I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)

[Progun]

Hey Hermie, Maybe you just don't understand that paranoia really means "an UNREASONABLE fear or suspicion". The National Rifle Association has had a long history of very reasonable with just cause suspicion of policy makers who don't even hide their attempts with a facade in their attempts to legislate gun owners out of their constitutionally protected RIGHTS. The National Rifle Association and their affiliated instructors have taught more people how to safely handle and lawfully use firearms than ANY other group or any so called STATE or FEDERAL training programs. Just look to the CMP, Eddie Eagle, Police and Military shooting programs for examples.All of this free training comes from Volunteers who are not supported by tax dollars. The "problem" that you blindly fail to see is that you are willing to concede (what is) a Constitutionally protected RIGHT  be given away to become a State or Municipal priviledge. My advice to you: Join the National Rifle Association TODAY! You don't have to remain IGNORANT about what your "inalienable" Rights are nor should you be willing to give away your RIGHTS for a false sense of security.C'mon Hermie, LEARN about U.S. history and the National Rifle Association and all that they do and have done to protect the rights of All Americans.Just do it.

[JWC]

I don't see how teaching someone the proper safety procedures regarding firearms is going to infringe on anyone's rights. If anything, it'll make them more cautious shooters and reduce the number of accidents by novice shooters.

You're correct that teaching proper safety doesn't infringe on rights; no one will argue that, and no one will argue that safety instruction is a bad idea.  However, the danger isn't in the instruction.  The danger is a government requirement for instruction as a condition on a constitutional right (as contrasted against a privilege which is not a constitutional right, like driving an automobile).  Once such a law establishes that the government has the authority to do this, it is relatively easy to expand and change the requirement.  That is the danger that undermines the very purpose of the constitutional right.

The government has no "default authority" over a constitutional right.  That is, by default, you have a right to freedom from imprisonment.  You can lose that right and the state can imprison you, but the point is that you start out with the right; by default, you are free.  You do not have to prove your responsibility and lack of threat to society before the right is in effect.  Similarly, you have the right to bear arms.  It is reasonable to say that this right might be curtailed if you show yourself to be incapable of exercising it responsibly (thus, laws restricting a convicted criminal's access to firearms), but by default, the right is yours.  You shouldn't have to prove yourself to the government before being allowed the right.  This is the distinction between a right and privilege.  If we allow the government to start redefining our rights as privileges that are granted to us by the state, all history tells us that we will lose them.  Our rights are not granted by the state, our rights exist prior to the state.  The Constitution enumerates our rights as a protection against the government.

[3n00n]

1934 NFA & 1968 GCA already allow the g'mnt to Lord bigger betterwar machines over the sheeple.

`

That's just a clue, next being: thought police that inter the sheepleat the controlcamps!

`

Of course, that's what it's all about, right?

`

Less responsibility.

`

More CONTROL!

[TCups]

Dear GTA Friends:

Have you forgotten that just a few short months ago, the Constitutional interpretation that Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteed the right to bear arms only as it pertained to "a well-regulated militia" (ie, government regulated militia) was struck down by a 5 to 4 vote?  One Supreme Court Justice appointment to a liberal judge who wants gun control is all it will take to overturn the 2nd amendment without a shot being fired, so to speak.  And then the Constitution be D********ed, as it won't be what the Constitution says, but instead, what the liberal activist judges on the Supreme Court say it says.  

I certainly don't have a very good feeling about the federal justices Obama and the Democratic majority are likely to appoint en mass in just the next few months.  If you are an American who believes in the 2nd amendment and the right of individual citizens to bear arms, better support the NRA, irrespective of any other political position.

[Hermie]

JWC, you have a good point about the "default right" thing, but I need to bring this up.

When the Constitution was written, everyone had muzzle-loading muskets! The tech of the day was very low, like a gunpowder BB gun. I don't know if the framers had today's society in mind. It was written when we just became a country, and they were thinking about what things they didn't like about England and how not to become them. (Even though we slowly are in more ways than one... *coughchurchandstatecough*) In the time, we were fighting for freedom, so they wanted to make sure that if someone tried to attack them, everyone was ready.

I believe that gun ownership IS an individual right, but the intent of the framers is lost in today's society. We don't need the Minutemen anymore. But regardless, gun ownership is a right that can't be taken away without an amendment altering the 2nd Amendment.

I'm an airgun owner, Democrat, Constitutionalist, supporter of rights, but not NRA material. I know very well what inalienable rights we as Americans have, and speak out for them. I speak out strongly against Prop 8 and directly quote the Constitution, for example, but that's as far as I'll go on that topic in this thread.

