I infringe on the rights of some Knuckle dragger? Did I open up that can of maggots?

fj1200
01-29-2013, 02:32 PM
yes, and I would argue that any infringement upon other rights once a person has been released from jail are in fact unconstitutional as well.

One violation does not make another okay.

Gotta go with log on this one. If you can be deprived of life, liberty, property, which are higher order rights than anything in the BoR, via 4A then losing your 2A rights is not unconstitutional.

ConHog
01-29-2013, 02:40 PM
Gotta go with log on this one. If you can be deprived of life, liberty, property, which are higher order rights than anything in the BoR, via 4A then losing your 2A rights is not unconstitutional.

That's fine then, let's start putting that sentence before juries in the sentencing phases of trials.

fj1200
01-29-2013, 02:44 PM
That's fine then, let's start putting that sentence before juries in the sentencing phases of trials.

:confused: To what end?

ConHog
01-29-2013, 02:46 PM
:confused: To what end?

Umm to be constitutional?

Tell me what other right the government can remove PERMANENTLY based on a felony conviction no matter the crime and without a jury voting to remove it.

fj1200
01-29-2013, 05:43 PM
Umm to be constitutional?

I'm actually not sure to what you are referring.


Tell me what other right the government can remove PERMANENTLY based on a felony conviction no matter the crime and without a jury voting to remove it.

We're talking about rights removed after conviction are we not?

ConHog
01-29-2013, 05:46 PM
I'm actually not sure to what you are referring.We're talking about rights removed after conviction are we not?Not permanently. Lest a lifetime sentence of course

fj1200
01-29-2013, 05:51 PM
Not permanently. Lest a lifetime sentence of course

Felons do not have the right to vote as example.

logroller
01-29-2013, 06:30 PM
Umm to be constitutional?

Tell me what other right the government can remove PERMANENTLY based on a felony conviction no matter the crime and without a jury voting to remove it.
Are you saying the current process isn't what the accused is due?
There are statutory laws in place, enacted by representatives of the people, which is part of the process. It's possible those laws are unjust, and I'm a firm believer in the power of jury nullification for just that reason; but to say the jury need consider an aspect of a sentence such as parole conditions (excluding ineligibility) would similarly implore them to consider which prison, what level of security, hours of free time or work detail, who they bunk with etc...just seems to me an undue burden upon the jurists, and one which is better handled at the legislative and administrative levels while still affording the convicted an adequate procedural avenue. As they are due, there is a process by which a felon can have their rights restored, and many do...I don't believe we have a constitutional conflict with this.

Voted4Reagan
01-29-2013, 06:58 PM
Felons do not have the right to vote as example.

True....

Sex Offenders cant move wherever they want....

they arent allowed near schools, parks, daycare centers or anywhere children congregate

CSM
01-30-2013, 08:51 AM
Just google this (there are many links). For your consideration:

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Founding Fathers aside, this is as good a basis for the right to bear arms as any.

ConHog
01-30-2013, 09:09 AM
Just google this (there are many links). For your consideration:

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Founding Fathers aside, this is as good a basis for the right to bear arms as any.

Why do you insist on misreading what I have wrote? I in NOWAY suggesting taking away your right to own guns.

CSM
01-30-2013, 09:25 AM
Why do you insist on misreading what I have wrote? I in NOWAY suggesting taking away your right to own guns.

What makes you think I was addressing you specifically? I offered an article for consideration, nothing more. I have read your posts, commented on a few but nowhere have I indicated that YOU, personally, advocated removal of of the right to own guns.

ConHog
01-30-2013, 09:29 AM
What makes you think I was addressing you specifically? I offered an article for consideration, nothing more. I have read your posts, commented on a few but nowhere have I indicated that YOU, personally, advocated removal of of the right to own guns.

well because this thread is about ME, or rather my thoughts on the second so I assumed your posts were on topic as they usually are.

CSM
01-30-2013, 09:45 AM
well because this thread is about ME, or rather my thoughts on the second so I assumed your posts were on topic as they usually are.

