What's wrong with "reasonable restrictions" on a constitutional right?

[Little-Acorn]

Can you imagine the reaction if someone was forbidden to become a Catholic or Baptist or what have you, unless he first paid a fee to the government and waited for them to grant him permission to do so?

What if a Federal law were passed saying that you would be thrown in jail if you printed up a bunch of pamphlets saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did a lousy job as President and started handing them out... unless you first applied to the govt for permission to print them up and waited for the OK to come back from Washington DC? Or from your state government?

Might that person worry that, once we grant government the power to restrict us a little, govt might start doing it more and more? Maybe using its power to restrict one side (the side that the party in power doesn't like) from doing its normal publicizing, fundraising, and speechmaking? Have we seen any sign that the government might do such a thing?

The same people who would scream bloody murder over any suggestion of such laws, are fine with similar laws forbidding you to own a gun or carry it in your pocket, unless you first pay a fee to the govt, fill out a bunch of forms, jump thru other hoops, and then wait for permission to come back from the government. If you carry the gun in your pocket without doing all that, you can be thrown in jail, stuck with LARGE fines, and/or have the govt's "permission" to own and carry, permanently revoked.

BTW, as for the guy who has to get govt permission before publishing and handing out his pamphlet... would he be OK with it if the government permanently DENIED him permission to publish it, because they found out that, thirty years ago, he'd been busted for going on a joyride with some friends in a car that one of them had stolen during a drunken spree in college way back then? Nobody got hurt. But no publishing pamphlets complaining about government for you, buddy... EVER. And no typing in C-D forum about that same subject, either. And if you even try, we'll know, through our contacts in the NSA.

These are merely "reasonable restrictions" on your freedom of religion, and of the press... no worse than the "reasonable restrictions" on that other explicitly guaranteed Constitutional right, to keep and bear arms. How can you object to any of them?

[aboutime]

Can you imagine the reaction if someone was forbidden to become a Catholic or Baptist or what have you, unless he first paid a fee to the government and waited for them to grant him permission to do so?

What if a Federal law were passed saying that you would be thrown in jail if you printed up a bunch of pamphlets saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did a lousy job as President and started handing them out... unless you first applied to the govt for permission to print them up and waited for the OK to come back from Washington DC? Or from your state government?

Might that person worry that, once we grant government the power to restrict us a little, govt might start doing it more and more? Maybe using its power to restrict one side (the side that the party in power doesn't like) from doing its normal publicizing, fundraising, and speechmaking? Have we seen any sign that the government might do such a thing?

The same people who would scream bloody murder over any suggestion of such laws, are fine with similar laws forbidding you to own a gun or carry it in your pocket, unless you first pay a fee to the govt, fill out a bunch of forms, jump thru other hoops, and then wait for permission to come back from the government. If you carry the gun in your pocket without doing all that, you can be thrown in jail, stuck with LARGE fines, and/or have the govt's "permission" to own and carry, permanently revoked.

BTW, as for the guy who has to get govt permission before publishing and handing out his pamphlet... would he be OK with it if the government permanently DENIED him permission to publish it, because they found out that, thirty years ago, he'd been busted for going on a joyride with some friends in a car that one of them had stolen during a drunken spree in college way back then? Nobody got hurt. But no publishing pamphlets complaining about government for you, buddy... EVER. And no typing in C-D forum about that same subject, either. And if you even try, we'll know, through our contacts in the NSA.

These are merely "reasonable restrictions" on your freedom of religion, and of the press... no worse than the "reasonable restrictions" on that other explicitly guaranteed Constitutional right, to keep and bear arms. How can you object to any of them?


Little-Acorn. Basically. Everything you described, or asked above equates to become the backbone of Communism, or Socialism.

We are all in DEEP DOO DOO if our government ever gets that much power.

[revelarts]

Acorn just make sure you fill out your form to have your protest march for the gun rights.
or get in your free speech zone.
That's all i got to say.

[Thunderknuckles]

Acorn, I don't have an issue with "reasonable restrictions" on Constitutional rights. The key word being "reasonable". As an example, Lincoln temporarily suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War but it was restored after. There are a number of other historical examples of restricting rights but they are usually based on some extraordinary event and the restriction is temporary. Today, we have the "War on Terror" which does not appear to have an "official" expiration date, hence once a restriction on rights or liberty is put in place it appears to stay in place in perpetuity. "Reasonable" restrictions thus become "unreasonable" as far as I am concerned.

[Larrymc]

Can you imagine the reaction if someone was forbidden to become a Catholic or Baptist or what have you, unless he first paid a fee to the government and waited for them to grant him permission to do so?

What if a Federal law were passed saying that you would be thrown in jail if you printed up a bunch of pamphlets saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did a lousy job as President and started handing them out... unless you first applied to the govt for permission to print them up and waited for the OK to come back from Washington DC? Or from your state government?

Might that person worry that, once we grant government the power to restrict us a little, govt might start doing it more and more? Maybe using its power to restrict one side (the side that the party in power doesn't like) from doing its normal publicizing, fundraising, and speechmaking? Have we seen any sign that the government might do such a thing?

