Your views on guns.

[57hemicuda]

Originally Posted by garickman

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition.

That is actually funny, the fact that you feel that a government can not be tyrannical due to the fact that is a reprsentative republic couldn't be more false. During the inseption of the country, only land owners could vote, meaning only people with skin in the game. If you weren't paying in, you didn't get a say in were the moneys collected by the government would go. That since has changed, now I fear that more then 50% of the country is on the doal, and voting in people to give them more,more,more, and taking from us, leaving us with less,less,less. Less, money, less rights, and less freedom. Our representatives no longer represent the producers of this once great country, they represent the dead wood. We need to get back to our roots.

The gun argument is only one of many infringements that the government seems to be taking these days. That is a simple one, it states: Shall not be infringed . That needs no further explanation

[Spiffav8]

Originally Posted by garickman

Thanks for the response Curtis. In regards to the discussion we are having about your initial response to SuperSport, I am afraid as gentlemen we will have to agree to disagree. I can admire someone who sticks to what they believe.

The reason I ask if you read the Constitution is because in post 55 in your response to me, you stated that if SuperSport supports the Constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked attacked by people who don't understand it. After seeing your response on the second amendment it appears that it is you that doesn't understand.

The second amendment states "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment.

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition.

On June 26th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in regards to D.C vs. Heller. The Court affirmed an individual right to possess a firearm without respect to whether the bearer is a militia member, and that these arms can only be possessed for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Heller also confirmed that your 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute or unlimited. Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned.

Many people (it appears yourself included) wrongly believe in the insurrection theory of the second amendment. Under this view, the second amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms against self defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government. When the government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect" or take up arms against it.

I'm sure as one who understands the Constitution so well you can agree that the Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitutions meaning. You might not like that but that is the way it is. In 1951, Dennis vs. The United States, The Supreme Court issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. In their rejection they wrote the following. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.

Agree to Disagree it is then.

The constitution is always under attack and it seems that everyone is always trying to redefine or change it. I agree that it is often misunderstood and/or interpreted. To bad our schools don't do a better job of teaching this subject (and many others). Anyways......to understand what the founding fathers real intent was, one has to try and get inside their head. Thankfully they left behind some writing to help explain their thoughts. I'll admit, it's been a long time and I've never taken a constitutional law course, but I think the Federalist Papers (? on title) give us some pretty good insight. While I personally don't agree with the belief that the 2nd amendment isn't to guard against a tyrannical government, I do agree that it isn't limitless. What if a tyrannical government suddenly said, no more elections and would we really need a legal ruling on that one?

You mention D.C. Vs Heller: Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned. I agree. However we are not seeing that. People from one state have no right to tell those of another what or how their laws should be written. Yet that's what we are facing.

A federal registry (of any type) takes away the rights of "a free state". How is that fair or just. People who make statements like Supersports (and he pretty much said everything except I'll get you and your little dog too and call me a racist) feel they need to control everyone. Laws enacted with good intent are fine, but when they fail you can't simply point the finger at your neighbor and scream it's their fault, which is what some states and a lot of people are doing these days. I really don't think the good people of California (or any other state) are to blame for the problems in the city of Chicago. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own actions. People like to assign blame and hold someone responsible more so than actually work to resolve an issue these days.

It's sad to think that our founding fathers with all their differences where able to sit down and come up with our Constitution, yet we, the more modern man, can't even come up with a simple straight forward approach on how to resolve ILLEGAL guns and the crimes committed with them. Balance is there somewhere if we care to really find it.

A bigger, better and much more useful debate would be on how to handle criminal organizations, gangs and thugs, etc. Right now we have law abiding people attacking each other, threatening and making demands in order to curb criminal behavior. That really doesn't make any sense what so ever now does it?

I have to say thank you for one of the best posts I have seen on this site in a long time. It is appreciated. We may differ on our views, but you have my respect.

[Tony_SS]

Originally Posted by garickman

Thanks for the response Curtis. In regards to the discussion we are having about your initial response to SuperSport, I am afraid as gentlemen we will have to agree to disagree. I can admire someone who sticks to what they believe.

The reason I ask if you read the Constitution is because in post 55 in your response to me, you stated that if SuperSport supports the Constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked attacked by people who don't understand it. After seeing your response on the second amendment it appears that it is you that doesn't understand.

The second amendment states "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment.

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition.

On June 26th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in regards to D.C vs. Heller. The Court affirmed an individual right to possess a firearm without respect to whether the bearer is a militia member, and that these arms can only be possessed for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Heller also confirmed that your 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute or unlimited. Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned.