[JWC]

Have you forgotten that just a few short months ago, the Constitutional interpretation that Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteed the right to bear arms only as it pertained to "a well-regulated militia" (ie, government regulated militia) was struck down by a 5 to 4 vote?  One Supreme Court Justice appointment to a liberal judge who wants gun control is all it will take to overturn the 2nd amendment without a shot being fired, so to speak.  And then the Constitution be D********ed, as it won't be what the Constitution says, but instead, what the liberal activist judges on the Supreme Court say it says.

Nope, I haven't forgotten.  Activist and "non-originalist" judges have been a problem since the precedents set by the Marshall court; the approach of the Supreme Court went off in an undesirable direction very early on.  (An excellent and accessible book which talks about the Constitution and its relationship with the Supreme Court is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, by Kevin R.C. Gutzman.



I think that's the real problem with the Supreme Court, and the reason that the appointments have such an undesirably heavy impact on the fundamentals of our government.

I certainly don't have a very good feeling about the federal justices Obama and the Democratic majority are likely to appoint en mass in just the next few months.  If you are an American who believes in the 2nd amendment and the right of individual citizens to bear arms, better support the NRA, irrespective of any other political position.

I agree about the probable appointments of the Obama administration; I don't expect anything good.  I wouldn't have had much confidence in McCain's picks, either, despite his campaign rhetoric.  The Republicans don't have a great track record on judges: seven of the current nine are Republican appointees.  (I have little good to say about President Bush, but I do think his appointments were well-chosen, with the exception of the Miers misstep.)  In August, McCain was asked to name current Supreme Court justices that he would not have nominated, were he President.  He named Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens.  I don't disagree, but I note that, as a senator, he voted voted "Yes" to confirm Bader Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter (McCain wasn't a senator when Stevens was nominated).  

Obviously, I'm not a supporter of the Democrats or the Republicans.  I tend to take a broader view of politics than many people, and I see the differences as being too small to make a significant difference, like choosing between belladonna and arsenic.  Anyway, I guess that's getting off track.  I definitely agree that the NRA deserves support for its efforts towards preserving our rights.

[JWC]

When the Constitution was written, everyone had muzzle-loading muskets! The tech of the day was very low, like a gunpowder BB gun. I don't know if the framers had today's society in mind. It was written when we just became a country, and they were thinking about what things they didn't like about England and how not to become them...In the time, we were fighting for freedom, so they wanted to make sure that if someone tried to attack them, everyone was ready.  I believe that gun ownership IS an individual right, but the intent of the framers is lost in today's society. We don't need the Minutemen anymore.

The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment wasn't to make sure citizens were ready to repel attacks from unnamed enemies or foreign invaders.  It doesn't do anything to require or insure armed readiness, and a Constitutional amendment wouldn't be necessary for that kind of arrangement, in any case.  The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to positively state the right to bear arms as an inherent right of citizens, to protect that right against actions that would take it away.  An armed citizenry is supposed to be a deterrent towards governmental tyranny.  That's why it's necessary for the security of a "free State," and why it speaks of the right "not being infringed."  (Who would infringe it? The State, itself, of course.)

You're correct that the technology was lower tech.  In fact, the arms that were owned by citizens all over the colonies were pretty much the same as the arms employed by soldiers.  So at that time, the difference between an armed citizen and an armed soldier was much less than it is today, with our laws against automatic weapons and such.  I don't see how the difference is technology, today, lessens the need for the right to bear arms.  (I do question how effective our current level of citizen armament is as a protection against potential government violence, though.)

I speak out strongly against Prop 8 and directly quote the Constitution, for example, but that's as far as I'll go on that topic in this thread.

My take on marriage and government is simple: the government (especially the Federal government) shouldn't be involved at all, and there should be no government entanglement through tax benefits, et cetera.  It would be a matter of religious faith and of private contracts, and government approval/disapproval would simply not be an issue.

[Hermie]

You're a bit off there. The part about a free state went like this: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," meaning that the militia IS armed readiness against an invasion or threat. The second part deals with guns themselves. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Meaning, the government can't take your guns away, except by a new amendment that modifies the 2nd, which would probably cause a rebellion...

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[JWC]

You're a bit off there. The part about a free state went like this: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," meaning that the militia IS armed readiness against an invasion or threat.

I agree that the militia concept includes that aspect, and that the history of the militia in the colonies is rooted in that aspect; however, I maintain that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't to establish or mandate a militia for defense of the state, but to explicitly declare the right to bear arms as a protection against the government.  It's not that I deny the common defense aspect of the militia, but that I think the purpose of the 2nd amendment goes beyond defense against foreign invasion and such; I think the 2nd amendment's primary point is to provide a check against tyranny and arbitrary use of power.

The Wikipedia article you linked mentions both aspects (see especially the "Early Commentary" section).

[Hermie]

Actually.. After reading more, it's BOTH. The first half is readiness against invasion/threats, and the second is protecting the right of the people to bear arms, keeping in mind other goverments that limited gun ownership.

Though in the evolution of the 2nd Amendment, the first drafts were strictly about the Militias. The right to bear arms came later in the process...

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

[riflejunkie]

My first response is that the word is Obama is going to tax ammo into obsolescence.  I saw the government do it with freon and 1-1-1 trichloroethane which were used to carry teflon in suspension for fabric protection among other uses.  Freon is supposedly harmful to the ozone layer but heavier than the atmosphere, so that one never made sense to me.  Talk to a refrigeration expert about using freon in basements if you doubt me.
My next response is that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."  How is gun control not an infringement?  If it is strictly a matter of people being hurt with firearms then I demand the precedent apply equally across the board.  More people are injured by doctors and cars every year than by guns, so lets ban motor vehicles and medicine.  While we are at it more people are injured in athletic events than with guns, so lets ban athletic events of all kinds.  If you are so unafraid of gun control I suggest you check with the aussies and brits who have been stripped of their guns because too many of them were not afraid of gun control.

Hermie - 12/24/2008  1:39 AM

From what I've heard, most gun owners are conservatives. I'm a liberal and an environmentalist, planning to become a Wildlife Biologist. And yet.. I've fallen in love with a machine that throws projectiles at fast speeds and puts holes in things. :P

I keep hearing about how Obama might take your guns away and all that, but I really think some people are just paranoid. Gun ownership is a protected right. I REALLY doubt Obama is going to do anything to take away people's guns.

The only thing I can see is making automatic weapons illegal. I see no reason why people need automatic weapons. They're pretty pointless for hunting... But they do look cool. (Of course, wants and needs are two different things.) I'm all for someone having an automatic weapon with a special permit and a certificate from a saftey course.

Most of the guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, anyway...

My question is... What is people's big problem with gun control? You can still get your gun, but it just takes a while. I'm not going to mind a 2 week waiting period. It'll just make finally getting it that much more enjoyable. I'm not seeing what the fuss is all about. Someone care to explain? And please, keep a level, mature head.

[JWC]

Hermie - 12/26/2008  12:51 PM

Actually.. After reading more, it's BOTH. The first half is readiness against invasion/threats, and the second is protecting the right of the people to bear arms...But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

I don't think we're disagreeing by much.  I agree that it's both.  I just think that what the amendment actually does is mainly about the right to bear arms.  That is, it doesn't establish, organize, or mandate a militia, it just notes that one is necessary (and I'd say it's for the security of the people from both external and internal/tyrannical threats).  What it actually does is insure that the right to bear arms isn't infringed.  That's why I consider that the primary thrust of the amendment.

[MEHavey]

 If you read the Federalist Papers (whose publication was deliberately meant to outline limitations on centralized gov't so as to get the states to ratify the Constitution), the Second Amendment was specifially aimed at the The People retaining the ability to organize and resist/take down any attempt at tyranical gov't.

It was not about hunting, self defense, target shooting or collecting -- as the Nancy Pelosi's of the world would like to make you believe -- it was about the power to violently revolt against unjust rule.

That is terrifying to the Power Brokers of today, and they desperately want to downplay any aspect of that capability.

[riflejunkie]

Consider the fact that civilians who were drawn into the revolution bringing their own guns had rifles while the military weapon was a smooth bore musket.  So in this sense the British were outgunned.  It was the intent of the 2nd amendment that civilians would have access to EVERY weapon the military would have.  I remember reading a quote from one of the framers of the constitution to that effect but can't remember which one.
The founders and framers drew up the constitution based on 2 primary things that aren't very different from one another, experience and history.  They opposed being less than full citizens while being taxed and their recent European history also showed them that religion as part of government was a source of tyranny, hence separation of church and state.  The primary minds behind the constitution were deists and Unitarians, not christians and still felt the sting of religious oppression.  None of the things in the constitution just materialized out of thin air.

[riflejunkie]

You are absolutely right!  It was intended that civilians have at their disposal every instrument of war in order to resist tyranny.  

MEHavey - 12/27/2008  11:02 AM



 If you read the Federalist Papers (whose publication was deliberately meant to outline limitations on centralized gov't, and gto et the states to ratify the Constitution), the Second Amendment was specifially aimed at the The People retaining the ability to organize and resist/take down any attempt at tyranical gov't.

It was not about hunting, self defense, target shooting or collecting -- as the Nancy Pelosi's of the world would like to make you believe -- it was about the power to violently revolt against unjust rule.

That is terrifying to the Power Brokers of today, and they desparately want to downplay any aspect of that capability.