The same people who would scream bloody murder over any suggestion of such laws, are fine with similar laws forbidding you to own a gun or carry it in your pocket, unless you first pay a fee to the govt, fill out a bunch of forms, jump thru other hoops, and then wait for permission to come back from the government. If you carry the gun in your pocket without doing all that, you can be thrown in jail, stuck with LARGE fines, and/or have the govt's "permission" to own and carry, permanently revoked.

BTW, as for the guy who has to get govt permission before publishing and handing out his pamphlet... would he be OK with it if the government permanently DENIED him permission to publish it, because they found out that, thirty years ago, he'd been busted for going on a joyride with some friends in a car that one of them had stolen during a drunken spree in college way back then? Nobody got hurt. But no publishing pamphlets complaining about government for you, buddy... EVER. And no typing in C-D forum about that same subject, either. And if you even try, we'll know, through our contacts in the NSA.

These are merely "reasonable restrictions" on your freedom of religion, and of the press... no worse than the "reasonable restrictions" on that other explicitly guaranteed Constitutional right, to keep and bear arms. How can you object to any of them?This is why we have to resist even the small things, As for as guns Until Gov, can stop and identify criminals with guns, there should be no discussion on controlling guns to law abiding citizens!

[red state]

I just had to come back to this topic. That is a fantastic analogy you came up with. EXTREMELY LOGICAL. I can't say that I've ever thought about it that way.

The 2nd Amendment is my conceal/carry permit and I do have a problem with even the slightest infringement on OUR rights. The problem with "reasonable" indifferences to the Constitution leaves it up to those in power to define such reasoning and I don't agree with the mind-set or reasoning capabilities at all with the Occupier/LIAR we are now SERVING in OUR White House!!! When he starts to demand weapons from the muSLUm Bro Hood, we can start to talk...but talk will be it cuz he ain't getting my guns without more than talk.

I'm no fan of Ice Cube but in his limited wisdom, he stated to a shocked reporter: "I'll give up my guns when everybody else does." That is more logical than B.O. and his filth can come up with but I'll still keep my guns regardless.

Great thread, by the way!!! Thanks Lil' Acorn!!!! That read was almost as good as the fish I had a lil' while ago...

[Kathianne]

Shoot, I know I'm missing something here, I can see the 'thanks' and the responses. I'm lost though on the analogy, no link or explanation that I can find.

It's got to be me. Help!

[Little-Acorn]

Shoot, I know I'm missing something here, I can see the 'thanks' and the responses. I'm lost though on the analogy, no link or explanation that I can find.

It's got to be me. Help!

Kathianne, I didn't write the OP very well, sorry. I shouldn't have mentioned restrictions on guns. (Yet.)

On another board, I've shortened it to the following:


Who would say these are "reasonable restrictions" to our constitutional rights?

1.) A law-abiding American citizen is forbidden to become a Catholic or Baptist or what have you, unless he first paid a fee to the government and waited for them to grant him permission to do so.

2.) You will be thrown in jail if you print up a bunch of pamphlets saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did a lousy job as President and start handing them out... unless you first apply to the govt for permission to print them up, and wait for the OK to come back from Washington DC. Or from your state government.

3.) If the government finds you had gone on a joyride with some friends in a car that one of them had stolen during a drunken spree in college 30 years ago (nobody got hurt), Government permission to publish pamphlets complaining about Government, will be permanently DENIED. No publishing pamphlets complaining about government for you, buddy... EVER. And no typing in C-D forum about that same subject, either. And if you even try, we'll know, through our contacts in the NSA.

Reasonable restrictions? Why or why not?
Most people there, even liberals, have come back to say that Of course those are NOT reasonable restrictions.

On Monday (maybe sooner) I will present some new examples, showing that IT IS ALREADY LAW in many states that you will also be thrown in jail if you carry a concealed gun without paying the state a fee, filling out lots of papers, waiting a long time, etc. And if you committed a (minor) felony thirty years ago, you can be denied permanently. And I'll ask if THAT is a "reasonable restriction". I'll point out that if I carry a pistol in my pocket (or a holster under my jacket), I'm doing people no more harm than if I'm publishing pamphlets or changing my religion. And my rights to do all three, are equally and explicitly protected by the Constitution.

The results should be interesting. :D

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, I didn't write the OP very well, sorry. I shouldn't have mentioned restrictions on guns. (Yet.)

On another board, I've shortened it to the following:


Most people there, even liberals, have come back to say that Of course those are NOT reasonable restrictions.

On Monday (maybe sooner) I will present some new examples, showing that IT IS ALREADY LAW in many states that you will also be thrown in jail if you carry a concealed gun without paying the state a fee, filling out lots of papers, waiting a long time, etc. And if you committed a (minor) felony thirty years ago, you can be denied permanently. And I'll ask if THAT is a "reasonable restriction". I'll point out that if I carry a pistol in my pocket (or a holster under my jacket), I'm doing people no more harm than if I'm publishing pamphlets or changing my religion. And my rights to do all three, are equally and explicitly protected by the Constitution.

The results should be interesting. :D

Thanks for at least allowing that I'm not losing all of my faculties. ;) LA, what specifically is this in response to? That's where I'm confused. Patriot Act? Something else? Are there some referral links, if not one specific?

