|
Post by petev on Feb 15, 2009 18:17:43 GMT -5
Personally, it is my guess that he threat to gun ownership will not come from the Federal Government, but from the states. It would be a far harder task for the Feds to try to contradict the right of gun ownership, but if the states and municipalities pass enough laws requiring encoding ammunition (proposed in N.Y. State), supplying spend casings to the State when buying a new handgun (its law in N.Y.), limiting ownership to the home and outlawing concealed carry, etc. it could work out almost the same. How about we invite some felons onto the forum, and ask how to purchase handguns illegally and keep them ready to be used without being taken away by authorities, in case we lose ours do to illegal state and local laws? Pete
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Feb 15, 2009 18:20:49 GMT -5
The following is from the article I posted earlier: "Obama signaled his approval of the ruling in a statement Thursday: [Obama said:]"Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country," he said, adding that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," but the decision reinforced that "if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe." Anyone who truly believes Obama's statement on this is naive indeed. All you have to do is look at the man's record on this issue as well as his record of saying whatever he thinks his current audience wants to hear to form a deep disbelief. You can also look as the stated positions of the people he has appointed to power in Washington. They are like the "Who's Who" among the anti-gun left. If you think I am alone in my opinion, look at the soaring gun sales since the election. I did not vote for the man, but as president I wish him well in general. He has taken on an incredibly tough job and one that his life experiences to date certainly have not prepared him for. However, I certainly do not wish for his success on getting his agenda passed on this issue. Whatever you might think of him; and I have lots of reservations of my own, he is no fool. He wants to have a successful presidency and a reelection to four more years. You can see his campaign mode in every public statement. He will likely not actively push something that will make the pro-gun forces rise up in mass to seriously attempt to destroy his presidency, but he will chip away at the edges of the 2nd amendment as much as possible to appease his anti-gun constituency. Obama is like almost every other politician. You had best watch what they do, not what they say. They know the average Joe out there doesn't pay much attention and doesn't understand much of the lessons of history so they can sway him with slick words today and he is too dumb to look at the record and the facts. Talk is cheap, and our rights are precious. We should not let a smooth talking politician take away the rights our forefathers fought and died for.
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 15, 2009 20:08:45 GMT -5
Chuck I agree with most of your points, but I don't think that the main threat to gun ownership will come from the Federal Government, as I've already stated.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 15, 2009 20:17:30 GMT -5
Chuck you have constructed some pretty slick talk in you post. I agree wholeheartedly with you. You have stated the problem clearly. Your last sentence: " We should not let a smooth talking politician take away the rights our forefathers fought and died for." True some died, but the majority lived to enjoy the fruits of the cause fought for. So many questions loom regarding this question. What can we do? There is no benefit of dying for the cause but perhaps others may have to. Will the opponents ever quit trying to take away our rights? I doubt they will. Please tell us what you think the rights to own and hunt with guns and to have them for protection twenty years down the track. Tell me what it will be like when I am 101 or for those who remained behind. You have a good head Chuck, you have exposed the problem. Now teach us the solution. Ozark
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 15, 2009 20:23:54 GMT -5
Petev, I agree with your thinking but is it not the duty of the Federal authorities to protect our rights when subbordinate governments write laws which are in violation to the constitution? When the Supreme Court rules on a isssue can Leslie, Arkansas create and enforce a Ordnance that is contradictory to the ruling? Would some Attorney please comment on my question. Ozark
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 15, 2009 20:43:20 GMT -5
PEOPLE ASK WHY?
Why I Carry a Gun
My old Granddad once said to me... "Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take a butt whoopin". I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared when my loved ones are attacked.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, with my children and grandchildren at my side...and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know it's their obligation to know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police protection can't be there at the moment you or your loved ones need help. Free citizens have an obligation to help protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess while they try to recover your goods and find the bad guys who did it to you!
Personally, my wise old Grandad would be happy to know that I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take a butt whoopin' from some low-life scumbag who wants to harm me, my family or my friends. PS: I didn't write this. I copied and pasted it from an email sent to me by a brother in law. Ozark
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 15, 2009 21:02:49 GMT -5
Ozark, you must of worn off your fingerprints with that last one! ;D I am proud to say that a distant ancestor of mine joined the N.Y. militia at 17 years old during the Revolution, fought and later received a pension which was left for his widow. All of this gun business is also heritage to alot of us.
|
|
|
Post by chickenhunter on Feb 15, 2009 21:54:14 GMT -5
Missedagain.....Just recieved an e-mail alert from NRA. They said their was nothing in there (Stimulus) about firearms or ammunition. Doesn't mean there's not 10 or 20Billion that could be used for the purpose.
