"unabridged" 2nd amendment - Page 8
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 117

Thread: "unabridged" 2nd amendment

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by PaxMentis View Post
    Now here we are getting into another amendment...the 5th.

    It really goes back to the right of the people as stated in the Declaration of Independence...

    I do understand what you mean by no self incrimination... The following statement would be made to your attorney once; "Guns, what guns? Sold 'em all some time ago and lost all the paperwork when I cleaned out the basement"... That's my story.... Yea, ya'll know the rest.

    "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  2.   
  3. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    Yes correct. There is nothing written in 2A regarding reason specifically by design.

    I spent much time and effort assisting with campaigns for individuals running for office who would have worked to protect the rights of gun owners across MA. Instead we get another 4 years of the same old Rights trampling *********... H4102 is another bill proposed here in MA that will restrict the number of firearms one can purchase per month to 1 and eliminate the ability of gun owners to sell firearms to each other in face to face transfers. Private sales would have to take place through a FFL licensed in MA and be subject to restrictions. FFL transfer fees can run $35.00 per transaction or more.

    At the beginning of this year I sold one, bought 2, and traded a non firearm item for 2 others that were acquired via face to face transfers. All of that took place in 45 days. If the above bill had been signed into law, all of that would have taken me 4-5 months and cost an additional $70.00... One of the transfers could have been debated due to the firearm not being listed on the roster of approved firearms for sale in MA. That's right folks they have a list of the models that we can purchase here new in MA. Many guns I'd like to own are not on the list. Kimber, Glock, Springfield Armory, Kel-Tec, along with many others are "can't have legally" guns...

    I'm perhaps sensitive to the idea of compromise and interpretation because all we (gun owners) do here is compromise when it comes to our rights and freedoms. I'm considering moving from MA for career and cost of living reasons. Working the details out...

    When you have some free time and perhaps feel the need to bring yourself to the point of physical illness, read the gun laws here in MA.

    I caution all of you who advocate restriction and interpretation when it comes to your God given right to "Keep and Bear Arms"... At what point do you cry "UNCLE"?

    Think it through before you say yes. Eventually one aspect of gun ownership that effects you will come under fire...
    At least you are doing something esides complaining on a message board and maye if we had a few moare doing the same we could get something done. I agree 100% with your approach and all we can actually do is keep on supporting and assisting those on our side. It is not an impossible task but it is not an easy one.

    I don't think you are sensitive to compromise but we must look at facts sometimes. Compromise is not final but a temporary starting point to get to the goal. Every legislative session is new and can change what was done the one before. So just because we don't make our goal this time do not give up but move on to the next one. Each compromise means we have moved closer to the end.

  4. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    At least you are doing something esides complaining on a message board and maye if we had a few moare doing the same we could get something done. I agree 100% with your approach and all we can actually do is keep on supporting and assisting those on our side. It is not an impossible task but it is not an easy one.

    I don't think you are sensitive to compromise but we must look at facts sometimes. Compromise is not final but a temporary starting point to get to the goal. Every legislative session is new and can change what was done the one before. So just because we don't make our goal this time do not give up but move on to the next one. Each compromise means we have moved closer to the end.
    With all respect, I find fault with the premise that compromise is a means to a good end. The only "end" that has resulted from compromise has been the end of some once enjoyed freedom of gun ownership.

    It's not gotten better for the gun owner here so I don't see the plus to any compromise. And as I indicated the new bill being proposed is further evidence that compromise never gets us anything. It's simply indicative of a willingness to allow infringement on the right. It should not be tolerated.

    I agree with having more people joining the fight being a good thing, but don't come to fight with the weapon of compromise... In the long run we will lose...

    I simply ask those who are willing to compromise, to look at and question the following: What you are willing to give up or have someone interpret for you? Why are you willing to allow interpretation of that aspect? Then ask yourself when do I cry "UNCLE!!"...

    This tug of war will never end if the liberal left believes they can get us to compromise. The NRA pulled that crap this year with the campaign finance reform bill... Asking for an exemption or they would oppose the bill? How about we oppose the bill, period...

    What is the goal? Since you made mention of a goal I'm curious to understand what the goal is comprised of...

    No attack, just trying to understand...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  5. 6shooter,
    I keep reading your no compromise stance, and I'm a little confused. If I read your posts correctly you feel anyone should be able to have and carry anything they want at any time regardless of any criminal history, political beliefs or mental condition? I agree that the current regulations are far too restrictive for the law abiding citizen, but even a staunch Constitutionalist must agree that allowing violent convicted criminals access to firearms would be like giving gasoline and matches to an arsonist. If you do not wish to allow them to have access to firearms there must be some regulations to accomplish this. If you are so adamant that there should be no restrictions or regulations what so ever, are you prepared for the inevitability that these violent and deranged people begin to take lives or do you have some plan for these types?