I thought the article made of good point on why we, as citizens, have the right to bear arms. Period. Hunting, self defense, and protection against tyranny are all part of the discussion. We even have had a few posters who think the right to bear arms (and the 2d amendment) is unnecessary or even IS the problem. Obviously, it is my opinion that we do indeed have the right to bear arms; that right is NOT granted by the government but rather is an inherent human right. It is also my opinion that the type of arms that I have the right to bear should be equivalent to the threats I MAY encounter. If that means I need a hand grenade, I should be able to carry such. I would say that for normal, everyday carry, a pistol or even a military issue type long arm is appropriate. I will save my cannons, rockets and mortars for the "protection from tyranny" part.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-30-2013, 10:07 AM
I thought the article made of good point on why we, as citizens, have the right to bear arms. Period. Hunting, self defense, and protection against tyranny are all part of the discussion. We even have had a few posters who think the right to bear arms (and the 2d amendment) is unnecessary or even IS the problem. Obviously, it is my opinion that we do indeed have the right to bear arms; that right is NOT granted by the government but rather is an inherent human right. It is also my opinion that the type of arms that I have the right to bear should be equivalent to the threats I MAY encounter. If that means I need a hand grenade, I should be able to carry such. I would say that for normal, everyday carry, a pistol or even a military issue type long arm is appropriate. I will save my cannons, rockets and mortars for the "protection from tyranny" part.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CSM again.

Say, been looking for a good cannon cheap. Can you clue me in on your source??--;)-Tyr

CSM
01-30-2013, 10:15 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CSM again.

Say, been looking for a good cannon cheap. Can you clue me in on your source??--;)-Tyr

When (and if) the day comes where we need cannons, I am sure the black market will provide them.

ConHog
01-30-2013, 10:25 AM
I thought the article made of good point on why we, as citizens, have the right to bear arms. Period. Hunting, self defense, and protection against tyranny are all part of the discussion. We even have had a few posters who think the right to bear arms (and the 2d amendment) is unnecessary or even IS the problem. Obviously, it is my opinion that we do indeed have the right to bear arms; that right is NOT granted by the government but rather is an inherent human right. It is also my opinion that the type of arms that I have the right to bear should be equivalent to the threats I MAY encounter. If that means I need a hand grenade, I should be able to carry such. I would say that for normal, everyday carry, a pistol or even a military issue type long arm is appropriate. I will save my cannons, rockets and mortars for the "protection from tyranny" part.

we agree that is why I think the second should be repealed in favor of a new amendment which protects us further. The second says arms, not firearms, and under current jurisprudence we have let the government infringe. If we want the government to be able to say no to certain weapons , and I think we both agree that there are certain weapons that should not be in private hands, then the law that makes them illegal needs to be constitutional.

CSM
01-30-2013, 10:41 AM
we agree that is why I think the second should be repealed in favor of a new amendment which protects us further. The second says arms, not firearms, and under current jurisprudence we have let the government infringe. If we want the government to be able to say no to certain weapons , and I think we both agree that there are certain weapons that should not be in private hands, then the law that makes them illegal needs to be constitutional.

I would say that philosphically we are in agreement. However, as I stated before, I do not trust the politicians to craft ANY amendments to the Constitution. I would rather see the Supreme Court step in and rule on those laws that infringe and ignore the 2d amendment already. Once that is established, then perhaps a more rational and sensible debate regarding the right to bear arms could be had. As it stands now, the fact that the government has already corrupted the 2d merely adds to the confusion.

As for which weapons do not belong in private hands, for me, it would be any crew served-weapon. That, at least, would be the starting point. Anything short of that (yes, including hand grenades) should be available to the individual. Crew served weapons only available through special licensing with strict requirements for training and safe keeping, etc. I would also add that the same laws would apply to ALL citizens ... INCLUDING government officials at ALL levels (local, state and federal). The ONLY exception would be the US military forces.

ConHog
01-30-2013, 10:56 AM
I would say that philosphically we are in agreement. However, as I stated before, I do not trust the politicians to craft ANY amendments to the Constitution. I would rather see the Supreme Court step in and rule on those laws that infringe and ignore the 2d amendment already. Once that is established, then perhaps a more rational and sensible debate regarding the right to bear arms could be had. As it stands now, the fact that the government has already corrupted the 2d merely adds to the confusion.

As for which weapons do not belong in private hands, for me, it would be any crew served-weapon. That, at least, would be the starting point. Anything short of that (yes, including hand grenades) should be available to the individual. Crew served weapons only available through special licensing with strict requirements for training and safe keeping, etc. I would also add that the same laws would apply to ALL citizens ... INCLUDING government officials at ALL levels (local, state and federal). The ONLY exception would be the US military forces.