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Feb 15, 2009 23:34:45 GMT -5
Petev, I agree with your thinking but is it not the duty of the Federal authorities to protect our rights when subbordinate governments write laws which are in violation to the constitution? When the Supreme Court rules on a isssue can Leslie, Arkansas create and enforce a Ordnance that is contradictory to the ruling? Would some Attorney please comment on my question. Ozark 1) is it not the duty of the Federal authorities to protect our rights when subbordinate governments write laws which are in violation to the constitution?Nope. The system depends on the courts to do that and for the courts to act someone has to file lawsuit and have it work its way up through the courts. That is what happened in Washington DC with their total gun ban that was thrown out recently. The process costs a huge amount of money and time for the person involved in the suit while the legislators who (probably knowingly) violated the constitutional rights of the people are protected by lawyers paid by taxpayer's money. 2) When the Supreme Court rules on a isssue can Leslie, Arkansas create and enforce a Ordnance that is contradictory to the ruling?Yep. And until someone else takes it to court they will get away with it. And no, I ain't no lawyer, but I sure as he11 can read and over the years I have watched the process many times and personally experienced it a couple. It is common among many legislative bodies in Arkansas. Unless you are willing to spend huge amounts of money to overturn their legislative, or administrative actions, they will stand. There is no body that routinely reviews legislative actions for legality unless it winds up in the courts.
|
|
|
Post by missedagain on Feb 16, 2009 8:18:19 GMT -5
My mistake CH, You'r right it's not part of the stimulas package This is the new legislation-named after Blair Holt, a young man who was murdered. www.nolanchart.com/article5821.html
|
|
|
Post by tcmech on Feb 16, 2009 8:54:53 GMT -5
I believe that the purpose of the second amendment to the constitution was meant by our forefathers for we the people to be able to defend ourselves from the government.
I do not believe they were talking about the right to defend our lives, our homes, our families and our churches from immenient danger. I believe that they believed that was a God given right and duty for all citizens. I also do not believe that they were talking about your right to own a weapon for hunting. At the time the 2nd amendment was written many citizens would not have eaten meat unless they owned a weapon.
I do believe that there should be some limitations on what you can own, but they should be minimal. I also believe that people should not confuse gun control, and criminal control.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 16, 2009 9:18:27 GMT -5
I served a few years in county government and the Ordnances we adopted were normally faxed to the State Attorney General to determine if they were legal. Some were returned because they were in conflict with a State or Federal Statue. Some were challenged in local courts but I don't recall having to recind any. It is my undestanding that the Attorney General is duty bound to insure that the rights of people and governments are protected leagal wise. I suppose that some would be anti gun ownership but that is a question that should be determined before putting them in office. I still have faith that there are legal means of keeping our rights. Especially so since the Supreme 'Court has ruled. It shouldn't be costly to get an opinion from the Attorney Generals Office of a state.
|
|
|
Post by missedagain on Feb 16, 2009 9:26:47 GMT -5
Bingo I'm with TC on this, The 2nd garrentes our right to a form a milita against oppresive goverment. The right to own arms is not even under question. It is a given understanding.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 16, 2009 9:38:02 GMT -5
Since the Supreme Court ruled that it means the individual right to own firearms, I would think that their interputation would be the law of the land until changed by that same court.
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 16, 2009 9:48:49 GMT -5
I believe that the purpose of the second amendment to the constitution was meant by our forefathers for we the people to be able to defend ourselves from the government. I do not believe they were talking about the right to defend our lives, our homes, our families and our churches from imminent danger. tc this point of view comes up now and then, but I want to see some evidence for it. Where is there evidence that the right to bear arms was intended to protect individuals against the government? I believe Federal law states that a violent act against the American government is treason. The 2nd Amendment talks about the people forming a militia. Militias existed here in N.Y., give or take, for a hundred years after the Revolution and they were used soley for the defense of the people and keeping the peace, never for fending off the Federal Government.
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Feb 16, 2009 9:59:25 GMT -5
Since the Supreme Court ruled that it means the individual right to own firearms, I would think that their interputation would be the law of the land until changed by that same court. Unfortunately not all who write rules for others to follow believe that way. For example, you mentioned the DC ruling. Look at the news reports as to what DC did immediately after that ruling. They should have immediately rescinded their rule, but instead they went before the media arguing how they could change the wording to keep the same rules intact with only a slight modification to the wording. Not all legislative bodies are like the county government in Leslie and many don't care a flip about treading on the rights of the people they regulate. That is precisely the reason the Bill of Rights was included in the US constitution and why the states refused to ratify it until the Bill of Rights was added. After serving under an unresponsive British government they knew the need to protect the rights of the citizens from an oppressive government.
|
|
|
Post by missedagain on Feb 16, 2009 10:03:19 GMT -5
So what constitues Treason? Does refusing to surender your guns when the Federal goverment finnaly secseeds in outlawing gun ownership?