  6. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    6shooter,
    I keep reading your no compromise stance, and I'm a little confused. If I read your posts correctly you feel anyone should be able to have and carry anything they want at any time regardless of any criminal history, political beliefs or mental condition? I agree that the current regulations are far too restrictive for the law abiding citizen, but even a staunch Constitutionalist must agree that allowing violent convicted criminals access to firearms would be like giving gasoline and matches to an arsonist. If you do not wish to allow them to have access to firearms there must be some regulations to accomplish this. If you are so adamant that there should be no restrictions or regulations what so ever, are you prepared for the inevitability that these violent and deranged people begin to take lives or do you have some plan for these types?
    Maybe you could explain to us the part of this I have never understood.

    Precisely what does a law against people who disregard the laws having a gun accomplish? Is there some magic in that particular law that will make people who disregard laws against assault, robbery, rape or burglary suddenly say "Oh, I must obey that one"?

    The bottom line, however, is that the constitutional protection of the RTKBA does not include the word "except"...if we wish to insert exceptions, the amendment process is there for that very purpose. Allowing the insertion of exceptions without using the amendment process just undermines the entire constitution.

  7. #76
    As I have said before... if an individual is deemed untrustworthy to protect his life and that of his family's, etc., said individual needs to be under the 24x7 responsibility of the applicable government...
    E.G.: A Criminal or Mentally Handicapped Individual...

    IF said individual is deemed unfit to be in society, the government is already taking 24x7 responsibility for said individual during said incarceration...
    He/She has no need for self-protection because it is provided...

    You cannot say, you have served your time, but you are unfit to defend your life or that of your family, etc...

    Being founded as a "Constitutional Republic" means, that just because a majority of liberal progressives agree to "Fundamentally CHANGE the Constitution" does not make it Constitutional...

    Any more than teaching our kids in school that we are a Democracy E.G.: "Mob Rules"

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
    http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/first-fundamental-principle-of.html

    Once AGAIN, without the Unabridged Second Amendment, WE THE PEOPLE have no means to resist/replace a tyrannical government or defend ourselves against all enemies foreign and domestic, including but not limited to the tyranny of our own government...

    WTFU Sheeple, time to Re-Boot the Constitution...

    The Second Amendment is a Fundamental, Pre-Existing Right, its not created by the Constitution, its protected by it AND its non-negotiable!

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Everyman a law unto himself? So why would need the other 8 provisions of the Bill of Rights? Why would we need a 1st amendment or any provision of the Constitution? Once we have the 2nd we have all the authority we need. Biggest gun rules.
    I made it all the way to the fifth page before your ignorance pissed me off to the point I had to post before reading the rest of the posts.

    You need to go back and read the constitution and study how it came to be. Just because you have a bigger gun does not make your rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness any more valid then mine or anyone else's. We all have those rights and can practice them as long as they do not infringe on others rights to them.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by PaxMentis View Post
    Maybe you could explain to us the part of this I have never understood.

    Precisely what does a law against people who disregard the laws having a gun accomplish? Is there some magic in that particular law that will make people who disregard laws against assault, robbery, rape or burglary suddenly say "Oh, I must obey that one"?

    The bottom line, however, is that the constitutional protection of the RTKBA does not include the word "except"...if we wish to insert exceptions, the amendment process is there for that very purpose. Allowing the insertion of exceptions without using the amendment process just undermines the entire constitution.
    The inanity of your question aside, laws that restrict the SALE of and PURCHASE by restricted criminals will make it harder for them to simply walk into the Walmart and buy a shotgun and ammo, load up in the store and proceed to rob it. It will not make the violent criminal suddenly abide by the laws they have already broken, but add a quantifier to any crime they commit again. Using your logic, as the RTKBA does not have the word "except" Charles Manson should be able to sit in his prison cell fully armed because to not allow him to do so violates his second amendment rights. As the RTKBA does not have the word "except" theres nothing to prevent him from doing so. I look forward to reading on how your "no exceptions" stand deals with these factions of society.

  10. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    As I have said before... if an individual is deemed untrustworthy to protect his life and that of his family's, etc., said individual needs to be under the 24x7 responsibility of the applicable government...
    E.G.: A Criminal or Mentally Handicapped Individual...

    IF said individual is deemed unfit to be in society, the government is already taking 24x7 responsibility for said individual during said incarceration...
    He/She has no need for self-protection because it is provided...

