Goodbye 2nd Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by MillerMan:
they declared war on drugs and can declare war on guns the same way, it's a illegal object, they can put ya away, take your house and car.

it maybe coming


Well, last time I checked-drug posession wasn't protected by the U.S. Constitution
smile.gif
smile.gif
 
they kick down your door for drugs, and they already have kicked down peoples doors for guns, and these people were not drug dealers or criminals

the same principle applies
thumbsdown.gif
 
no, but from a libertarian point of view drug possession is not prohibited either.
smile.gif


prohibition didn't work, the war on drugs won't work, and trying to ban guns won't work either.

when my dad (democrat, btw) was k-8 principal he brought in the local dnr officer once a year to teach hunter safety.

i am opposed to gun control, but i'm all for gun education. they'd certainly be more practical self defense if people were confident in how to use them.

i personally don't have one, but i've been hunting and shooting in the past. if someone broke into my house and i were asleep, they could probably get about 4 shots off before i woke up.

[/qb][/QUOTE]Well, last time I checked-drug posession wasn't protected by the U.S. Constitution
smile.gif
smile.gif
[/QB][/QUOTE]
 
I am not for legalizing drugs, except for MAYBE weed.

but what is going on in this country is not right.
taking a nobody that never hurt anybody and putting them away for years is wrong.
 
paraphrase from Lenin:

If a populace lets government take away their arms, the government should then do with the populace as it wishes....

Dan
 
"taking a nobody that never hurt anybody and putting them away for years is wrong."

Thats not near as bad as "letting a somebody get away with murder". We are losing the war on drugs, I say decriminalize it. Make it a felony to commit a crime, any crime using a firearm. The mandatory drug sentencing rules suck, as do any mandatory sentening rules.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Bob Woods:
"taking a nobody that never hurt anybody and putting them away for years is wrong."

Thats not near as bad as "letting a somebody get away with murder".


You think it's worse to let a guilty man go free, than to punish an innocent? Did I read that correctly? That runs counter to the tradition of law as we know it. In fact, Blackstone so famously said it was actually better to let 10 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent. Our entire criminal justice system is based on this principle.
 
prison/jail is big business these days $$$$$$$$$$$$ prison doesn't really work
I am against mandatory sentences too

But I am not sticking up for murders,rapest, child molestors or repeat violent criminals, these people should never get out.
 
BTW, if the 2nd amendment ever goes, the rest of the bill of rights will be down the tubes. It is the essential right that must be protected or none of the others matter.

At the base of the drug war is the war on private property rights. Before the drug war, property was only subject to forfieture after long, costly proceedings. Now, if a cop feels like it, he can empty your wallet or take your car and you have no recourse. ANYONE can at ANYTIME be arrested on a charge that allows forfieture.

Any number of crimes now kick in the asset forfieture provisions. Legislators love asset forfieture, it adds money to the public purse at litte or no cost.

For example, in Louisiana, the judge, prosector, and the police that take your property divide it up, and the judge that gets a cut decides if it is illegal or not. By definition, it is bad to let the lion guard the sheep....Human nature comes out.

One of the greatest travesties is that right now, the federal government operates a casino it took and operates it at a loss using tax money!

if you really want to get paranoid, look at www.fear.org

Dan

[ January 07, 2004, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]
 
and the right was a big part of starting this, it was both parties, but Bush Sr. really got the ball rolling.

Bush Sr. was very much for gun control, people blame clinton, but Bush Sr. was maybe even worse
 
What is really funny is that this stuff is being attributed to one side or the other politically. No one ever gets it: both are equally responsible....Both sides buy votes by giving our money from the public treasury...both sides use the absolute ignorance of the masses to pass more and more law to take more and more freedom away.

It will only get worse until enough of us get behind and push for freedom over security. It may already be too late, however, Benjamin Franklin's warning is coming true.

Dan
 
quote:

Also think about this, The NRA has the largest data base of gun owners, even larger than the Governments.

Where did you get this? I've been a member of the NRA for 20 years, and not once has the NRA asked me for this info.

quote:

We don't worry about our cars and trucks, and airplanes, (FAA has a online data base that allows anyone to enter the "N" number and find out who owns it) being taken away yet we register them yearly, we gladly fill our product registration cards and mail them in. We leave our electronic thumbprints all over the internet for who knows whom to use as they wish. There are alot of well paid people (lobbyists are expensive) that make a good living out of scaring gunowners into thinking there rights and priviledges are in danger.