[Little-Acorn]

Thanks for at least allowing that I'm not losing all of my faculties. ;) LA, what specifically is this in response to?

It's in response to laws by most states that say you cannot carry a concealed weapon unless you pay lots of fees, fill out lots of papers, jump thru various hoops, wait a long time, etc.

Those states are basically saying they have the authority to ban otherwise-law-abiding people from "bearing arms" under some circumstances.

Crusty, cranky old curmudgeons like me, believe that the 2nd amendment says they have NO authority to ban such people from carrying, concealed or otherwise, period.

They also have no authority to prevent people from publishing pamphlets, changing their religion etc.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It's in response to laws by most states that say you cannot carry a concealed weapon unless you pay lots of fees, fill out lots of papers, jump thru various hoops, wait a long time, etc.

Those states are basically saying they have the authority to ban otherwise-law-abiding people from "bearing arms" under some circumstances.

Crusty, cranky old curmudgeons like me, believe that the 2nd amendment says they have NO authority to ban such people from carrying, concealed or otherwise, period.

They also have no authority to prevent people from publishing pamphlets, changing their religion etc.

Do you have examples (links) of states that charge a fee to be a particular religion, or publish a pamphlet?

[Jeff]

Kathianne, I didn't write the OP very well, sorry. I shouldn't have mentioned restrictions on guns. (Yet.)

On another board, I've shortened it to the following:


Most people there, even liberals, have come back to say that Of course those are NOT reasonable restrictions.

On Monday (maybe sooner) I will present some new examples, showing that IT IS ALREADY LAW in many states that you will also be thrown in jail if you carry a concealed gun without paying the state a fee, filling out lots of papers, waiting a long time, etc. And if you committed a (minor) felony thirty years ago, you can be denied permanently. And I'll ask if THAT is a "reasonable restriction". I'll point out that if I carry a pistol in my pocket (or a holster under my jacket), I'm doing people no more harm than if I'm publishing pamphlets or changing my religion. And my rights to do all three, are equally and explicitly protected by the Constitution.

The results should be interesting. :D

This is the most ridcules of laws of all, I know a man down here that 40 years ago he made a mistake DUI and he did property damage enough to be charged with a felony he hasn't been able to own a gun nor will he ever be able to, this man has turned his life completely around what he did 40 years ago was wrong but he hasn't had a sip of alcohol since he is now a deacon in his church but cant go hunting because he cant buy a gun and many have offered to lend him one and let him hunt there land where as I believe it would be perfectly legal but he wont do it because he is in fear of breaking the law, there should be a waiting period for non violent felonies until they get there rights back , I agree he was wrong but to punish him forever is ridicules

[Little-Acorn]

This is the most ridcules of laws of all, I know a man down here that 40 years ago he made a mistake DUI and he did property damage enough to be charged with a felony he hasn't been able to own a gun nor will he ever be able to, this man has turned his life completely around what he did 40 years ago was wrong but he hasn't had a sip of alcohol since he is now a deacon in his church but cant go hunting because he cant buy a gun and many have offered to lend him one and let him hunt there land where as I believe it would be perfectly legal but he wont do it because he is in fear of breaking the law, there should be a waiting period for non violent felonies until they get there rights back , I agree he was wrong but to punish him forever is ridicules

It's clear that government restrictions forbidding you to exercise a Constitutional right unless you fill out forms, pay fees to government, wait for government to grant you permission to exercise it, in fact violate that constitutional right, whether it's your freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to peaceably assemble, etc.

So it follows that if government also requires you to fill out forms, pay fees to the government, and wait for government to grant you permission to carry a pistol in your pocket, or in a holster under your jacket, or a rifle on a sling over your shoulder, government is equally violating your right to keep and bear arms. Especially if government fines you or throws you in jail for owning or carrying without first filling out all those papers, paying the fees etc. Like the other rights, this one is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, which contains a flat ban on any government infringing your right to own and carry guns or other such weapons. It even contains an expanation of why government is forbidden to take away or restrict your right: A well-armed populace capable of acting effectively together for defense is necessary for security and freedom. For that reason, government can make NO such bans or restrictions.

Obviously government CAN make laws forbidding you from using such weapons to violate the rights of others, by threatening, coercing, killing, injuring them etc., and it does make those laws, as it should.

But as for simply owning a gun, knife, etc. and carrying it with you, either openly or concealed, the government is flatly forbidden to restrict or take away your right to do that. Just as it is forbidden to restrict you from selecting your own religion, making speeches criticizing govt officials, forming or attending peaceful rallies etc.

You may disagree with whether the govt SHOULD be banned from restricting some of those things. And you might even want to change the laws that make it so.

But until you change those laws, they remain in force: Government (any government) cannot forbid or restrict you from making speeches, following your chosen religion, carrying a gun without threatening or hurting anyone, or getting together with others to peaceably discuss whatever you want.

[red state]

It's in response to laws by most states that say you cannot carry a concealed weapon unless you pay lots of fees, fill out lots of papers, jump thru various hoops, wait a long time, etc.

Those states are basically saying they have the authority to ban otherwise-law-abiding people from "bearing arms" under some circumstances.

Crusty, cranky old curmudgeons like me, believe that the 2nd amendment says they have NO authority to ban such people from carrying, concealed or otherwise, period.

They also have no authority to prevent people from publishing pamphlets, changing their religion etc.

Little Acorn, I TOTALLY agree. What is so terrible is that (IF) you go through all that trouble and money AND submitting to information that could come back to bite you in the @$$, you still do NOT have the RIGHT or liberty to carry conceal. I say this because you can quickly be ILLEGAL if you are not concealing [perfectly] OR if you are in a township or State or "other" where it is illegal to carry. Most gov. buildings are NO GUN zones so you are in violation even if you are within a certain distance of some gov. establishments. One would think that you'd (at least) be legal within a gov. area/building once you have complied to THEIR demands. But you are NOT. I find it ridiculous to try and be LEGAL in so many "zones" where you'd be illegal even if you are TRYING to be legal. Besides, registering guns (of any kind) only help the process by which they know who has what, how many and where to go when it comes time to confiscate them. SCREW 'EM is the best policy. I try to stay legal and try to stay or visit (through and TO) places that are FREE and have law enforcement with common sense. That's hard to do now-a-days....especially when Red States such as TN allow folks to be groped on the side of the road (as you may expect when airport security violates American rights).

You, my friend, have made a very good point and most of us have been on the same page since you started the thread. I believe you worded it well and expressed the tyranny we now faced with bold prudency.

Thanks for a fantastic point and a great thread!!!!

[red state]

I've mentioned this before in other threads but even Red States have fallen victim to these unConstitutional "laws". In Mississippi, for example, the Fish & Game commission are used to further the tyranny we see from the Federal Gov. During deer season, they had made a law that prevented you from having ANY fire arm (loaded) and with easy access of that weapon's ammunition. They did this to make it easier for the game wardens to catch illegal poachers from killing animals from the roads. I don't agree with these vermin killing in such a manner (due to safety and unsportsmanlike issues) but that law is (or was) unConstitutional. An unloaded gun with its clip or ammo FAR out of reach from being "activated" defeats the purpose of having such a weapon. I'm not sure it is still in effect but it was a bad law and now Mississippi has opened up a can of worms on a law that the State has had since before it was a state. I am not sure what hunting licenses cost in any State because (as a land owner) I have not bought one since these terrible laws such as this and the laws that have made it possible to massacre wildlife through the killing of doe and a higher kill rate with an invite from out of state folks. This was done because the insurance companies lobbied to wipe out our deer (because of accidents). That is well and good for some areas (but not State-wide).

You see, my point is that we force laws on some because of the actions or stats from "bad apple" elements (be it bad people or bad predicaments in other areas).

Again, great posts and I agree totally. The 1st and 2nd Amendment (IS) our conceal/open carry permit and our permit to OPENLY speak our mind.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Acorn, I don't have an issue with "reasonable restrictions" on Constitutional rights. The key word being "reasonable". As an example, Lincoln temporarily suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War but it was restored after. There are a number of other historical examples of restricting rights but they are usually based on some extraordinary event and the restriction is temporary. Today, we have the "War on Terror" which does not appear to have an "official" expiration date, hence once a restriction on rights or liberty is put in place it appears to stay in place in perpetuity. "Reasonable" restrictions thus become "unreasonable" as far as I am concerned. "unreasonable" rapidly becomes "intolerable", this the government knows and that's exactly why they want to take our guns. And --take-- is the right word because they know we will not just give them up. Not--- on their worthless, sorry ass lives--- will we just hand them over. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Paying the government for the right to hunt is itself an Unconstitutional action. Which is no different than the King forbidding the peasants to take any game out of his woods(all of them were his woods)!! Private land , it should be the owner that grants any hunting rights there. On public land it should be free to all to hunt with no license or permit required. Encroachments upon our rights have been coming fast, hard and heavy for at least a century. Tis' just about to reach a breaking point methinks..-Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

It's clear that government restrictions forbidding you to exercise a Constitutional right unless you fill out forms, pay fees to government, wait for government to grant you permission to exercise it, in fact violate that constitutional right, whether it's your freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to peaceably assemble, etc.

So it follows that if government also requires you to fill out forms, pay fees to the government, and wait for government to grant you permission to carry a pistol in your pocket, or in a holster under your jacket, or a rifle on a sling over your shoulder, government is equally violating your right to keep and bear arms. Especially if government fines you or throws you in jail for owning or carrying without first filling out all those papers, paying the fees etc. Like the other rights, this one is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, which contains a flat ban on any government infringing your right to own and carry guns or other such weapons. It even contains an expanation of why government is forbidden to take away or restrict your right: A well-armed populace capable of acting effectively together for defense is necessary for security and freedom. For that reason, government can make NO such bans or restrictions.

Obviously government CAN make laws forbidding you from using such weapons to violate the rights of others, by threatening, coercing, killing, injuring them etc., and it does make those laws, as it should.

But as for simply owning a gun, knife, etc. and carrying it with you, either openly or concealed, the government is flatly forbidden to restrict or take away your right to do that. Just as it is forbidden to restrict you from selecting your own religion, making speeches criticizing govt officials, forming or attending peaceful rallies etc.

You may disagree with whether the govt SHOULD be banned from restricting some of those things. And you might even want to change the laws that make it so.

But until you change those laws, they remain in force: Government (any government) cannot forbid or restrict you from making speeches, following your chosen religion, carrying a gun without threatening or hurting anyone, or getting together with others to peaceably discuss whatever you want.

Dad filled out no forms to own his guns. I inherited all of his guns. I to this day have never filled out forms to own his guns.

In 1964, I purchased my first big game rifle in CA. Not a single form was filled out.

The first year I filled out a form to purchase a pistol from a gun store was 1983, I bought a military rifle later from a gun store and again filled out forms. I sold half a dozen guns to buyers privately.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Little-Acorn http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=653086#post653086)

It's in response to laws by most states that say you cannot carry a concealed weapon unless you pay lots of fees, fill out lots of papers, jump thru various hoops, wait a long time, etc.

Those states are basically saying they have the authority to ban otherwise-law-abiding people from "bearing arms" under some circumstances.

Crusty, cranky old curmudgeons like me, believe that the 2nd amendment says they have NO authority to ban such people from carrying, concealed or otherwise, period.

They also have no authority to prevent people from publishing pamphlets, changing their religion etc.




Do you have examples (links) of states that charge a fee to be a particular religion, or publish a pamphlet?

No?

[Marcus Aurelius]

...I sold half a dozen guns to buyers privately.

when?

[red state]

Paying the government for the right to hunt is itself an Unconstitutional action. Which is no different than the King forbidding the peasants to take any game out of his woods(all of them were his woods)!! Private land , it should be the owner that grants any hunting rights there. On public land it should be free to all to hunt with no license or permit required. Encroachments upon our rights have been coming fast, hard and heavy for at least a century. Tis' just about to reach a breaking point methinks..-Tyr

Tyr, what can I say but :clap: BRAVO and SPOT ON (as usual) http://www.picgifs.com/sport-graphics/sport-graphics/archery/sport-graphics-archery-269838.gif

->>>>>==========> ->>>>>==========> ->>>>>==========> ->>>>>==========>

Now for my take on things and what appears to be deja'vu. The KING has once again infiltrated the colonists. The "KING" decided to force the Scot/Cherokee from their land in the 1830's, then the KING saw fit to declare war on Southern States simply because of their unwillingness to pay taxes that the North did not have to pay. war was also declared because of the South's eagerness to secede. As the industrialization of the North "grew" their population also grew, so their votes imposed, to some degree, taxation without representation. More specifically, this growth enabled the North to pass laws that taxed import; which forced the South to buy from the North. If it were because of slavery (and it was to some degree and after the fact), the Feds should have allowed the South to phase out slavery just as the North was allowed to slowly phase out the evils of slavery; but make no mistake about it, even the North had a bit of slavery among their ranks so the main issue was indeed secession. The federal gov. had shown it's bullying head and this is why many Scots and Cherokee (and even blacks) were among those who fought as Confederates. They had never owned slaves or had a need for them in the mountains of TN/NC. There were a few in the Delta regions that dreamed of one day having slaves but for the most part, it was regular "Joes" fighting a gov. that had abused them and continued to treat them as anything but equal. Then came the early years of the 1900's with Wilson (unfortunately a Scot....as was Jackson and Grant). At any rate, Wilson gave us some of our first tastes of socialism. Look, the US needs land from time to time and they must build highways but to dictate and force citizens to buy this or that from this person or that is WRONG and we're seeing it with [Obama Care Less]. They've seen how they can get their foot in the door with gun rights and they've now branched out to all kinds of threats to our Constitution. Once they have spread their disease or cancer throughout the body, it is only a matter of time before the BODY completely shuts down.

I know I was all over the place with this reply but Tyr has once again brought out the injun in me. This country has had its highest peaks and it has also seen some of the darkest and for the life of me....I don't know why we can't continue to IMPROVE rather than emulate other nations who have clearly failed. WE ARE AMERICAN and we have our own way. If we could snap our fingers and see those who would TAKE gone tomorrow, I truly believe that tomorrow would be the beginnings of a new PEAK and an entirely higher plain than we have ever known. THEY are holding US back and I hope in 2014 and then in 2016 we can begin a new.

WE need tax but we don't need our lands, businesses and homes taken from us through Rich/DEATH/Inheritance Taxation. We don't need to take from one and give to another but if we must, those receiving benefits need to be those who truly can not work. Those who would TAKE our guns and leave us at the mercy of those whom B.O. and Holder have given assault weapons and easy access into our Nation need to be labeled as traitors! I would dare say that their abuse of power and race baiting before, during and after the Zman trial (not to mention their concealing the truth of Benghazi) should lay the groundwork for 'dismissal'. Those who would plan the demise of our right to worship by forcing us to fund abortion or perform ceremonies, that many Americans deem as perversion, need to see the wrath of OUR vote. Those who would force us from the [BENCH & Gavel] to purchase an inferior health insurance that has little to do with CARE and more to do with CONTROL should be faced with a VOTE instead of being appointed FOR LIFE. And for those who serve as COMMANDER IN CHIEF should have served (honorably) within the ranks of at least one of our military branches.

Much can be done to salvage this Nation and the points above are certainly good starting places.

Tyr, you need to stop riling me up but what I said sure felt good to get out. Again....spot on my friend! http://www.picgifs.com/sport-graphics/sport-graphics/archery/sport-graphics-archery-269838.gif

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, what can I say but :clap: BRAVO and SPOT ON (as usual) http://www.picgifs.com/sport-graphics/sport-graphics/archery/sport-graphics-archery-269838.gif

->>>>>==========> ->>>>>==========> ->>>>>==========> ->>>>>==========>

Now for my take on things and what appears to be deja'vu. The KING has once again infiltrated the colonists. The "KING" decided to force the Scot/Cherokee from their land in the 1830's, then the KING saw fit to declare war on Southern States simply because of their unwillingness to pay taxes that the North did not have to pay. war was also declared because of the South's eagerness to secede. As the industrialization of the North "grew" their population also grew, so their votes imposed, to some degree, taxation without representation. More specifically, this growth enabled the North to pass laws that taxed import; which forced the South to buy from the North. If it were because of slavery (and it was to some degree and after the fact), the Feds should have allowed the South to phase out slavery just as the North was allowed to slowly phase out the evils of slavery; but make no mistake about it, even the North had a bit of slavery among their ranks so the main issue was indeed secession. The federal gov. had shown it's bullying head and this is why many Scots and Cherokee (and even blacks) were among those who fought as Confederates. They had never owned slaves or had a need for them in the mountains of TN/NC. There were a few in the Delta regions that dreamed of one day having slaves but for the most part, it was regular "Joes" fighting a gov. that had abused them and continued to treat them as anything but equal. Then came the early years of the 1900's with Wilson (unfortunately a Scot....as was Jackson and Grant). At any rate, Wilson gave us some of our first tastes of socialism. Look, the US needs land from time to time and they must build highways but to dictate and force citizens to buy this or that from this person or that is WRONG and we're seeing it with [Obama Care Less]. They've seen how they can get their foot in the door with gun rights and they've now branched out to all kinds of threats to our Constitution. Once they have spread their disease or cancer throughout the body, it is only a matter of time before the BODY completely shuts down.

I know I was all over the place with this reply but Tyr has once again brought out the injun in me. This country has had its highest peaks and it has also seen some of the darkest and for the life of me....I don't know why we can't continue to IMPROVE rather than emulate other nations who have clearly failed. WE ARE AMERICAN and we have our own way. If we could snap our fingers and see those who would TAKE gone tomorrow, I truly believe that tomorrow would be the beginnings of a new PEAK and an entirely higher plain than we have ever known. THEY are holding US back and I hope in 2014 and then in 2016 we can begin a new.

WE need tax but we don't need our lands, businesses and homes taken from us through Rich/DEATH/Inheritance Taxation. We don't need to take from one and give to another but if we must, those receiving benefits need to be those who truly can not work. Those who would TAKE our guns and leave us at the mercy of those whom B.O. and Holder have given assault weapons and easy access into our Nation need to be labeled as traitors! I would dare say that their abuse of power and race baiting before, during and after the Zman trial (not to mention their concealing the truth of Benghazi) should lay the groundwork for 'dismissal'. Those who would plan the demise of our right to worship by forcing us to fund abortion or perform ceremonies, that many Americans deem as perversion, need to see the wrath of OUR vote. Those who would force us from the [BENCH & Gavel] to purchase an inferior health insurance that has little to do with CARE and more to do with CONTROL should be faced with a VOTE instead of being appointed FOR LIFE. And for those who serve as COMMANDER IN CHIEF should have served (honorably) within the ranks of at least one of our military branches.

Much can be done to salvage this Nation and the points above are certainly good starting places.

Tyr, you need to stop riling me up but what I said sure felt good to get out. Again....spot on my friend! http://www.picgifs.com/sport-graphics/sport-graphics/archery/sport-graphics-archery-269838.gif A truly great post my friend. Feels good to let the 'Injun" out doesn't it?:clap: I am glad that you can still be so optimistic but for the life of me I can not find that optimism myself. I see a great and epic time of misery and woe before us and do think its God's wrath coming upon us for our sins. We as a nation and as culture have pretty much turned our backs on Christianity and doing that allows for the harvesting of great misery and woes. That 'ole wheel of justice indeed does grind ever so slow but it also grinds ever so exceedingly fine too, none escape its grinding. I hope to be absolutely wrong on this but seriously doubt that I am. Obama is just the start of it and we all need to stand up for this nation to be what it was intended to be!--Tyr

[red state]

I agree but I will always have some slither of hope. God has commissioned us to toil till He comes. We are to look to the skies each and every morning with an expectation that TODAY is the day but we are not to simply sit and wait. We are to witness to others, do the best we can at our jobs and strive to be as much like HIM as humanly possible.

Having said this, I do believe you are correct because I see a "strong delusion" that God WILL send after WE have rejected Him for the last time (whatever that last time is or will be). There is no mention of The USA in Bible prophecy and, like you, I believe we will eventually dwindle into the cesspool that the filthy liberals wish us to become. I would at least hope that we'd go out in in a blaze of glory and under the hand our our EXTERNAL enemies in a REAL knock down/drag out fight but it seems that we will go 'gently' into that good tolerant night where the few rule.

