RE: Calls for Anti-II Amendment Legislation, Guns & Ammo, and Internet Bans

[pcosmar]

And hence, such fear is perfectly justified.

Did you just attempt to justify an emotional argument? ,, after accusing me of using an emotional argument?

How about we just stick to facts,,
Nutter,,crazy,mentally defective, etc. Have been used by governments to lock up and silence dissent. Russia became famous for this.
Anyone that spoke out against oppression was crazy.
Our own Government was running some truly evil programs in collusion with Psyche doctors.
Mind Control and several nasty drug programs. Those are not the type of people that I would care to have deciding anyone's fate.

And then there is the question of "Felonies" And nearly anything is a felony these days, from bouncing a check to a roach in an ashtray.

I got my last one for a Gun that I did not own, wasn't using and had committed no crime with ever.
Simply because it was hanging unloaded on a wall in my home.

There are tens of thousands of people in jails for Non-violent "offenses".

Hell,,a person can lose their rights in a divorce proceeding without ever making a threat.

Gun Control is nothing but social control. And I have heard your shit before.

 

[Weston White]

Sorry, I don't watch crappy TV shows.

Neither was your opinion of the show the point; however, the point was its plot in reference, which is an entirely plausible scenario. That is that Tony had gone to Junior’s home to check on him and bring him some groceries, while Junior for whatever reason (e.g., the onset of mental illness) thought that Tony was there to kill him. So Junior quickly grabs a hidden revolver and shoots a round into Tony and then runs to hid from him. Later it was medically determined that Junior was in the process of becoming senile and was placed into a secured care facility (IIRC).

Again, might makes right. Government has a monopoly on legal force so it can somehow be trusted to abide by its own laws? Yet those same enforces when not in service to state are too dangerous to grant such priviledge?

Our government consists of the very people that it has been consigned to protect within the breadth of its constitutionality (as necessary and proper), such having been timelessly established through the public trust; the inherent (i.e., quid pro quo) purpose of America’s government is to express value in maintaining the birthright of our social structure, while further ensuring confidence in the entirety of the public’s interest and safety.

Also, in America all citizens are guaranteed such rights as to redress, due process, habeas corpus, et al. Sadly, the Executive has been ceaselessly working to abandon those very rights, while encouraging the populace to forfeit them as well; meanwhile, the majority of our Legislature keeps silent on the entire matter, as does also a large portion of the population. Hence, it is now (long past the) time for (us) the masses to rise in proactivity against such draconian usurpations and to expressly damn that coffin.

What?! A guy gets drafted against his will to fight a no-win war under impossible-to-imagine conditions, and he's now a criminal? How about we stop sending young Americans off to die. Seems like an easier fix to me.

I am not sure what you are referring to, but drafts are only legal in-order to repeal invasion within the borders of the United States of America and not to send people overseas for the advancement of political agendas. Anything to the contrary must be voluntary on the part of the individual and even still Congress is to first declare war. The President of the United States of America may also serve as the acting command-in-chief of the U.S. Military, but this gives him/her not carte blanche to serve out their own personal ambitions or bloodlust.

If you want to punish someone keep them in prison. Once out, they have paid their debt to society.

Our U.S. Constitution stipulates only that reasonable fines and penalties be imposed upon conviction for having committed wrongdoing. There is no mention of social absolution, for such an act of graciousness is properly left to the discretion of those who were actually victimized and may otherwise be lawfully addressed through the civil courts. Criminal convictions are about providing a justified means of adequate punishment and nothing more.

Pointedly, an individual that displays a propensity for using firearms to provide themselves an advantage in (provoking) acts of selfishness deserves not a right to keep and bear arms. Along with the establishment of individual “rights” are also individual “duties” and “responsibilities”.

 

[Weston White]

Did you just attempt to justify an emotional argument? ,, after accusing me of using an emotional argument?

No, I have been providing logical reasoning to justify my reasoning.

How about we just stick to facts,,
Nutter,,crazy,mentally defective, etc. Have been used by governments to lock up and silence dissent. Russia became famous for this.
Anyone that spoke out against oppression was crazy.
Our own Government was running some truly evil programs in collusion with Psyche doctors.
Mind Control and several nasty drug programs. Those are not the type of people that I would care to have deciding anyone's fate.

Still, such individuals pose a very real threat to both themselves and others and should not be granted free reign to access firearms. The context of this proposal is hardly comparable to the despotic actions taken by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, and others.

And then there is the question of "Felonies" And nearly anything is a felony these days, from bouncing a check to a roach in an ashtray.

I got my last one for a Gun that I did not own, wasn't using and had committed no crime with ever.
Simply because it was hanging unloaded on a wall in my home.

There are tens of thousands of people in jails for Non-violent "offenses".

Hell,,a person can lose their rights in a divorce proceeding without ever making a threat.

Gun Control is nothing but social control. And I have heard your shit before.

As to the issue of stripping felon’s access to firearms, I personally feel that such tact should be limited to those felons that have committed wrongful acts involving the wholly inappropriate or otherwise unjustified use of firearms, rather than implementing simpleminded blanket restrictions.

 

[AFPVet]

There are arguments as to whether the Founders believed that the 2nd Amendment meant open carry/plain view; however, this is not explicit.

 

[phill4paul]

We must all face the consequences of our own actions and misdeeds.

Including worship of state and the states law.

 

[pacelli]

No compromises.

Buy more ammo.

 

[pcosmar]

No, I have been providing logical reasoning to justify my reasoning.

NO,,You haven't.
You have been using your personal fears,,and fictitious TV scripts.

