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

[AxisMundi]

Shall not be infringed.
I am infringed.

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

Infringed means "removed", not regulated.

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

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

 

[AxisMundi]

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

Wrong link for what?

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

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

 

[LibertyEagle]

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

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

Not to mention jumping to conclusions.

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

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

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

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

YouTube - Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment!

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

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

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

 

[LibertyEagle]

Infringed means "removed", not regulated.

Actually, that's not true.

in·fringe   

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

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

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

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

 

[pcosmar]

Infringed means "removed", not regulated.

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

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

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

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

There still isn't.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AxisMundi]

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

YouTube - Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LibertyEagle]

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

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

 

[Anti Federalist]

Infringed means "removed", not regulated.

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

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

No, it does not.

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

ETA - Whoa, sorry missed this...

my right here in NY

That explains it.

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

Why has this poor bastard not been set free?

Fuck NJ.

No, really.

Originally Posted by Anti Federalist

You lived there osan.

I was born and raised there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same thing in IL and CA.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Axis, here is a book I recommend.

http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Seco...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287942477&sr=1-1

 

[Anti Federalist]

And slavery would have been removed by consensus as well.

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

You make my point.

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

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

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

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

Amend the Constitution if you think it's needed.

 

[rmodel65]

Infringed means "removed", not regulated.

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

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

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

 

[Sola_Fide]

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

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

 

[Dr.3D]

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

Seems like a great idea doesn't it?

 

[AxisMundi]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anti Federalist]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sola_Fide]

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

 

[pcosmar]

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

Disagree. Adamantly.
And until recent times, guns were returned at the end of a sentence. Rights were restored at the end of a sentence.
Most still are.

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

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

 

[AxisMundi]

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[xd9fan]

YouTube - Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World