You see, that's where you are confused. All the things you mentioned that we don't seem to mind registering are priviledges, gun ownership is a right.

And BTW, gun registration is exactly the means used by Britain and Australia over the years to track and confiscate its citizens (subjects) firearms.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Bob Woods:
But we all know drugs are illegal, if you are in possession you are breaking the law.

True. But there are a lot of unjust laws, and we get into a much more complicated situation regarding their enforcement.

When the founders of this country used the phrase "inalienable rights", they meant that all responsible people inherently have these rights from God or Nature, regardless of what any government might say or do. Governments may fail to recognize these rights, but that doesn't mean the rights don't exist. Such governments are merely tyrannies refusing to recognize basic laws of nature.

Or, as Dickens said so succinctly, sometimes "The law is an *** !".
 
"You see, that's where you are confused. All the things you mentioned that we don't seem to mind registering are priviledges, gun ownership is a right.

unsure what your saying here, hunting and fishing is not a right, courts have held that it is a priviledge, not a right. and the same goes for guns too, even the NRA which claims that it is a right, fails and supports gun control, that effectively makes it a priviledge, not a right
 
Ah yes, one of our flaws; referring to our privileges as our rights, and to the rights of others as entitlements.
But seriously, I don't know about that.
 
I never said that hunting/fishing was a right. I said that gun ownership is a right, as mentioned in the Constitution.
 
Well, actually, the "right" stated was the right to bear ARMS, it doesn't specifically say GUNS.
So, I guess you could take it as far as you want and say we're allowed to bear SAM's, TOW missiles, M-60's, chemical weapons, etc.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MarkC:
Well, actually, the "right" stated was the right to bear ARMS, it doesn't specifically say GUNS.
So, I guess you could take it as far as you want and say we're allowed to bear SAM's, TOW missiles, M-60's, chemical weapons, etc.


I hope you're joking.

The framers were quite clear about exactly what they meant in writing the constitution and the bill of rights. Anyone who claims the term "arms", or the intent of the 2nd amendment is ambiguous, is joking, misleading the public, or utterly ignorant of history.

The Federalist Papers make this quite clear (especially #29), as do other documents they wrote at the time. Nobody familiar with these works could seriously question the meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MillerMan:
And the same goes for guns too, even the NRA which claims that it is a right, fails and supports gun control, that effectively makes it a priviledge, not a right

When the NRA claims it is a right, they are consistent with constitutional scholars, numerous supreme court decisions, and with anyone familiar with the historical documents.

It is utterly fallacious to suggest that the fact that it can be regulated, means it's a not a right. Every right has regulation and control to prevent abuse. The fact that is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or to publish libel, does not make free speech a privilege.

The difference between a right and a privilege is the nature of how it is regulated. A privilege can be revoked for any reason, or for no reason. Regulation of a right must pass a much higher bar of muster. Rights can only be regulated when the regulation establishes a compelling state interest in mitigating abuse while not significantly impairing anyone in its reasonable and lawful exercise.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MRC01:

quote:

Originally posted by MarkC:
Well, actually, the "right" stated was the right to bear ARMS, it doesn't specifically say GUNS.
So, I guess you could take it as far as you want and say we're allowed to bear SAM's, TOW missiles, M-60's, chemical weapons, etc.


I hope you're joking.

The framers were quite clear about exactly what they meant in writing the constitution and the bill of rights. Anyone who claims the term "arms", or the intent of the 2nd amendment is ambiguous, is joking, misleading the public, or utterly ignorant of history.

The Federalist Papers make this quite clear (especially #29), as do other documents they wrote at the time. Nobody familiar with these works could seriously question the meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment.


Oh man....now I suppose I have to get rid of my anti-aircraft battery. And it was so handy in repelling those pesky black helicopters.

Seriously, what's your interpretation of the Second Amendment, and how much regulation and what type did Hamilton have in mind?
Before you get you hackles up, I'm not being a smartass(right now, at least), I'd just like your thoughts and reasoning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top