Many people (it appears yourself included) wrongly believe in the insurrection theory of the second amendment. Under this view, the second amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms against self defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government. When the government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect" or take up arms against it.

I'm sure as one who understands the Constitution so well you can agree that the Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitutions meaning. You might not like that but that is the way it is. In 1951, Dennis vs. The United States, The Supreme Court issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. In their rejection they wrote the following. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.

Tyrants are voted into power. My grandfather had the misforture of being in the Nazi army and was a Russian prisoner of war. My dad fled that country post WW2. So trust me, I know all about the Hell that country turned into - at the hands of voters. So the idea that some sort of democracy can not become tyrannical is naive at best. Besides, our country is a Constitutional republic.

As for your Supreme Court argument. One response. Dred Scott. That one surely didn't hold up.
The Supreme Court hands down opinions. Congress makes the laws. And unconstitutional laws are not laws.

Now regarding the 2nd. Gary, do your homework. This country was founded as a response to tyranny under the rule of king, it was not setting up a new king and his army.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

The 2nd is in fact a check to the power of a federal govt. The whole system was designed with checks and balances, as a Republic, under the rule of law, not under the rule of men, a king or his army. Because this country declared independence from a tyranny, not to establish a new form of it. The 1st, 2nd and the whole Bill of Rights tries to secure that. The bill of rights does not grant us rights, it limits the power of a federal govt over individuals.

[garickman]

Originally Posted by Tony_SS

Tyrants are voted into power. My grandfather had the misforture of being in the Nazi army and was a Russian prisoner of war. My dad fled that country post WW2. So trust me, I know all about the Hell that country turned into - at the hands of voters. So the idea that some sort of democracy can not become tyrannical is naive at best. Besides, our country is a Constitutional republic.

As for your Supreme Court argument. One response. Dred Scott. That one surely didn't hold up.
The Supreme Court hands down opinions. Congress makes the laws. And unconstitutional laws are not laws.

Now regarding the 2nd. Gary, do your homework. This country was founded as a response to tyranny under the rule of king, it was not setting up a new king and his army.



The 2nd is in fact a check to the power of a federal govt. The whole system was designed with checks and balances, as a Republic, under the rule of law, not under the rule of men, a king or his army. Because this country declared independence from a tyranny, not to establish a new form of it. The 1st, 2nd and the whole Bill of Rights tries to secure that. The bill of rights does not grant us rights, it limits the power of a federal govt over individuals.

Your arguments fascinate me. Just like your argument about the 10th amendment. You always seem to use quotes from someone's statement of opinion. The Supreme Courts "opinions" as you call them are in fact called rulings. They are case law, and they are the supreme case law of the land and all states MUST follow them.

Do you know why abortion is legal in every state? Because the Supreme Court says so that's why.

Do you know why the local police as well as the sheriff's department can raid marijuana stores in states that have legalized it? Because the Supreme Court says we can.

Do you know why I had to read every scumbag his Miranda Rights if I wanted to use his statement's in court? Because the Supreme Court told me I had to that's why.

If you think The Supreme Court's decision in 1951 is just an "opinion" why don't you and your buddies form a militia group and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue with assault rifles. Shouldn't be a problem right. When the police stop you, just tell them you don't agree with Supreme Courts decision on Dennis vs. The United States and you are headed to overthrow government. Please be sure to report back to lateral-g so I know how that turned out for you.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. Its decisions set precedents that all other courts then follow, and no lower court can ever supersede a Supreme Court decision.

In fact, not even Congress or the president can change, reject or ignore a Supreme Court decision. American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that prior decisions should be maintained -- even if the current court would otherwise rule differently -- and that lower courts must abide by the prior decisions of higher courts. The idea is based on a belief that government needs to be relatively stable and predictable.

In regards to me doing my homework on the second amendment, perhaps you can just educate me. Please point me in the direction of a legal document, the article of the Constitution, or any law that over turns the Supreme Court decision of 1951 where it states the people have the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. If you can show me that which is not some quote you found on the internet of some professor's personal opinion, I will bow my head to you and apologize for my ignorance.

[garickman]

Originally Posted by Spiffav8

Agree to Disagree it is then.

The constitution is always under attack and it seems that everyone is always trying to redefine or change it. I agree that it is often misunderstood and/or interpreted. To bad our schools don't do a better job of teaching this subject (and many others). Anyways......to understand what the founding fathers real intent was, one has to try and get inside their head. Thankfully they left behind some writing to help explain their thoughts. I'll admit, it's been a long time and I've never taken a constitutional law course, but I think the Federalist Papers (? on title) give us some pretty good insight. While I personally don't agree with the belief that the 2nd amendment isn't to guard against a tyrannical government, I do agree that it isn't limitless. What if a tyrannical government suddenly said, no more elections and would we really need a legal ruling on that one?