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 16, 2009 10:15:45 GMT -5
So what constitues Treason? Does refusing to surender your guns when the Federal goverment finnaly secseeds in outlawing gun ownership? This was how I defined it previously without researching it: "I believe Federal law states that a violent act against the American government is treason." How do you define it missed?
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 16, 2009 10:21:51 GMT -5
That is precisely the reason the Bill of Rights was included in the US constitution and why the states refused to ratify it until the Bill of Rights was added. After serving under an unresponsive British government they knew the need to protect the rights of the citizens from an oppressive government. Chuck, I only want to add that I think that at the end of the Revolution the new nation formed a Constitution that did not have the Bill of Rights, and that after a few years (I think in 1786, could be wrong) there was a Constitutional Convention where some of the weaknesses of the original Constitution were corrected. Supposedly, many of the citizens thought that only the property owning class was being protected, and so the Bill of Rights was added to protect the rights of all the people. I can't imagine this country without the B.O.R.
|
|
|
Post by missedagain on Feb 16, 2009 10:28:55 GMT -5
Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
|
|
|
Post by tcmech on Feb 16, 2009 10:49:46 GMT -5
petev,
i don't have evidence in front of me, however I have my opinion which is what was asked.
I spent 20 years in the navy and like all members of the military I swore to defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Maybe I read too much into the purpose of the second amendment, but the United States came into being through a revolution, which means that the founding fathers took up arms against what they felt to be an unjust government. I believe that they would want their descendents to be able to do the same if it were ever necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Feb 16, 2009 11:07:54 GMT -5
I haven't said anything because my views are more radical than most.
I am convinced that if you could set down John Adams and Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin, et al, and talk to them at length about their beliefs on this, that they would tell you that the PURPOSE of the 2nd amendment was to allow the common citizen to have a means to fight back if the government ever took away the 1st Amendment.
In other words, the entire, sole, and total purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the common citizen is as well armed as his government.
Thus, I'd argue that it's legal, moral, good, valid, and purposeful for everyone to own a Sherman Tank, if they can afford it.
I would vote for no restrictions whatsoever. The Founding Fathers would have not placed restrictions. I place none either.
If you misuse a personally owned weapon, my penalties would be severe, including prohibition of all future such ownership, however.
I realize folks don't like this position and will find wiggly things to say against it, but I believe it to be 100% valid.
|
|
|
Post by tcmech on Feb 16, 2009 11:13:55 GMT -5
Buckrub,
I am closer to your point of view than most. I would like to point out that once you become a felon you are no longer a citizen, and do not have the same rights as a citizen.
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Feb 16, 2009 11:39:50 GMT -5
I haven't said anything because my views are more radical than most. I am convinced that if you could set down John Adams and Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin, et al, and talk to them at length about their beliefs on this, that they would tell you that the PURPOSE of the 2nd amendment was to allow the common citizen to have a means to fight back if the government ever took away the 1st Amendment. In other words, the entire, sole, and total purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the common citizen is as well armed as his government. Thus, I'd argue that it's legal, moral, good, valid, and purposeful for everyone to own a Sherman Tank, if they can afford it. I would vote for no restrictions whatsoever. The Founding Fathers would have not placed restrictions. I place none either. If you misuse a personally owned weapon, my penalties would be severe, including prohibition of all future such ownership, however. I realize folks don't like this position and will find wiggly things to say against it, but I believe it to be 100% valid. Preach on brother!! I would only add that there is no reason or excuse for the government to maintain any form of "gun registration" information on legitimate firearms purchases. The records of gun purchases maintained by FFL holders should never be given to either the state or federal government. When the law was passed in 1968 requiring purchases only through FFL licenses it was assured that these records would never be used as a defacto gun registration. Since then there has been numerous attempts to do just that. Probably one of the best forms of crime control is to require that every head of household be trained in gun safety and required to keep a firearm as is done in most Scandinavian countries. Their crime statistics are far lower than ours.
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Feb 16, 2009 13:43:38 GMT -5
A great percentage of Swiss citizens own fully automatic weapons.
A great percentage of Iraqi citizens wish they had owned them.
|
|