Gun Rights

[pismoe]

my point is that illegal laws cannot be enforced LEGALLY . I use the Slavery issue as an example because it is a simple to understand issue . Slavery cannot ever be legal . And I say that the 1st Amendment and the SECOND cannot EVER be legally removed no matter how big the majority or size of the MOB Pilot .

 

[pismoe]

while I recognize that Tyranny and tax payer paid men with guns can do whatever they want to do . See France where Citizens protest or riot but there is a never ending supply of Taxpayer paid 'government' men to beat them into submission Pilot .

 

[Pilot1]

What is your point? The "State" sucks? Yes, it does. That is why we need to have the power to resist them, and fight back. Power corrupts.

 

[pismoe]

What is your point? The "State" sucks? Yes, it does. That is why we need to have the power to resist them, and fight back. Power corrupts.

------------ .

 

[Pellinore]

so the First Amendment or any of the 10 Bill of RIGHTS RIGHTS can be removed by Majority using the proper procedure . I do not believe that that is true SPilot . ------------ --- First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw ---

It is true - but the process is not simply a majority, it has to be an overwhelming majority. It would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House, then 2/3 of the Senate, then (unlike most laws) 3/4 of the States. It's intentionally super-tough to do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [OVERWHELMING eh ??] But thankyou for reply Pellinore but its IMPOSSIBLE to remove the 1st Amendment as example . What , because a majority [of henchmen with GUNS ] say it is ok to remove Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and then that is acceptable . I say that the removal of the 1st Amendment is impossible as this First Amendment RIGHT existed before any Constitution or Bill of RIGHTS . ----------------- I of course say the same thing about the Second Amendment as the RIGHT of Self Defense and general Defense Precedes and Existed BEFORE the Constitution and Bill of Rights and is a Natural RIGHT or is GOD Given . ---------------------- and just a mention of the 13th Amendment . So by a Majority according to some people the 13th Amendment prohibiting Slavery can be done away with by a majority of States , Politicians , Government Men , kings men and Government Henchmen . ------------ that's impossible Pellinore !!

Your pitfall here is that you are confusing natural rights with legal rights.

Natural rights say that each of us has certain rights that are granted to us by God (or whomever), and that we are due simply by existing. This was a linchpin argument during the Enlightenment, and Thomas Jefferson included the concept in the Declaration of Independence.

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.

Legal rights are granted to us by a legal system, such as the one set forth by Madison in the Bill of Rights, twelve years later. They by nature can be changed or eliminated by later laws, for which Article V of the Constitution includes the Amendment process.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Note that there are no exceptions in Article V. That means that yes, if the American people wish it, we can get together and amend the first, second, or any other Amendment right out of existence, as has been done before. For that matter, we can also change central parts of the Articles and Sections, as has also been done before. We can do all of this because they are legal rights, not natural rights; since they were made by men, they can be altered by them.

I hope that clears some things up for you.

 

[pismoe]

legal 'rights' are nothing more than GRANTED permissions , favors , grants or 'civil rights' handed out by the Rulers , elites , kings and queen and are in force as long as those mentioned Granters ALLOW the 'rights and favors' to be in place . That is why 'inalienable' or 'unalienable' RIGHTS , natural RIGHTS or God Given RIGHTS that existed and are recognized even before the Bill of RIGHTS are better than 'granted' rights handed out by rulers Pellinore . By the way are YOU a foreigner , probably a 'subject' of the 'united kingdom' Pellinore .

 

[pismoe]

yeah , PELLINORE , something to do with 'king arthur' and such and probably known to 'English subjects' but largely unknown to Americans Pellinore .

 

[Pellinore]

Heh. I'm American, born in Missouri. Sir Pellinore was my favorite character from The Once and Future King, which I read as a child. Good catch, though.

And there, now you're getting it. Natural rights are bestowed by God (or whatever), and legal rights are bestowed by the men - that is, the government, whether it is a king or a Parliament or, in our case, Congress. The Declaration of Independence specifies the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution is a legal document spelling out our system of government, and the Bill of Rights tells us the first ten legal rights guaranteed to each of us by the law. James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution knew the difference, which is why there is an Amendment process for the Constitution, because us mortals can't change natural laws, only legal ones.