    You cannot say, you have served your time, but you are unfit to defend your life or that of your family, etc...

    Being founded as a "Constitutional Republic" means, that just because a majority of liberal progressives agree to "Fundamentally CHANGE the Constitution" does not make it Constitutional...

    Any more than teaching our kids in school that we are a Democracy E.G.: "Mob Rules"

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
    http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/first-fundamental-principle-of.html

    Once AGAIN, without the Unabridged Second Amendment, WE THE PEOPLE have no means to resist/replace a tyrannical government or defend ourselves against all enemies foreign and domestic, including but not limited to the tyranny of our own government...

    WTFU Sheeple, time to Re-Boot the Constitution...

    The Second Amendment is a Fundamental, Pre-Existing Right, its not created by the Constitution, its protected by it AND its non-negotiable!
    bigdaddy1... your questions have been answered several times, you only need to READ THEM...

    Then cogitate on them a bit, before responding further...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  11. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    6shooter,
    I keep reading your no compromise stance, and I'm a little confused. If I read your posts correctly you feel anyone should be able to have and carry anything they want at any time regardless of any criminal history, political beliefs or mental condition? I agree that the current regulations are far too restrictive for the law abiding citizen, but even a staunch Constitutionalist must agree that allowing violent convicted criminals access to firearms would be like giving gasoline and matches to an arsonist. If you do not wish to allow them to have access to firearms there must be some regulations to accomplish this. If you are so adamant that there should be no restrictions or regulations what so ever, are you prepared for the inevitability that these violent and deranged people begin to take lives or do you have some plan for these types?
    It comes down to rights and responsibilities...

    If an individual has been deemed a serious threat to society and or mentally unfit to live among the good law abiding citizens of the state, he/she will become a ward of the state as indicated in the post by Bohemian. At that time the individual has forfeited rights to self protection by the act of violating another individuals rights. That is the responsibility part of it. People are responsible for their actions and actions have consequences..

    We have rights and are responsible for exercising them in a manner that does not infringe in the rights of others.. Carry the firearm and when threatened with the possibility of serious injury or death, use it to stop the threat. A "nuke in a box" will most certainly infringe on the rights of others if used in a self defense situation such as indicated above. I mention that because the idea has been thrown around by some here... I will keep to the topic of self defense with a "Firearm"..

    Firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If you shoot an innocent bystander by accident in the process of defending yourself with a firearm you are responsible for that mistake... It works both ways...
    If you exercise the God given right of self defense with the firearm you have the responsibility to do so in a manner that does not harm other individuals. Well, other than the intended target who has decided to forfeit his/her individual rights by becoming the assailant...

    At one time we had the death penalty to deal with the really dangerous individuals who will forever prey on others. The justice system is far from perfect and I'm aware that there have been some unjust killings... It is near impossible to have a jury completely understand the events that happen during an attack or assault.

    In the case of an assault that takes place in an isolated area and no witnesses are present it becomes word against word if both parties survive. Ever heard the term life is not fair?

    If citizens were allowed the means to defend themselves with the firearm in an unrestricted manner, It stands to reason that the number of "violent and deranged people" would be reduced simply by their knowing that a potential victim could be capable of defending themselves with deadly force or force capable of causing serious injury. I can't speak intelligently about the habits of violent criminals or their ability for reasoning, but think about it for yourself... Keep this discussion going...

    Mankind has been killing mankind for millions of years. It is the case with all of our creators creations, free will... It is the predator and prey cycle.

    Infringement on any individuals right to self defense simply allows the assailants and criminals who are more inclined to commit crimes against what they perceive to be a weaker individual, to have the upper hand. If the assailant has decided to assault an individual for profit or betterment of self, have they not already decided to disregard the rights of another?

    It is simply justice being administered at the time of the infraction...

    We can't control free people and have them be suspected of or found guilty of crimes they have the potential to commit. The fallacy of utopia is the liberal's dream... We live in a world where bad things can happen to good people. In some cases justice is done and in others it may not be the case. Again, life comes with no guarantee of fairness..

    A firearm is not a magic talisman nor a shield that protects it's bearer from evil... It's a tool... Mankind can kill with a car, truck, motorcycle, bat, hammer, screwdriver, drugs, alcohol, poison, sword, knife, nuke, a bucket of water, fire, bare hands... Shall we restrict the usage of these?
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-11-2010, 06:57 PM
  2. The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 05:02 PM
  3. 2nd Amendment extended to states and local governments
    By Stiofan in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 12:39 PM
  4. Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment
    By tracker in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-29-2008, 08:37 PM
  5. Americans Say 2nd Amendment Is Individual Right
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 11:17 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast