CDZ Gun Control

[sartre play]

Am old, raised with guns, own guns. Never in past 50 years have seen people going to Subway for lunch with an assault rifle. this is part of why people want some control.A small segment of untrained crazy people are shooting them selfs, family, friends, dogs and scaring a lot of the general population.

 

[320 Years of History]

Am old, raised with guns, own guns. Never in past 50 years have seen people going to Subway for lunch with an assault rifle. this is part of why people want some control.A small segment of untrained crazy people are shooting them selfs, family, friends, dogs and scaring a lot of the general population.

I think regardless of where folk stand in the overall "gun debate," nobody thinks there's a problem with mature, cogitant, and responsible gun owners/possessors having, using or carrying guns anywhere or at any time. Those users are not at all the inspiration for any proposed gun control measures. The measures are inspired by gun users who sufficiently lack the noted qualities.

 

[Dan Daly]

I haven't even bothered to read the thread. I am just going to state my case.

The 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not grant any rights. It merely enumerates one of our unalienable human rights that predates governments and constitutions. Government do not have the right to infringe upon our unalienable human rights, although some governments might think they have the power to take those rights by force. The United States of America, allegedly, is not one of those governments...we like to think we are a free society that actually lives by the words plastered all over our founding documents. Obviously that really has never been the case in reality, but that's another subject.

In free societies, free people are free (note I use that word a lot) to exercise their unalienable human rights to their heart's content, as long as the exercise of those rights doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. You have a right to free speech...but you don't have a right to slander or cause a panic under false pretense. You have a right to eat, sleep and breath...but you don't have a right to steal someone else's food, bed or air. You have a right to keep and bear arms, but you don't have a right to murder or otherwise use that firearm to deprive others of those rights. In a nutshell, in free nations, free people are considered to be responsible, sane and law-abiding until their ACTIONS prove otherwise. We are not servants of government, here to provide for the well-being and prosperity of the government, the government are our servants, tasked with providing the common framework of governance under which the people may prosper. Government works for us...and we all chip in part of the fruits of our labor so that they can. The people are the country...the government merely a means of administration.

In societies that are not free, everyone is considered a subject, the government is supreme. The people are considered to be potential criminals, nutcases and terrorists until certified otherwise by government. The people are there to serve the government, and the government decides what "rights" and privileges and how large of a slice of the pie, if any, the people are allowed to have. Want to start a business, write an article for publication, keep and bear arms to protect your family? Ask for government permission, follow their rules, pay their fees. The government is the country and the people work for them.

My opinion concerning my unalienable right to bear arms in the United States is based on the idea that we were founded as, and continue to be a free society where I can exercise my unalienable human rights without government permission or interference...as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. As a sane, responsible, law-abiding citizen, a firearm, any firearm, in my hands is not a threat to anyone but those who would try to do me or my family harm.

So, if you want to talk about gun control laws, my first question to you is and always will be...are we a free country...or not? Do we live by the principles of freedom that this country was founded upon....or are we hypocrites who say one thing and do another, just like our slave-owning forefathers were? I'm going to live my life by those principles of freedom. If you respect my right to do so, we got no problem. If, on the other hand, you want to infringe upon my unalienable rights due to your own irrational fears or control issues, I only have two words for you: Molon labe.

It really is just that simple.

 

[Dan Daly]

Am old, raised with guns, own guns. Never in past 50 years have seen people going to Subway for lunch with an assault rifle. this is part of why people want some control.A small segment of untrained crazy people are shooting them selfs, family, friends, dogs and scaring a lot of the general population.

I think regardless of where folk stand in the overall "gun debate," nobody thinks there's a problem with mature, cogitant, and responsible gun owners/possessors having, using or carrying guns anywhere or at any time. Those users are not at all the inspiration for any proposed gun control measures. The measures are inspired by gun users who sufficiently lack the noted qualities.

If one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, they should not be allowed to roam our streets free.
If one is convicted of a crime, some willy-nilly sentence shouldn't be all that is required for their freedom...if you cannot be trusted with restoration of your full rights as a human, then you cannot be trusted to move free among us.
Those who are caught committing crimes and found guilty by due process should be sentenced accordingly.

This notion that free, law-abiding people must allow their rights to be infringed so that allegedly "rehabilitated" criminals can walk the streets free obviously has not worked out very well...doing more of the same and expecting a different result is insane.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I haven't even bothered to read the thread. I am just going to state my case.

The 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not grant any rights. It merely enumerates one of our unalienable human rights that predates governments and constitutions. Government do not have the right to infringe upon our unalienable human rights, although some governments might think they have the power to take those rights by force. The United States of America, allegedly, is not one of those governments...we like to think we are a free society that actually lives by the words plastered all over our founding documents. Obviously that really has never been the case in reality, but that's another subject.

In free societies, free people are free (note I use that word a lot) to exercise their unalienable human rights to their heart's content, as long as the exercise of those rights doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. You have a right to free speech...but you don't have a right to slander or cause a panic under false pretense. You have a right to eat, sleep and breath...but you don't have a right to steal someone else's food, bed or air. You have a right to keep and bear arms, but you don't have a right to murder or otherwise use that firearm to deprive others of those rights. In a nutshell, in free nations, free people are considered to be responsible, sane and law-abiding until their ACTIONS prove otherwise. We are not servants of government, here to provide for the well-being and prosperity of the government, the government are our servants, tasked with providing the common framework of governance under which the people may prosper. Government works for us...and we all chip in part of the fruits of our labor so that they can. The people are the country...the government merely a means of administration.

In societies that are not free, everyone is considered a subject, the government is supreme. The people are considered to be potential criminals, nutcases and terrorists until certified otherwise by government. The people are there to serve the government, and the government decides what "rights" and privileges and how large of a slice of the pie, if any, the people are allowed to have. Want to start a business, write an article for publication, keep and bear arms to protect your family? Ask for government permission, follow their rules, pay their fees. The government is the country and the people work for them.

My opinion concerning my unalienable right to bear arms in the United States is based on the idea that we were founded as, and continue to be a free society where I can exercise my unalienable human rights without government permission or interference...as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. As a sane, responsible, law-abiding citizen, a firearm, any firearm, in my hands is not a threat to anyone but those who would try to do me or my family harm.

So, if you want to talk about gun control laws, my first question to you is and always will be...are we a free country...or not? Do we live by the principles of freedom that this country was founded upon....or are we hypocrites who say one thing and do another, just like our slave-owning forefathers were? I'm going to live my life by those principles of freedom. If you respect my right to do so, we got no problem. If, on the other hand, you want to infringe upon my unalienable rights due to your own irrational fears or control issues, I only have two words for you: Molon labe.

It really is just that simple.

How well did that work out for Christopher Dorner or David Koresh? Do you have, or is this, your Manifesto?

"If one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, they should not be allowed to roam our streets free."

Your comments suggest you should not be allowed to roam our streets freely!

 

[Dan Daly]

I haven't even bothered to read the thread. I am just going to state my case.

The 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not grant any rights. It merely enumerates one of our unalienable human rights that predates governments and constitutions. Government do not have the right to infringe upon our unalienable human rights, although some governments might think they have the power to take those rights by force. The United States of America, allegedly, is not one of those governments...we like to think we are a free society that actually lives by the words plastered all over our founding documents. Obviously that really has never been the case in reality, but that's another subject.

In free societies, free people are free (note I use that word a lot) to exercise their unalienable human rights to their heart's content, as long as the exercise of those rights doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. You have a right to free speech...but you don't have a right to slander or cause a panic under false pretense. You have a right to eat, sleep and breath...but you don't have a right to steal someone else's food, bed or air. You have a right to keep and bear arms, but you don't have a right to murder or otherwise use that firearm to deprive others of those rights. In a nutshell, in free nations, free people are considered to be responsible, sane and law-abiding until their ACTIONS prove otherwise. We are not servants of government, here to provide for the well-being and prosperity of the government, the government are our servants, tasked with providing the common framework of governance under which the people may prosper. Government works for us...and we all chip in part of the fruits of our labor so that they can. The people are the country...the government merely a means of administration.

In societies that are not free, everyone is considered a subject, the government is supreme. The people are considered to be potential criminals, nutcases and terrorists until certified otherwise by government. The people are there to serve the government, and the government decides what "rights" and privileges and how large of a slice of the pie, if any, the people are allowed to have. Want to start a business, write an article for publication, keep and bear arms to protect your family? Ask for government permission, follow their rules, pay their fees. The government is the country and the people work for them.

My opinion concerning my unalienable right to bear arms in the United States is based on the idea that we were founded as, and continue to be a free society where I can exercise my unalienable human rights without government permission or interference...as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. As a sane, responsible, law-abiding citizen, a firearm, any firearm, in my hands is not a threat to anyone but those who would try to do me or my family harm.

So, if you want to talk about gun control laws, my first question to you is and always will be...are we a free country...or not? Do we live by the principles of freedom that this country was founded upon....or are we hypocrites who say one thing and do another, just like our slave-owning forefathers were? I'm going to live my life by those principles of freedom. If you respect my right to do so, we got no problem. If, on the other hand, you want to infringe upon my unalienable rights due to your own irrational fears or control issues, I only have two words for you: Molon labe.

It really is just that simple.

How well did that work out for Christopher Dorner or David Koresh? Do you have, or is this, your Manifesto?

"If one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, they should not be allowed to roam our streets free."

Your comments suggest you should not be allowed to roam our streets freely!

You wanted civil discussion and this is your reply? How dishonest can you get.

Tell me, specifically, what portions of what I wrote do you disagree with? The portion you quoted? You believe that if someone can't be trusted with a firearm they can be trusted to roam our streets? That would mean that you are for criminals carrying guns....nice.

So what else, specifically, don't you agree with? The concepts of freedom? The mention of unalienable rights? Or is it the notion that the government works for us and not the other way around?

Or are you just butt hurt that you have no meaningful rebuttal?

 

[320 Years of History]

If one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, they should not be allowed to roam our streets free.
....

Non sequitur.

I had to stop reading at that point....

 

[miketx]

Am old, raised with guns, own guns. Never in past 50 years have seen people going to Subway for lunch with an assault rifle. this is part of why people want some control.A small segment of untrained crazy people are shooting them selfs, family, friends, dogs and scaring a lot of the general population.

Blah blah blah bullshit. Kiss obamas ass some more.

 

[320 Years of History]

The 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not grant any rights. It merely enumerates one of our unalienable human rights that predates governments and constitutions. Government do not have the right to infringe upon our unalienable human rights, although some governments might think they have the power to take those rights by force. The United States of America, allegedly, is not one of those governments...we like to think we are a free society that actually lives by the words plastered all over our founding documents. Obviously that really has never been the case in reality, but that's another subject.
...
So, if you want to talk about gun control laws, my first question to you is and always will be...are we a free country...or not? Do we live by the principles of freedom that this country was founded upon....or are we hypocrites who say one thing and do another, just like our slave-owning forefathers were? I'm going to live my life by those principles of freedom. If you respect my right to do so, we got no problem. If, on the other hand, you want to infringe upon my unalienable rights due to your own irrational fears or control issues, I only have two words for you: Molon labe.

It really is just that simple.

Red:
Yes, the United States of America is a country based on the idea that the government serves the people and not the other way round. That is the extent to which the U.S. is a free country.

Blue:
Some citizens and residents do. Others do not. One critical element of those principles is that in the exercise of one's pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness," one refrain from infringing on the "life, liberty and happiness" of others.

You will recall that the Constitution of the U.S. opens as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Everything having to do with the limits proposed these days with regard to one's right to bear arms is proposed as one or several means to "establishing Justice," "insuring domestic Tranquility," and "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

If and when someone can propose a viable and logical means by which I and my posterity can be most effectively ensured justice and tranquility without also imposing restrictions on my 2nd Amendment rights, I'm all for it. Until then, however, if it means I have to endure somewhat more difficulty in obtaining a firearm than I do now, well fine. That it is somewhat harder for me to get a gun via legal means isn't a problem so long as it's not impossible for me to get one, assuming I show that I'm mature in my deeds and thinking and respectful of others' "life, liberty and happiness" when I elect to use my firearm(s).

Green:
Some people are; others aren't.

Pink:
The Constitution does not speak at all of inalienable rights; it's the Declaration of Independence (DoI) that does that. The DoI, although it is the key document indicating the colonies' unity and sovereignty, it does not enumerate any specific guidelines or principles (laws) under which the nation and its people will live, but it does identify specific characteristics and deeds with which our founding fathers found it unacceptable to live. Identifying specific laws governing behavior and what are acceptable states of being is what the Constitution does. In the DoI, there are three enumerated so-called inalienable rights, and not one of them is the right to bear arms.

Moreover, the inalienability of the rights identified in the Bill of Rights (BoR) is hardly a foregone conclusion. Indeed, it's not even so that one or more of them cannot become alien to U.S. citizens; an amendment to the Constitution is all it takes to make that become a reality. It is not and will not be easy to amend the Constitution to eliminate one or more of the rights provided for in the BoR, but that it can be done, however remote the possibility of it happening, is clear proof that not one of those rights is inalienable.

In reading the DoI, particularly with regard to seeking input regarding the intent and reason for the 2nd Amendment, one cannot help but notice that every grievance the colonists had that pertains to some aspect of the 2nd Amendment had to do with the King of England's use of standing armies.

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

Looking next at the events that followed the colonies' declaring their independence, one observes that it was by having citizens who could and did have arms to bear that they were able to oppose and overcome the "repeated injuries and usurpation" to/of colonists' "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As one can tell from the first bullet point above, the colonists weren't keen on folks roaming the streets with weapons of war (guns and swords, presumably at that time), and neither should today we be, that is if the grievances the founders enumerated in the DoI is to inform what think should and should not constitute our way of life.​

 

[Dan Daly]

If one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, they should not be allowed to roam our streets free.
....

Non sequitur.

I had to stop reading at that point....

In other words, somebody said something you didn't want to hear and could not rebut. What part, specifically, don't you think is logical? Do you think that people we can't trust with deadly weapons should be allowed to roam the streets? If so, why do you bother with laws preventing felons or the mentally incompetent from owning firearms. Why do you bother with background checks?

Oh wait, what was I thinking...I see you are an inside the beltway genius...of course criminals obey laws, so we can let them roam free...and even let them run the country! Brilliant! Hows that's been working out BTW? Must not be so good...since you are wanting even more laws for the criminals to ignore.

 

[Dan Daly]

The 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not grant any rights. It merely enumerates one of our unalienable human rights that predates governments and constitutions. Government do not have the right to infringe upon our unalienable human rights, although some governments might think they have the power to take those rights by force. The United States of America, allegedly, is not one of those governments...we like to think we are a free society that actually lives by the words plastered all over our founding documents. Obviously that really has never been the case in reality, but that's another subject.
...
So, if you want to talk about gun control laws, my first question to you is and always will be...are we a free country...or not? Do we live by the principles of freedom that this country was founded upon....or are we hypocrites who say one thing and do another, just like our slave-owning forefathers were? I'm going to live my life by those principles of freedom. If you respect my right to do so, we got no problem. If, on the other hand, you want to infringe upon my unalienable rights due to your own irrational fears or control issues, I only have two words for you: Molon labe.

It really is just that simple.

Red:
Yes, the United States of America is a country based on the idea that the government serves the people and not the other way round. That is the extent to which the U.S. is a free country.

Blue:
Some citizens and residents do. Others do not. One critical element of those principles is that in the exercise of one's pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness," one refrain from infringing on the "life, liberty and happiness" of others.

You will recall that the Constitution of the U.S. opens as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Everything having to do with the limits proposed these days with regard to one's right to bear arms is proposed as one or several means to "establishing Justice," "insuring domestic Tranquility," and "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

If and when someone can propose a viable and logical means by which I and my posterity can be most effectively ensured justice and tranquility without also imposing restrictions on my 2nd Amendment rights, I'm all for it. Until then, however, if it means I have to endure somewhat more difficulty in obtaining a firearm than I do now, well fine. That it is somewhat harder for me to get a gun via legal means isn't a problem so long as it's not impossible for me to get one, assuming I show that I'm mature in my deeds and thinking and respectful of others' "life, liberty and happiness" when I elect to use my firearm(s).

Green:
Some people are; others aren't.

Pink:
The Constitution does not speak at all of inalienable rights; it's the Declaration of Independence (DoI) that does that. The DoI, although it is the key document indicating the colonies' unity and sovereignty, it does not enumerate any specific guidelines or principles (laws) under which the nation and its people will live, but it does identify specific characteristics and deeds with which our founding fathers found it unacceptable to live. Identifying specific laws governing behavior and what are acceptable states of being is what the Constitution does. In the DoI, there are three enumerated so-called inalienable rights, and not one of them is the right to bear arms.

Moreover, the inalienability of the rights identified in the Bill of Rights (BoR) is hardly a foregone conclusion. Indeed, it's not even so that one or more of them cannot become alien to U.S. citizens; an amendment to the Constitution is all it takes to make that become a reality. It is not and will not be easy to amend the Constitution to eliminate one or more of the rights provided for in the BoR, but that it can be done, however remote the possibility of it happening, is clear proof that not one of those rights is inalienable.

In reading the DoI, particularly with regard to seeking input regarding the intent and reason for the 2nd Amendment, one cannot help but notice that every grievance the colonists had that pertains to some aspect of the 2nd Amendment had to do with the King of England's use of standing armies.

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

Looking next at the events that followed the colonies' declaring their independence, one observes that it was by having citizens who could and did have arms to bear that they were able to oppose and overcome the "repeated injuries and usurpation" to/of colonists' "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As one can tell from the first bullet point above, the colonists weren't keen on folks roaming the streets with weapons of war (guns and swords, presumably at that time), and neither should today we be, that is if the grievances the founders enumerated in the DoI is to inform what think should and should not constitute our way of life.​

Red: Leave it to someone inside the beltway to tell us the extent of our freedoms.

Blue: The only limit to the right to keep and bear arms is that the exercise of those rights do not infringe upon the rights of others. Period. Just because you may be a hoplophobe doesn't mean that the rest of the citizenry must have their rights infringed...it only means that perhaps you should seek help for your mental infirmity.

Green: Those in your local seem to be of that persuasion.

Pink: The people were not afraid of their fellow citizens being armed...they were afraid of the armed thugs in the employ of the crown. Being a member of the new crown I can see why you don't want to acknowledge that.

FYI, nothing in the DOL pertains to any aspect of the 2nd Amendment, which obviously did not yet exist...the DOL is relevant in it's recognition of our unalienable rights...one of which is the right to defend ourselves, our families and our communities by means at least as good as those used by government or criminals. The 2nd Amendment is merely an enumeration of that right...perhaps you need to read the countless essays debating not only the ratification of the Constitution, but also the ratification of the Bill of Rights to understand what the Bill of Rights are. You seem to be a very good example of what some of the Federalists used as an argument against a separate bill of rights....the argument that some ninny might take it as a granter of rights and thus the only rights we had.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, they should not be allowed to roam our streets free.
....

Non sequitur.

I had to stop reading at that point....

In other words, somebody said something you didn't want to hear and could not rebut. What part, specifically, don't you think is logical? Do you think that people we can't trust with deadly weapons should be allowed to roam the streets? If so, why do you bother with laws preventing felons or the mentally incompetent from owning firearms. Why do you bother with background checks?

Oh wait, what was I thinking...I see you are an inside the beltway genius...of course criminals obey laws, so we can let them roam free...and even let them run the country! Brilliant! Hows that's been working out BTW? Must not be so good...since you are wanting even more laws for the criminals to ignore.

Define "Criminals". If you agree they are those who intentionally violate the laws, we can and must include those who pollute our air, water and soil. Those who would suppress the right of others to vote and deny equal opportunity to all, as well as the street hustler who sells drugs or sex, the robber, rapist, burglar and petty thief.

How about you? Have you ever ran a red light, rolled through a stop sign, stole a candy bar or smoked a joint?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not grant any rights. It merely enumerates one of our unalienable human rights that predates governments and constitutions. Government do not have the right to infringe upon our unalienable human rights, although some governments might think they have the power to take those rights by force. The United States of America, allegedly, is not one of those governments...we like to think we are a free society that actually lives by the words plastered all over our founding documents. Obviously that really has never been the case in reality, but that's another subject.
...
So, if you want to talk about gun control laws, my first question to you is and always will be...are we a free country...or not? Do we live by the principles of freedom that this country was founded upon....or are we hypocrites who say one thing and do another, just like our slave-owning forefathers were? I'm going to live my life by those principles of freedom. If you respect my right to do so, we got no problem. If, on the other hand, you want to infringe upon my unalienable rights due to your own irrational fears or control issues, I only have two words for you: Molon labe.

It really is just that simple.

Red:
Yes, the United States of America is a country based on the idea that the government serves the people and not the other way round. That is the extent to which the U.S. is a free country.

Blue:
Some citizens and residents do. Others do not. One critical element of those principles is that in the exercise of one's pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness," one refrain from infringing on the "life, liberty and happiness" of others.

You will recall that the Constitution of the U.S. opens as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Everything having to do with the limits proposed these days with regard to one's right to bear arms is proposed as one or several means to "establishing Justice," "insuring domestic Tranquility," and "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

If and when someone can propose a viable and logical means by which I and my posterity can be most effectively ensured justice and tranquility without also imposing restrictions on my 2nd Amendment rights, I'm all for it. Until then, however, if it means I have to endure somewhat more difficulty in obtaining a firearm than I do now, well fine. That it is somewhat harder for me to get a gun via legal means isn't a problem so long as it's not impossible for me to get one, assuming I show that I'm mature in my deeds and thinking and respectful of others' "life, liberty and happiness" when I elect to use my firearm(s).

Green:
Some people are; others aren't.

Pink:
The Constitution does not speak at all of inalienable rights; it's the Declaration of Independence (DoI) that does that. The DoI, although it is the key document indicating the colonies' unity and sovereignty, it does not enumerate any specific guidelines or principles (laws) under which the nation and its people will live, but it does identify specific characteristics and deeds with which our founding fathers found it unacceptable to live. Identifying specific laws governing behavior and what are acceptable states of being is what the Constitution does. In the DoI, there are three enumerated so-called inalienable rights, and not one of them is the right to bear arms.

Moreover, the inalienability of the rights identified in the Bill of Rights (BoR) is hardly a foregone conclusion. Indeed, it's not even so that one or more of them cannot become alien to U.S. citizens; an amendment to the Constitution is all it takes to make that become a reality. It is not and will not be easy to amend the Constitution to eliminate one or more of the rights provided for in the BoR, but that it can be done, however remote the possibility of it happening, is clear proof that not one of those rights is inalienable.

In reading the DoI, particularly with regard to seeking input regarding the intent and reason for the 2nd Amendment, one cannot help but notice that every grievance the colonists had that pertains to some aspect of the 2nd Amendment had to do with the King of England's use of standing armies.

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

Looking next at the events that followed the colonies' declaring their independence, one observes that it was by having citizens who could and did have arms to bear that they were able to oppose and overcome the "repeated injuries and usurpation" to/of colonists' "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As one can tell from the first bullet point above, the colonists weren't keen on folks roaming the streets with weapons of war (guns and swords, presumably at that time), and neither should today we be, that is if the grievances the founders enumerated in the DoI is to inform what think should and should not constitute our way of life.​

Red: Leave it to someone inside the beltway to tell us the extent of our freedoms.

Blue: The only limit to the right to keep and bear arms is that the exercise of those rights do not infringe upon the rights of others. Period. Just because you may be a hoplophobe doesn't mean that the rest of the citizenry must have their rights infringed...it only means that perhaps you should seek help for your mental infirmity.

Green: Those in your local seem to be of that persuasion.

Pink: The people were not afraid of their fellow citizens being armed...they were afraid of the armed thugs in the employ of the crown. Being a member of the new crown I can see why you don't want to acknowledge that.

FYI, nothing in the DOL pertains to any aspect of the 2nd Amendment, which obviously did not yet exist...the DOL is relevant in it's recognition of our unalienable rights...one of which is the right to defend ourselves, our families and our communities by means at least as good as those used by government or criminals. The 2nd Amendment is merely an enumeration of that right...perhaps you need to read the countless essays debating not only the ratification of the Constitution, but also the ratification of the Bill of Rights to understand what the Bill of Rights are. You seem to be a very good example of what some of the Federalists used as an argument against a separate bill of rights....the argument that some ninny might take it as a granter of rights and thus the only rights we had.

Q. Do we live by the principles of freedom that this country was founded upon

Q. Is boarding a vessel loaded with tea you do not own and tossing the tea into the sea while wearing a mask to hide your identity your idea of Freedom;

Q. Should the Boston Patriots have been denied their Second Amendment Right based on this single criminal act.

 

[2aguy]

Am old, raised with guns, own guns. Never in past 50 years have seen people going to Subway for lunch with an assault rifle. this is part of why people want some control.A small segment of untrained crazy people are shooting them selfs, family, friends, dogs and scaring a lot of the general population.

I think regardless of where folk stand in the overall "gun debate," nobody thinks there's a problem with mature, cogitant, and responsible gun owners/possessors having, using or carrying guns anywhere or at any time. Those users are not at all the inspiration for any proposed gun control measures. The measures are inspired by gun users who sufficiently lack the noted qualities.

And you are wrong….since all of the gun control measures target mature, cogitant, responsible gun owners who own guns while the criminals and mass shooters are not addressed.

Add to that the fact that gun crime prosecution and low sentencing for gun crimes is the main driver of actual crime ,and the fact that gun crime prosecution under obama is down 33%………they don't care about criminals….when criminals are caught they get their guns….they hate the fact that 356,991,876 million guns are never used in crimes and are untouchable by their control…..that is why gun control is solely directed at normal gun owners. They want to create reasons to be able to bar people from owning guns and reasons they can collect those guns.

 

[2aguy]

The 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not grant any rights. It merely enumerates one of our unalienable human rights that predates governments and constitutions. Government do not have the right to infringe upon our unalienable human rights, although some governments might think they have the power to take those rights by force. The United States of America, allegedly, is not one of those governments...we like to think we are a free society that actually lives by the words plastered all over our founding documents. Obviously that really has never been the case in reality, but that's another subject.
...
So, if you want to talk about gun control laws, my first question to you is and always will be...are we a free country...or not? Do we live by the principles of freedom that this country was founded upon....or are we hypocrites who say one thing and do another, just like our slave-owning forefathers were? I'm going to live my life by those principles of freedom. If you respect my right to do so, we got no problem. If, on the other hand, you want to infringe upon my unalienable rights due to your own irrational fears or control issues, I only have two words for you: Molon labe.

It really is just that simple.

Red:
Yes, the United States of America is a country based on the idea that the government serves the people and not the other way round. That is the extent to which the U.S. is a free country.

Blue:
Some citizens and residents do. Others do not. One critical element of those principles is that in the exercise of one's pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness," one refrain from infringing on the "life, liberty and happiness" of others.

You will recall that the Constitution of the U.S. opens as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Everything having to do with the limits proposed these days with regard to one's right to bear arms is proposed as one or several means to "establishing Justice," "insuring domestic Tranquility," and "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

If and when someone can propose a viable and logical means by which I and my posterity can be most effectively ensured justice and tranquility without also imposing restrictions on my 2nd Amendment rights, I'm all for it. Until then, however, if it means I have to endure somewhat more difficulty in obtaining a firearm than I do now, well fine. That it is somewhat harder for me to get a gun via legal means isn't a problem so long as it's not impossible for me to get one, assuming I show that I'm mature in my deeds and thinking and respectful of others' "life, liberty and happiness" when I elect to use my firearm(s).

Green:
Some people are; others aren't.

Pink:
The Constitution does not speak at all of inalienable rights; it's the Declaration of Independence (DoI) that does that. The DoI, although it is the key document indicating the colonies' unity and sovereignty, it does not enumerate any specific guidelines or principles (laws) under which the nation and its people will live, but it does identify specific characteristics and deeds with which our founding fathers found it unacceptable to live. Identifying specific laws governing behavior and what are acceptable states of being is what the Constitution does. In the DoI, there are three enumerated so-called inalienable rights, and not one of them is the right to bear arms.

Moreover, the inalienability of the rights identified in the Bill of Rights (BoR) is hardly a foregone conclusion. Indeed, it's not even so that one or more of them cannot become alien to U.S. citizens; an amendment to the Constitution is all it takes to make that become a reality. It is not and will not be easy to amend the Constitution to eliminate one or more of the rights provided for in the BoR, but that it can be done, however remote the possibility of it happening, is clear proof that not one of those rights is inalienable.

In reading the DoI, particularly with regard to seeking input regarding the intent and reason for the 2nd Amendment, one cannot help but notice that every grievance the colonists had that pertains to some aspect of the 2nd Amendment had to do with the King of England's use of standing armies.

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

Looking next at the events that followed the colonies' declaring their independence, one observes that it was by having citizens who could and did have arms to bear that they were able to oppose and overcome the "repeated injuries and usurpation" to/of colonists' "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As one can tell from the first bullet point above, the colonists weren't keen on folks roaming the streets with weapons of war (guns and swords, presumably at that time), and neither should today we be, that is if the grievances the founders enumerated in the DoI is to inform what think should and should not constitute our way of life.​

If and when someone can propose a viable and logical means by which I and my posterity can be most effectively ensured justice and tranquility without also imposing restrictions on my 2nd Amendment rights, I'm all for it

Well….that is incredibly easy…….if you use a gun to commit a crime you can be arrested and put in jail. That ensures actual justice and tranquility and does not impose retractions on 2nd Amendment rights…..

Sadly, that isn't what you and the others want. You want to limit the access normal people have to guns in ways that do not address the actual criminals who use guns.

 

[2aguy]

Am old, raised with guns, own guns. Never in past 50 years have seen people going to Subway for lunch with an assault rifle. this is part of why people want some control.A small segment of untrained crazy people are shooting them selfs, family, friends, dogs and scaring a lot of the general population.

I think regardless of where folk stand in the overall "gun debate," nobody thinks there's a problem with mature, cogitant, and responsible gun owners/possessors having, using or carrying guns anywhere or at any time. Those users are not at all the inspiration for any proposed gun control measures. The measures are inspired by gun users who sufficiently lack the noted qualities.

The measures are inspired by gun users who sufficiently lack the noted qualities

And again, you would be wrong. There are 357 million guns in the U.S. In 2014 less than 8,124 were used to commit murder.

There are 357 million guns in the U.S. and in 2013 (a time of 320 million guns) there were only 505 accidental gun deaths.

There are 13 million people carrying guns for self defense today…..and again, less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder and those committing the murder are not the 13 million people carrying guns legally.

Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year for self defense, according to bill clinton, and only kill 238 violent criminals…the rest run away, are injured or captured.

So no…..the laws that are being pushed are not geared toward the gun users who lack the noted qualities you mention…since only a tiny percent of guns are used poorly in this country. And to say tiny is really understating how few guns in private hands are misused.


The gun laws are solely targeted at normal gun owes, not criminals and mass shooters.

 

[320 Years of History]

If one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, they should not be allowed to roam our streets free.
....

Non sequitur.

I had to stop reading at that point....

In other words, somebody said something you didn't want to hear and could not rebut. What part, specifically, don't you think is logical? Do you think that people we can't trust with deadly weapons should be allowed to roam the streets? If so, why do you bother with laws preventing felons or the mentally incompetent from owning firearms. Why do you bother with background checks?

Oh wait, what was I thinking...I see you are an inside the beltway genius...of course criminals obey laws, so we can let them roam free...and even let them run the country! Brilliant! Hows that's been working out BTW? Must not be so good...since you are wanting even more laws for the criminals to ignore.

Red:
That phrase is appropriately used to amplify or clarify your own words/ideas when presenting them to others. It does not give you the imprimatur to put words in my mouth as you've done with the independent clause in that sentence.

Blue:

1. "Somebody" didn't write it; you did.
2. It's not that I could not rebut the remark I did read for I can and could. The reason I wrote what I did was that the opening sentence's nature was illogical enough, that is, childishly so, that I decided whatever followed it would be based upon it and I had no interest in reading remarks that were based on (in total or in part) a non sequitur assertion introduced at the outset of a post. In other words, the post got off on the "wrong foot," and I just said, "Oh, hell no; I'm not reading the rest when the post starts out with a non sequitur."

Green:
What is non sequitur is that one's inability to be trusted to own/carry a firearm has no bearing at all on whether one should be permitted to move about in public. If one quite simply isn't permitted to have a gun, whether one can be trusted to use it responsibly -- in public or in private -- doesn't factor into whether one can be "allowed to roam our streets free." In other words, one's trustworthiness with a gun bears no relationship to whether one should have freedom of movement in the presence of others. On the other hand, if one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, one should not be allowed to move about freely in public while one possesses a gun.

Pink:
Yes, so long as they aren't permitted to do so while they have a deadly weapon. I realize we cannot reasonably expect to prevent every irresponsible person from obtaining a gun. What we can do is put provisions in place that law abiding gun sellers and gun owners will follow to the extent that they do not make a gun available to a person who has demonstrable traits suggesting strongly and/or confirming that they cannot be relied upon not to use a gun in a criminal way, not including merely possessing it, which would be criminal for the irresponsible person(s) to possess, but not criminal for folks who've shown no reason why they cannot be trusted to own/carry a gun.

Purple:
Background checks are performed in order to determine whether there are events or circumstances in a person's history that suggest strongly or confirm that they are less likely or more likely to be worthy of being trusted to own or carry a gun.

Day-glow green:
Really? A whole paragraph devoted at mocking me? The puerile nature of that paragraph provides yet another illustration of the childishness that led me to stop reading the post that opened with the non sequitur statement. If the reason found in my (or anyone else's remarks) is weak, it can easily be refuted on its lack of logical merit. Berating me, however, does nothing to show the lack of merit in my arguments and it does say something about the person who resorted to ad hominem attacks in an attempt to erode the remark's merit.

 

[320 Years of History]

Red: Leave it to someone inside the beltway to tell us the extent of our freedoms.

Blue: The only limit to the right to keep and bear arms is that the exercise of those rights do not infringe upon the rights of others. Period. Just because you may be a hoplophobe doesn't mean that the rest of the citizenry must have their rights infringed...it only means that perhaps you should seek help for your mental infirmity.

Green: Those in your local seem to be of that persuasion.

Pink: The people were not afraid of their fellow citizens being armed...they were afraid of the armed thugs in the employ of the crown. [Insofar as you are] a member of the new crown, I can see why you don't want to acknowledge that.

FYI, nothing in the DOL pertains to any aspect of the 2nd Amendment, which obviously did not yet exist...the DOL is relevant in it's recognition of our unalienable rights...one of which is the right to defend ourselves, our families and our communities by means at least as good as those used by government or criminals. The 2nd Amendment is merely an enumeration of that right...perhaps you need to read the countless essays debating not only the ratification of the Constitution, but also the ratification of the Bill of Rights to understand what the Bill of Rights are. You seem to be a very good example of what some of the Federalists used as an argument against a separate bill of rights....the argument that some ninny might take it as a granter of rights and thus the only rights we had.

You and I are through discussing this matter, at least in this thread. Why?

1. Red: ad hominem
2. Blue: Whether I am or not has no bearing on anything outside myself.
3. Green: ad hominem and where has it been established that I am a member of an old or new "crown?"
4. What you think the DoI says and what it does say, and about whom it says the things it does say, are are not the same.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
​

Just in case you may not have gotten the point, it's this: so long as you refrain from presenting rigorously developed arguments, I will refrain from replying to your comments. It's not that I have a problem with debating ideas and principles. It's that I have no desire to do so when the ideas are illogical and/or presented as unsubstantiated assertions.

​

 

[320 Years of History]

If one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, they should not be allowed to roam our streets free.
....

Non sequitur.

I had to stop reading at that point....

In other words, somebody said something you didn't want to hear and could not rebut. What part, specifically, don't you think is logical? Do you think that people we can't trust with deadly weapons should be allowed to roam the streets? If so, why do you bother with laws preventing felons or the mentally incompetent from owning firearms. Why do you bother with background checks?

Oh wait, what was I thinking...I see you are an inside the beltway genius...of course criminals obey laws, so we can let them roam free...and even let them run the country! Brilliant! Hows that's been working out BTW? Must not be so good...since you are wanting even more laws for the criminals to ignore.

Define "Criminals". If you agree they are those who intentionally violate the laws, we can and must include those who pollute our air, water and soil. Those who would suppress the right of others to vote and deny equal opportunity to all, as well as the street hustler who sells drugs or sex, the robber, rapist, burglar and petty thief.

How about you? Have you ever ran a red light, rolled through a stop sign, stole a candy bar or smoked a joint?

It doesn't matter how he defines that term. That Dan Daly has his own personal definition and understanding of what things mean is a meaningful portion of the challenge that has bored me in trying to have a discussion with him. That his remarks have come to bore me has little to do with him and much to do with me; I'm just not keen to engage folks who demonstrate an unwillingness to have a rationally driven discussion.

One can commit a crime without being found to have been a criminal. There is a distinction between the lay meaning of the term and what is strictly mean by it in a legal context. Since this discussion deals with what should, should not, is or is not allowed by our system of laws, the legal definition is the one that must apply.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, they should not be allowed to roam our streets free.
....

Non sequitur.

I had to stop reading at that point....

In other words, somebody said something you didn't want to hear and could not rebut. What part, specifically, don't you think is logical? Do you think that people we can't trust with deadly weapons should be allowed to roam the streets? If so, why do you bother with laws preventing felons or the mentally incompetent from owning firearms. Why do you bother with background checks?

Oh wait, what was I thinking...I see you are an inside the beltway genius...of course criminals obey laws, so we can let them roam free...and even let them run the country! Brilliant! Hows that's been working out BTW? Must not be so good...since you are wanting even more laws for the criminals to ignore.

Define "Criminals". If you agree they are those who intentionally violate the laws, we can and must include those who pollute our air, water and soil. Those who would suppress the right of others to vote and deny equal opportunity to all, as well as the street hustler who sells drugs or sex, the robber, rapist, burglar and petty thief.

How about you? Have you ever ran a red light, rolled through a stop sign, stole a candy bar or smoked a joint?

It doesn't matter how he defines that term. That Dan Daly has his own personal definition and understanding of what things mean is a meaningful portion of the challenge that has bored me in trying to have a discussion with him. That his remarks have come to bore me has little to do with him and much to do with me; I'm just not keen to engage folks who demonstrate an unwillingness to have a rationally driven discussion.

One can commit a crime without being found to have been a criminal. There is a distinction between the lay meaning of the term and what is strictly mean by it in a legal context. Since this discussion deals with what should, should not, is or is not allowed by our system of laws, the legal definition is the one that must apply.

Criminal: "A person who has committed a crime, especially if he is a recidivist or the crime is a serious or violent one. In the eyes of the law, a person is a criminal who has been adjudged guilty of a crime, and he continues to be a criminal so long as the judgment remains in force"
Ballendtine's Law Dictionary
3rd, 1969

I doubt that Mr. Daly has any concept of the legal meaning of the word, he simply echoed the meme of the conservative set.