There are no Biblical signs to prevent the Lord coming from His Church and once the church is removed...all hell (quite literally) will break loose. I truly believe that the antichrist has been somewhere in the world for a long time now and also believe that he is in power somewhere and simply waiting on God to remove His hand that has served as a hedge from Satan's full wrath/Control. America must go and GOD & His church must go before this can be allowed to take place. The only signs that I'm aware of that are still yet to come will be during the seven years of TOTAL, one world rule of the one who will attempt to emulate God. One of such signs will come from a ruler who will establish peace among the Jews and muSLUMS. Then the temple will be rebuilt but instead of the temple being for Jehovah....this "ruler" will sit as king and demand that he is the god that all of man should worship. The muSLUMS call this man the Mahadi and when considering the muSLUM way, their is a distinct coalition as to how violent, tyrannical and evil the cult of iSLUM and the prophesied seven year tribulation will be when a third of man will be destroyed.

In those times....as we are seeing in our own time, there will be NO "reasonable restrictions" because ALL the world will be under one rule and under a type of Sharia Law. Few will accept Christ during the days of delusion and the turning over to a reprobate mind but All who are able to hear and profess the true Christ will be murdered. I believe this will come after the 144,000 witnesses from the Jewish Christians have preached worldwide by the side of (in my opinion) Enoch and Elijah because neither died and it is appointed (at least) ONCE for man/woman to die. When the time is right, God will allow these two witness to be killed and for all the world to see it simultaneously. For years folks couldn't grasp how this would be possible but we see world news presented every day simultaneously. So much is becoming more and more clear to those with an open mind and I still hope that The USA will NOT go so easy into these leftist sewers and slaughter houses.

Sorry to get religious but ALL these things must happen and I truly believe this is what we are seeing in America today.....a preparation for what is to come but that is not to say that we are to simply shrug our shoulders. WE are AMERICANS and we are God's light to the entire world and as long as we fight or are able to fight....there's hope for the rest of the world.

B.O. and the leftists are dismantling our freedoms for a reason and with tactical purpose. We've seen how America is now the iSLUMists right hand man and it amazes me still that we have no leadership to STAND and lend their voice against all the things that are so VERY unAmerican.

[Larrymc]

A truly great post my friend. Feels good to let the 'Injun" out doesn't it?:clap: I am glad that you can still be so optimistic but for the life of me I can not find that optimism myself. I see a great and epic time of misery and woe before us and do think its God's wrath coming upon us for our sins. We as a nation and as culture have pretty much turned our backs on Christianity and doing that allows for the harvesting of great misery and woes. That 'ole wheel of justice indeed does grind ever so slow but it also grinds ever so exceedingly fine too, none escape its grinding. I hope to be absolutely wrong on this but seriously doubt that I am. Obama is just the start of it and we all need to stand up for this nation to be what it was intended to be!--TyrWell said its not Gods wrath yet, its the choices of man. If the masses could take to hart a couple of quotes, All that is need for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing, and If those who are called by my name will humble them selves and repent i will heal there land, I think the county is still filled with those who hope for a move back to the Country that our Founders meant, but we are to busy, and there's no Platform for like minded people to all come together. In our history revolution was the way of change but today people or to busy and greedy, I know because that was me when i was working and trying to raise a family, So whats the answer??

[red state]

[I]Larrymc;653510]Well said its not Gods wrath yet, its the choices of man. If the masses could take to hart a couple of quotes, All that is need for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing, and If those who are called by my name will humble them selves and repent i will heal there land, I think the county is still filled with those who hope for a move back to the Country that our Founders meant, but we are to busy, and there's no Platform for like minded people to all come together. In our history revolution was the way of change but today people or to busy and greedy, I know because that was me when i was working and trying to raise a family, So whats the answer??


If what you say is true (and I don't doubt it or disagree with it at all) but the answer may very well lie within our going through another "trail of tears" or the KING's men breaking down our doors (as with Katrina, and FEMA's confiscation in Kansas where over 350 firearms were TAKEN and only 1/4 have been returned). They also painted the homes that survived the tornadoes to signify that these homes were in need of being "secured". After the confiscation (as with Katrina) the criminals were able to continue their looting (even with the owners present). Katrina was a travesty and we should remember that awful time in our history even more so than the Alamo (in my opinion). The mass crimes including robbery, looting, rapes and murder were placed upon a defenseless people at the hand or our gov and FEMA should be dismantled and those in charge tried for treason. Now that I've mentioned it....I'm not sure a house to house, door to door invasion from Big Bro/Sis would wake us because we just saw an injustice in Boston that may very well be the way we now deal with "security" and the bullying of WE THE PEOPLE. Even within this very Conservative site, I see those who see nothing wrong with the injustices placed upon our neighbors.

[red state]

NOTE: At the very least, and in instances where actual door to door confiscation did not take place (as with certain areas of the Kansas tornado or the recent EVACUATION of law abiding citizens in Boston)....one thing to consider here is could YOU legally carry/brandish firearms if your home or vehicle was damaged or forced you from said home of vehicle? Legally, many places mandate that your firearm be in your home or in your vehicle.