The context of this proposal is hardly comparable to the despotic actions taken by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, and others.

Our government consists of the very people that it has been consigned to protect within the breadth of its constitutionality

Also, in America all citizens are guaranteed such rights as to redress, due process, habeas corpus, et al. Sadly, the Executive has been ceaselessly working to abandon those very rights, while encouraging the populace to forfeit them as well; meanwhile, the majority of our Legislature keeps silent on the entire matter

Completely contradictory statements. It is obvious that you are quite confused.

Do you even understand the reason and purpose of the 2nd amendment?

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

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

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

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

You will notice that none of these deals with certain undesirables,,nor gangs, nor even common criminals. NONE.
The 2nd amendment was meant as a check on government. (and you want to give government the means to remove it)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

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

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

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

The intention of the Founders and Authors of our Constitution is quite clear.
Many more such examples ,
http://www.uhuh.com/guns/2ndquotes.htm

 

[Weston White]

Clearly, obviously, you have taken this thread far out of context that I am not going to follow you down your desired path. You hold a want to make this into an issue that it is not intended to be, i.e., you are now making arguments concerning the militia.

And just to clarify the militia consisted only of, e.g., conscripting all free able-bodied white male citizens, between the ages of 18 and 45.

 

[pcosmar]

Clearly, obviously, you have taken this thread far out of context that I am not going to follow you down your desired path. You hold a want to make this into an issue that it is not intended to be, i.e., you are now making arguments concerning the militia.

And just to clarify the militia consisted only of, e.g., conscripting all free able-bodied white male citizens, between the ages of 18 and 45.

BULLSHIT
You are as full of shit as the day is long. Educate yourself or just shut the fuck up.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
TENCHE COXE

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
PATRICK HENRY

Take your disarmament crap elsewhere.

 

[Weston White]

OK, sounds fair enough to me.

 

[TheTexan]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Can't get any more clear than that IMO

 

[pcosmar]

Can't get any more clear than that IMO

No,, it doesn't. Clear and simple.
And that was my response at the start of this thread.

 

[pcosmar]

Thanks for the move,, This is where it belongs.

 

[ninepointfive]

don't feed the troll!

 

[pcosmar]

don't feed the troll!

RE: Calls for Anti-II Amendment Legislation, Guns & Ammo, and Internet Bans

With the draconian Gun Control suggested,, I am afraid to ask what his plans for the internet are.

 

[pcosmar]

Originally Posted by Weston White
Congratulations, you have just made my ignore list. I ask for you to include me on yours as well. Thank you.

Sorry,, I don't ignore threats to liberty.

 

[WesSeid]

And most people have gone through an entire driver’s education course as it is a requirement for graduation to pass in most all high schools for several decades now.

If you want to require gun classes in high schools in order to graduate, I won't stop you. It wasn't that long ago schools had gun-training classes anyway. Guns are an important foundation of U.S. history and, quite simply, the U.S. itself. People want to teach all sorts of crap in schools yet not teach important subjects like how to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights and the incredible importance of those rights.

Crime is down? No, just as anything else, crimes merely fluctuate from one year to the next.
.

Uh huh. It's "fluctuated" down for, what, 2+ decades now.

I got my last one for a Gun that I did not own, wasn't using and had committed no crime with ever.
Simply because it was hanging unloaded on a wall in my home.

I'm curious to hear more about that.

Gun Control is nothing but social control.

Not to mention gun control in the U.S. is rooted in racism and not wanting black people to be able to protect themselves. As is often the case, the "elites" want the power so the "slaves" can't stop being oppressed.

There are arguments as to whether the Founders believed that the 2nd Amendment meant open carry/plain view; however, this is not explicit.

Well, it's kind of hard to conceal a musket anyway. But I doubt the Founders were too worried about someone wearing a coat while having a pistol in their belt.

 

[WesSeid]

double post

 

[Weston White]

Can't get any more clear than that IMO

Actually, it can get much more clearer; for an example just refer back to the origination of this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nternet-Bans&p=4571356&viewfull=1#post4571356

 

[Weston White]

If you want to require gun classes in high schools in order to graduate, I won't stop you. It wasn't that long ago schools had gun-training classes anyway. Guns are an important foundation of U.S. history and, quite simply, the U.S. itself. People want to teach all sorts of crap in schools yet not teach important subjects like how to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights and the incredible importance of those rights.

Public education gun training children’s schoolrooms; is this really what you think was the point I had attempted to make? Regardless, it is not.

Uh huh. It's "fluctuated" down for, what, 2+ decades now.

So, then you admit that theories in support of further gun control are working after all, that is, you take away access to the guns and the crime rate spirals downward exponentially?

Of course, what you have asserted may be true, mainly through a here and there chance, but in the overall average such is not at all the case, for crime has run amuck in many cities throughout America. While, of course one can throw a handful of change into the air and every once in a while a small group of those coins will land in a cluster -which means absolutely nothing.

Not to mention gun control in the U.S. is rooted in racism and not wanting black people to be able to protect themselves. As is often the case, the "elites" want the power so the "slaves" can't stop being oppressed.

Really now, that entire racism argument had expired long, long ago. Now it is nothing but a herring for the hungry.

And in case you had failed to notice, those “slaves” are not using guns against the “elites”, they’re using them against other “slaves”.

Well, it's kind of hard to conceal a musket anyway. But I doubt the Founders were too worried about someone wearing a coat while having a pistol in their belt.

Sure, unless that person happened to be the town lunatic, drunkard, or robber-pirate, as but a few examples.