I'm not trying to be contentious here, honest; I'm trying to explain a building block of our Constitution to you.

 

[Hossfly]

yeah , PELLINORE , something to do with 'king arthur' and such and probably known to 'English subjects' but largely unknown to Americans Pellinore .

But what is a pismoe?

 

[pismoe]

yeah , PELLINORE , something to do with 'king arthur' and such and probably known to 'English subjects' but largely unknown to Americans Pellinore .

But what is a pismoe?

---------------------------------------

 

[regent]

So our second president, John Adams, was a conservative, and one of his goals as president was to have his Congress pass the Sedition Act declaring the right of free speech illegal. The act was removed by a liberal president, Thomas Jefferson.

What is your point? The "State" sucks? Yes, it does. That is why we need to have the power to resist them, and fight back. Power corrupts.

------------ .

It is also why the founders created a democratic Republic, so we might vote instead of fighting back.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What is your point? The "State" sucks? Yes, it does. That is why we need to have the power to resist them, and fight back. Power corrupts.

I want you to bear what you said in mind in every thread you participate on. Both sides have this tendency to take your ability to resist away under the false presupposition that we have to give up one Liberty in order to exercise another.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is your point? The "State" sucks? Yes, it does. That is why we need to have the power to resist them, and fight back. Power corrupts.

Ignorant nonsense.

You and others on the right continue to fail to document where the Constitution authorizes a minority of citizens who subjectively and incorrectly perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to lawlessly overthrow a legitimately elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people through treasonous and violent insurrection.

You and others on the right will continue to fail to provide such documentation because that documentation does not exist.

What you ‘think,’ ‘feel,’ or ‘believe’ is irrelevant – and thankfully so.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘overthrow’ an lawfully elected government.

 

[Pilot1]

^^^^^The Constitution specifically put our right to resist a tyrannical government as the SECOND acknowledged and protected RIGHT. Why did they put it second if that is such an outrageous theory that government can become too big, too powerful and overly OPPRESSIVE.

Throughout history, and around the world there have been abusive governments. The USSR, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Germany, many African, and South American countries. It is VERY common that governments become corrupt, and abuse their citizens. Yes, it can happen in the U.S.

 

[regent]

Does an ex-convict have the right to carry a gun if the gun is carried for protection?

 

[pismoe]

Does an ex-convict have the right to carry a gun if the gun is carried for protection?

------------------------------- he should have the RIGHT after he has served his time in prison . He should have all RIGHTS restored . Course , not all Criminals should ever be released from prison Regent .

 

[Pilot1]

If criminals serve their time, or whatever punishment, then they should have their rights restored. However, many are prohibited from ever touching a gun again depending on the nature of the crime they committed.

Most violence is committed by repeat offenders that can not legally TOUCH A GUN. Yet they still do, and commit violent crime.

 

[OldLady]

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

Easy to at least get started here.
Outlaw assault weapons. It would not interfere with what you believe is a God given right for every citizen to own killing machines. They could all still bear arms.

Make ERPO laws national.

Tighten up background checks and start stringently punishing those who transfer weapons illegally.

There. You still have your fucking guns and crazy maniacs who want to shoot up a church have a slightly slower gun to do it with.

Ooops. This is the Constitution forum. Sorry.
I'm not a lawyer.

You have to have a Class III permit to own an "assault" weapon. Which means an extensive and expensive process. Those types of firearms are not cheap and you have to find a dealer that is specifically licensed to sell them. The semi-automatic weapons that I can buy at any gun store such as an AR-15 ARE NOT FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.

FINE! WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM! No civilian needs them.

 

[Pilot1]

No civilian needs them.

Who are you to tell ME what I NEED? Why do you want to only control, and limit LAW ABIDING CITIZENS? Why do you want to put us at more risk from attack?

You do realize criminals get whatever they want, and don't care about more laws, right?

The AR-15 is no different from most other rifles. The vast majority of crime is committed by career FELONS using illegally obtained HAND GUNS, not rifles.

 

[OldLady]

Why is it OK for States and Cities to continue to pass more, and more restrictive gun laws, yet they are not allowed to pass laws affecting Free Speech, and the 1st Amendment? Why is the Second Amendment the only Constitutionally protected right that can be SEVERELY restricted by all levels of government?

Because it kills people.