We do agree on many things. Including the fact that right now is definately not the right time to trust government to protect our rights. Which is why I advocate getting out in front of it, those boneheads are going to do something. Might as well mitigate the damage

And I'm not sure the judicial anymore than I trust the legislative.

Also, we're agreed on which weapons should be allowed, except perhaps hand grenades, I'd have to think about that one.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-30-2013, 10:59 AM
I would say that philosphically we are in agreement. However, as I stated before, I do not trust the politicians to craft ANY amendments to the Constitution. I would rather see the Supreme Court step in and rule on those laws that infringe and ignore the 2d amendment already. Once that is established, then perhaps a more rational and sensible debate regarding the right to bear arms could be had. As it stands now, the fact that the government has already corrupted the 2d merely adds to the confusion.

As for which weapons do not belong in private hands, for me, it would be any crew served-weapon. That, at least, would be the starting point. Anything short of that (yes, including hand grenades) should be available to the individual. Crew served weapons only available through special licensing with strict requirements for training and safe keeping, etc. I would also add that the same laws would apply to ALL citizens ... INCLUDING government officials at ALL levels (local, state and federal). The ONLY exception would be the US military forces.

The bolded statement above would get you blasted, savagely attacked and declared as deranged on most internet sites these days!
I doubt many here will agree on the grenade part. I fully understand your reasoning but in this current cultural and political climate that is almost like saying citizens should have a tank or A nuke. To the opposition that is...
Anything more powerful than a slingshot is on their list to confiscate IMHO.. -Tyr

CSM
01-30-2013, 10:59 AM
We do agree on many things. Including the fact that right now is definately not the right time to trust government to protect our rights. Which is why I advocate getting out in front of it, those boneheads are going to do something. Might as well mitigate the damage

And I'm not sure the judicial anymore than I trust the legislative.

Also, we're agreed on which weapons should be allowed, except perhaps hand grenades, I'd have to think about that one.

LOL... I was being a bit facetious (but just a tiny bit) about the hand grenades. Anyone who has ever had to lug around a basic combat load knows what a PITA it is to have to carry a couple of grenades, claymores, etc.

CSM
01-30-2013, 11:05 AM
The bolded statement above would get you blasted, savagely attacked and declared as deranged on most internet sites these days!
I doubt many here will agree on the grenade part. I fully understand your reasoning but in this current cultural and political climate that is almost like saying citizens should have a tank or A nuke. To the opposition that is...
Anything more powerful than a slingshot is on their list to confiscate IMHO.. -Tyr

Understood. I also understand what "the right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed" means. I really do not care what internet sites advocate these days; if I did, my home would be filled with viagra, secret formulas for success, and a host of penis enlargers ... I also would have sent all my earnings (or at least that portion which the government did not steal from me) to the starving children of Lower Slobovia, the wounded whale foundation and the Save the Ice research foundation. If I heeded e-mails as well, I would be in direct communications with a host of disenfranchised, third world princes as well.

Abbey
01-30-2013, 11:06 AM
When (and if) the day comes where we need cannons, I am sure the black market will provide them.

I've always wanted a tank to drive around those Jersey traffic circles. Just think of the fun. ;)

ConHog
01-30-2013, 11:08 AM
LOL... I was being a bit facetious (but just a tiny bit) about the hand grenades. Anyone who has ever had to lug around a basic combat load knows what a PITA it is to have to carry a couple of grenades, claymores, etc.

True enough, but on the other hand just an M16 and a hundred rounds of ammo is a PITA to lug around to. That may be why I never do.

Honestly I have a concealed carry permit, and I rarely even carry my .40 S&W. I'm not about to lug around grenades LOL

Of course to be fair, I live in safe part of the country. We have to go to Little Rock once a month for my daughter to see a specialist, and yes I carry when we go down there, and we don't even go to the rough part of Little Rock.

I have a cousin who lives in Alameda, CA and he doesn't even walk out to his driveway without a gun. I don't know how he lives that way.

But he should have a choice to live there and be able to protect himself if that's what he wants.

CSM
01-30-2013, 11:16 AM
True enough, but on the other hand just an M16 and a hundred rounds of ammo is a PITA to lug around to. That may be why I never do.

Honestly I have a concealed carry permit, and I rarely even carry my .40 S&W. I'm not about to lug around grenades LOL

Of course to be fair, I live in safe part of the country. We have to go to Little Rock once a month for my daughter to see a specialist, and yes I carry when we go down there, and we don't even go to the rough part of Little Rock.