Within certain areas of our Nation, you are in violation of LAW if you are in possession of a firearm if your home is in rubble or in way of a major fire. Even openly displaying or brandishing of a rifle or shotgun could get you harassed, arrested or killed. I imagine (if in such a State or community where our Constitution has been dismantled) your right to self preservation may be severely limited or cease to exist once you lose a wall, a roof or a car in which to HIDE and stifle your Constitutional rights.

So, what is your LEGAL (not necessarily your Constitutional right) IF you find yourself suddenly forced from your home or vehicle? Are laws have shredded the Constitution and with the cornerstone removed.....we may already be too late to prevent our great establishment from crumbling. If forced by nature or gov. to abandon your home or vehicle should not force you to abandon your GOD given right of self preservation (but our laws in MANY places do just that) and in the most crucial times where we probably need our firearms.

Truly, we have no rights (other than what certain folks who abuse their power allows).

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here's a lesson on what's wrong with so-called " reasonable restrictions"!! Consider this and even better click on the link to read the entire thing. http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians. Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”
When the Massachusetts Assembly convened, General Gage declared it illegal, so the representatives reassembled as the “Provincial Congress.” On October 26, 1774, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress adopted a resolution condemning military rule, and criticizing Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.” The Provincial Congress urged all militia companies to organize and elect their own officers. At least a quarter of the militia (the famous Minute Men) were directed to “equip and hold themselves in readiness to march at the shortest notice.” The Provincial Congress further declared that everyone who did not already have a gun should get one, and start practicing with it diligently.
In flagrant defiance of royal authority, the Provincial Congress appointed a Committee of Safety and vested it with the power to call forth the militia. The militia of Massachusetts was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.
Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America, sent Gage a letter on October 17, 1774, urging him to disarm New England. Gage replied that he would like to do so, but it was impossible without the use of force. After Gage’s letter was made public by a reading in the British House of Commons, it was publicized in America as proof of Britain’s malign intentions.
Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.
Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin was masterminding the surreptitious import of arms and ammunition from the Netherlands, France, and Spain.
The patriotic Boston Committee of Correspondence learned of the arms embargo and promptly dispatched Paul Revere to New Hampshire, with the warning that two British ships were headed to Fort William and Mary, near Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to seize firearms, cannons, and gunpowder. On December 14, 1774, 400 New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort. A New Hampshire newspaper argued that the capture was prudent and proper, reminding readers that the ancient Carthaginians had consented to “deliver up all their Arms to the Romans” and were decimated by the Romans soon after.
In Parliament, a moderate minority favored conciliation with America. Among the moderates was the Duke of Manchester, who warned that America now had three million people, and most of them were trained to use arms. He was certain they could produce a stronger army than Great Britain.
The Massachusetts Provincial Congress offered to purchase as many arms and bayonets as could be delivered to the next session of the Congress. Massachusetts also urged American gunsmiths “diligently to apply themselves” to making guns for everyone who did not already have a gun. A few weeks earlier, the Congress had resolved: “That it be strongly recommended, to all the inhabitants of this colony, to be diligently attentive to learning the use of arms . . . .”
Derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke, the ideology underlying all forms of American resistance was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights; from the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant.
The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.
The troubles in New England inflamed the other colonies. Patrick Henry’s great speech to the Virginia legislature on March 23, 1775, argued that the British plainly meant to subjugate America by force. Because every attempt by the Americans at peaceful reconciliation had been rebuffed, the only remaining alternatives for the Americans were to accept slavery or to take up arms. If the Americans did not act soon, the British would soon disarm them, and all hope would be lost. “The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us,” he promised.
The Convention formed a committee—including Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson—“to prepare a plan for the embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient” to defend the commonwealth. The Convention urged “that every Man be provided with a good Rifle” and “that every Horseman be provided . . . with Pistols and Holsters, a Carbine, or other Firelock.” When the Virginia militiamen assembled a few weeks later, many wore canvas hunting shirts adorned with the motto “Liberty or Death.”
In South Carolina, patriots established a government, headed by the “General Committee.” The Committee described the British arms embargo as a plot to disarm the Americans in order to enslave them. Thus, the Committee recommended that “all persons” should “immediately” provide themselves with a large quantity of ammunition.
Without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors. In Virginia, George Washington and George Mason organized the Fairfax Independent Militia Company. The Fairfax militiamen pledged that “we will, each of us, constantly keep by us” a firelock, six pounds of gunpowder, and twenty pounds of lead. Other independent militia embodied in Virginia along the same model. Independent militia also formed in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maryland, and South Carolina, choosing their own officers.
John Adams praised the newly constituted Massachusetts militia, “commanded through the province, not by men who procured their commissions from a governor as a reward for making themselves pimps to his tools.”
The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

[aboutime]

Personally. I do not believe in, nor should there be, anything called 'Reasonable Restrictions' to our Constitution.

The Constitution should be followed, and administered....AS WRITTEN.

The authors of the document included the ability to add Amendments. NOT reasonable restrictions. PERIOD.