You mention D.C. Vs Heller: Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned. I agree. However we are not seeing that. People from one state have no right to tell those of another what or how their laws should be written. Yet that's what we are facing.

A federal registry (of any type) takes away the rights of "a free state". How is that fair or just. People who make statements like Supersports (and he pretty much said everything except I'll get you and your little dog too and call me a racist) feel they need to control everyone. Laws enacted with good intent are fine, but when they fail you can't simply point the finger at your neighbor and scream it's their fault, which is what some states and a lot of people are doing these days. I really don't think the good people of California (or any other state) are to blame for the problems in the city of Chicago. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own actions. People like to assign blame and hold someone responsible more so than actually work to resolve an issue these days.

It's sad to think that our founding fathers with all their differences where able to sit down and come up with our Constitution, yet we, the more modern man, can't even come up with a simple straight forward approach on how to resolve ILLEGAL guns and the crimes committed with them. Balance is there somewhere if we care to really find it.

A bigger, better and much more useful debate would be on how to handle criminal organizations, gangs and thugs, etc. Right now we have law abiding people attacking each other, threatening and making demands in order to curb criminal behavior. That really doesn't make any sense what so ever now does it?

I have to say thank you for one of the best posts I have seen on this site in a long time. It is appreciated. We may differ on our views, but you have my respect.

Finally Curtis, something we can agree on. A well written and thought out response. You are correct on the Federalist Papers.

[Tony_SS]

It's clear you are fascinated with power and authority, so I'm not to argue with that.

If you believe that our rights are granted to us from a federal govt, and the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted by a infallible supreme court, then so be it. I will disagree and tell you that our rights come from our creator and the founders gave us a Republic, not a Democracy, to protect those God given rights.

But please enjoy the fact that WA and CO have legalized marijuana. I know that drives you authoritarian types nuts. But the 10 amendment > than some Supreme court opinion saying that a federal drug war is "Constitutional".

Anyway, I hope at least now you understand that the 2nd wasn't to form a standing army, but to protect individuals from the abuses of one.

To understand the Bill of Rights and Constitution is to understand the reason why this country declared independence: Freedom.

[Dayton]

Gun control? Forget gun control, I'm now more worried about assault pressure cookers!
Who the hell needs a 6 liter pressure cooker?
We all know a 4 liter will suffice a normal family.
The 6 liter should be reserved for the military.

[camcojb]

Originally Posted by Tony_SS

But please enjoy the fact that WA and CO have legalized marijuana. I know that drives you authoritarian types nuts. But the 10 amendment > than some Supreme court opinion saying that a federal drug war is "Constitutional".

Unfortunately that doesn't stop the Feds from busting legal growers anyway. They say their power is above states rights. We have legal medicinal marijuana here in California, but the Feds will still bust the growers. I would assume that will happen in WA and CO also.

[Tony_SS]

Originally Posted by camcojb

Unfortunately that doesn't stop the Feds from busting legal growers anyway. They say their power is above states rights. We have legal medicinal marijuana here in California, but the Feds will still bust the growers. I would assume that will happen in WA and CO also.

And that is a shame. There are so many people who are helped tremendously by its medical purposes and studies prove it. I know my wife could have benefited from it during her chemo. But somehow none of that matters to a fed govt that classifies a natural plant worse than cocaine and meth.

In the end, a 'power' does what it wants, until it no longer has the resources. My hope is that soon enough, it wont be able to as more states join in.

[garickman]

Originally Posted by Tony_SS

It's clear you are fascinated with power and authority, so I'm not to argue with that.

If you believe that our rights are granted to us from a federal govt, and the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted by a infallible supreme court, then so be it. I will disagree and tell you that our rights come from our creator and the founders gave us a Republic, not a Democracy, to protect those God given rights.

But please enjoy the fact that WA and CO have legalized marijuana. I know that drives you authoritarian types nuts. But the 10 amendment > than some Supreme court opinion saying that a federal drug war is "Constitutional".

Anyway, I hope at least now you understand that the 2nd wasn't to form a standing army, but to protect individuals from the abuses of one.

To understand the Bill of Rights and Constitution is to understand the reason why this country declared independence: Freedom.

Well sir, it appears I have met match. Any efforts to debate you would be futile. Back to building cars!