I have a cousin who lives in Alameda, CA and he doesn't even walk out to his driveway without a gun. I don't know how he lives that way.

But he should have a choice to live there and be able to protect himself if that's what he wants.

There is a reason why the ammo basic load is what it is for a soldier. If some idiot had told me I had to carry around 100 rounds for my individual weapon, I would have told him (or her) to take a flying leap. It doesn't take long for an individual to figure out was is a reasonable amount of weaponry (and ammo) to have on hand for any given situation. Stuck in a foxhole by yourself, with an entire company of enemy soldiers sighting in on you, brings an overwhelming desire for as much ammo as you can get along with close air support, artillery and about 2000 more soldiers on your side. Walking down the street in my little tiny hometown, I figure one magazine would be enough.

CSM
01-30-2013, 11:19 AM
I've always wanted a tank to drive around those Jersey traffic circles. Just think of the fun. ;)

heh ... you realize that the gas mileage you get from any armored combat vehicle is just a tad shy of government standards, right? Besides, if you did that, so would everyone else in Jersey and, viola, same problems but with heavier vehicles!

ConHog
01-30-2013, 11:30 AM
heh ... you realize that the gas mileage you get from any armored combat vehicle is just a tad shy of government standards, right? Besides, if you did that, so would everyone else in Jersey and, viola, same problems but with heavier vehicles!

No joke. I think some of those tanks measure their mileage in gallons per mile, rather than the other way around.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-30-2013, 11:30 AM
There is a reason why the ammo basic load is what it is for a soldier. If some idiot had told me I had to carry around 100 rounds for my individual weapon, I would have told him (or her) to take a flying leap. It doesn't take long for an individual to figure out was is a reasonable amount of weaponry (and ammo) to have on hand for any given situation. Stuck in a foxhole by yourself, with an entire company of enemy soldiers sighting in on you, brings an overwhelming desire for as much ammo as you can get along with close air support, artillery and about 2000 more soldiers on your side. Walking down the street in my little tiny hometown, I figure one magazine would be enough.

Usually one is enough and two is max, if feeling frisky go with three.-;)

CSM
01-30-2013, 11:39 AM
No joke. I think some of those tanks measure their mileage in gallons per mile, rather than the other way around.

As I recall, the Abrams carries about 500 gal of fuel with an operating range of about 260 miles (somewhere around there) which means it gets less than 2 miles to the gallon. This brings up a good point in that some of the "arms" we talk about not being suitable for private ownership are inherently cost prohibitive to not only purchase but to maintain as well, never mind actually use. If you think ammunition is expensive for pistols/rifles/shotguns then you are really going to be upset at the cost of an artillery/tank gun round!

ConHog
01-30-2013, 11:44 AM
As I recall, the Abrams carries about 500 gal of fuel with an operating range of about 260 miles (somewhere around there) which means it gets less than 2 miles to the gallon. This brings up a good point in that some of the "arms" we talk about not being suitable for private ownership are inherently cost prohibitive to not only purchase but to maintain as well, never mind actually use. If you think ammunition is expensive for pistols/rifles/shotguns then you are really going to be upset at the cost of an artillery/tank gun round!

No doubt, I shudder to think what a 120mm cannon round would cost. lol

CSM
01-30-2013, 11:55 AM
No doubt, I shudder to think what a 120mm cannon round would cost. lol

Don't buy a tank if you can't afford the ammo!

This little raparte' does illustrate the point that fears of the unwashed masses running around in tanks or setting up an artillery battery in their back yard are just nonsense. Heck, even the commercially available "assault weapons" some are so concerned about are beyond many a household budget.

ConHog
01-30-2013, 12:01 PM
Don't buy a tank if you can't afford the ammo!

This little raparte' does illustrate the point that fears of the unwashed masses running around in tanks or setting up an artillery battery in their back yard are just nonsense. Heck, even the commercially available "assault weapons" some are so concerned about are beyond many a household budget.

But on the other hand, there ARE people who could afford such things. And I actually argue that such is legal. Hell at one time we had pirates in the US and they had ships loaded with cannons. Now , their piracy was illegal, but their armored and armed ships were not.

CSM
01-30-2013, 12:03 PM
But on the other hand, there ARE people who could afford such things. And I actually argue that such is legal. Hell at one time we had pirates in the US and they had ships loaded with cannons. Now , their piracy was illegal, but their armored and armed ships were not.

Sure, but just they fact they owned such would make their activity subject to closer scrutiny. That, plus the fact that it is awful hard to hide a battleship, privately owned or otherwise. Outlaw battleships and only criminals will have battleships!

ConHog
01-30-2013, 12:05 PM
Sure, but just they fact they owned such would make their activity subject to closer scrutiny. That, plus the fact that it is awful hard to hide a battleship, privately owned or otherwise. Outlaw battleships and only criminals will have battleships!

Now wait , we're forgetting the 2nd only applies to weapons of the era, so anything more powerful than a Frigate ? Forget it. :laugh:

CSM
01-30-2013, 12:13 PM
Now wait , we're forgetting the 2nd only applies to weapons of the era, so anything more powerful than a Frigate ? Forget it. :laugh:

Interesting, though I don't recall the 2d specifying a particular period of weapon development.

I also suspect that the 1% are interested in wasting their money on such frivolous weapons ... maybe a handfull ... but again, you have to park those things someplace! Common sense mitigates a lot of the concerns some have about unrestricted ownership of the more destructive weapons; thus my stipulation of drawing the line at crew served weapons. Not that the individual cannot own them but that reality would dictate that such ownership comes with far more consideration for allowing such ownership.

ConHog
01-30-2013, 12:26 PM
Interesting, though I don't recall the 2d specifying a particular period of weapon development.

I also suspect that the 1% are interested in wasting their money on such frivolous weapons ... maybe a handfull ... but again, you have to park those things someplace! Common sense mitigates a lot of the concerns some have about unrestricted ownership of the more destructive weapons; thus my stipulation of drawing the line at crew served weapons. Not that the individual cannot own them but that reality would dictate that such ownership comes with far more consideration for allowing such ownership.

Like I said , I draw the line a little below single person weapon. Hell, there are single person weapons capable of knocking airplanes out of the sky. A private person simply does not need such weapons.

I just argue that the 2A actually prohibits the government from making them illegal.

Now I would offer an argument that under the Interstate Commerce Clause the government has the right to make the production and transportation of such weapons.

meaning the government could make them legal to own, but simply unavailable.

Would be an interesting legal battle.

CSM
01-30-2013, 12:37 PM
Like I said , I draw the line a little below single person weapon. Hell, there are single person weapons capable of knocking airplanes out of the sky. A private person simply does not need such weapons.

I just argue that the 2A actually prohibits the government from making them illegal.

Now I would offer an argument that under the Interstate Commerce Clause the government has the right to make the production and transportation of such weapons.

meaning the government could make them legal to own, but simply unavailable.

Would be an interesting legal battle.

Could make for an interesting legal battle for sure. As to individual weapons with anti -air capability, I bet there a re a few Syrians, Libyians and others who wish they had such weapons and they aren't necessarily criminals! I guess a manufacturer could make weapons within a state and not export them. It occurs to me that many folks are going to walk around carrying a SAM even if they had one. The ones that would probably would get more than a passing glance from the general population too.

glockmail
02-05-2013, 04:18 PM
Interesting point, a system sliding into whatever the monarch or dictator says is law IS law. Because "le roi le veult," the king wills it. Henry VIII tried it on explicitly, and got away with it, but he had a strong personality.

Louis XVI, who did not have much of a personality at all and very likely had Aspergers, also tried it.

Boy, did that not work. They guillotined him and his wife and abused the heir to death.

So it's an iffy political strategy.

Then the French allowed Napoleon to take over and did whatever he told them to, including losing a lot of wars. So it just depends on the personality of the ruler, really.


I'd say Obama doesn't have the sort of alpha male personality to carry it off.

You're too trusting of GovCo and the press that refuses to do its job and call it out for usurpations against the Constitution.

Surf Fishing Guru
02-22-2013, 12:56 PM
The 2nd simply isn't adequate for the times. Not in protecting our right to own guns and not in protecting us from unlawful gun use.

The reason that the 2nd isn't adequate is that the people at large no longer hold the government to the confines of the Constitution. To rely on a superfluous, redundant sentence to be the final security for the right to arms when government has far exceeded the powers granted to it, is futile and doomed to fail. When the debate of what the right "is" can be focused on a semantics argument over what words mean, to discern what the 2nd Amendment "lets" the citizen own . . . INSTEAD of examining the Constitution to discern what the government is allowed to do . . . Well, the discussion of "rights" is moot as you are now debating the breadth of a privilege and how it is to be permitted, licensed, conditioned and qualified by bureaucrats.


We need a new amendment which does just that. I question how ANY gun control law can be ruled constitutional when the 2nd in fact says " can NOT be infringed"

I would support an amendment that when enforced as a general rule, would end all extra-constitutional power. Something that reminds all, governments and citizens alike, that the federal government only possesses the limited, expressly enumerated powers granted to it and everything else is excepted out of that grant of power and retained by the people or the states . . . Oh wait, somebody already thought of that.


accepting of course that the court has ruled that the states are bound the by the 2nd as well. Which I'm not sure I agree with that either, but more on that later.

At least when the Freedmens Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment were debated and ratified and enacted the action of the 2nd Amendment had not yet been subjected to the communitarian, government enabling, Constitution destroying cancer of the Bolshevik Revolution.

That the enforcers of the discriminatory statutes known as the Black Codes were the official militias of the states demanded federal action.

Of course Congress disbanding the state militias and trying to protect the rights (including gun rights) of former slaves, now citizens from those government agents, is lost on modern, enlightened people on the left (especially Black "civil rights activists"). They now essentially argue that the Amendment is moot and outdated and that we owe the benevolent, munificent government our complete trust, evidenced by our surrender of arms and granting government an absolute monopoly of force.


At the same, any sane person can recognize that there does need to be some form of checks allowed so that the government can provide for the safety of people. I know I know many argue that it is a person's own responsibility to protect themselves , and that is true - as far as it goes . In reality the government is also constitutionally bound to provide for the security of her citizens.

Governments at all levels claim and hold legal immunity and are not "constitutionally bound to provide for the security of her citizens". This has been enforced in statute and established by state and federal courts including SCOTUS. The only circumstance when a government entity is responsible for the safety of any citizen is in a custodial situation (e.g., child services) or when a person is in custody, AND THE ABILITY OF THE PERSON TO ACT IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE HAS BEEN DISABLED.

You have no right to feel or actually be "safe" as there is no government entity to hold responsible if you are scared or are actually harmed.

Of course you do have a right to self-defense but various governments have claimed the power to disarm you for the safety of other people (which they refuse responsibility for). Does anyone else recognize the cognitive dissonance inherent in that policy? Can anyone argue that condition is a legitimate one to enforce against a free people?


I propose that a new amendment be written that clearly identifies what we may own, and under what circumstances.

No thanks. I don't need any agent of the government to tell me what my rights are. My rights predate the Constitution and the governmental authority created by it. By the Constitution's structure, no governmental agency, elected official or bureaucrat has any legitimate import on the extent of my rights, only of laws. This also extends to the courts including SCOTUS . . . As a creation of the Constitution their duty is NOT to determine if a right exists, or its scope, or whether enforcing it will be popular or have sociological impact; their only duty and jurisdiction is to determine whether a challenged law is beyond the strictly limited, clearly defined powers delegated to the legislature.

I find especially repugnant any member of Congress pontificating on the extent of my rights or reassuring me that their proposed actions won't harm my rights. Their purview is only the creation of law at the citizen's behest, not the extent of the citizen's rights.

Their only legitimate concern regarding my rights is to not exceed the legislative authority granted to them by the Constitution . . . if the bastards could only stick to that all our rights would be safe and this discussion and innumerable ones like it would not be necessary.

The Bill of Rights is redundant; the only thing those provisions "do" is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers it was never granted.


The whole bit about militias and such can just be thrown out the window. We need no written reason to exercise our right to own firearms. Does the first supply a reason for needing the right to free speech? No, it simply states that we have that right.

And that has been the unwavering holding of SCOTUS regarding the right to arms for going on 140 years.

". . . it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

DC v Heller



Both you and the statist, communitarian left is on a mission to purposely ignore the Constitution and ignore the Supreme Court.

What you say you want and what the left no doubt wants to completely destroy, is already constitutional law.

It just needs to be respected and obeyed.

Little-Acorn
02-22-2013, 01:07 PM
and of course some guns (or rather some gun owners) should be illegal,
Meaning, government should have the authority to ban certain people from owning guns. And that society will be safer and more prosperous if they do.

(sigh)

Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to the wall.


and you don't address that at all.
I did in my second (and first) post.

Read.

Reading is key.