Off shoot of "Some Should Carry" - Page 4

Off shoot of "Some Should Carry"

This is a discussion on Off shoot of "Some Should Carry" within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by QKShooter I am a strong believer in Personal Responsibility. I would rather keep the lid on Pandora's Box closed as tightly as ...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 78

Thread: Off shoot of "Some Should Carry"

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array CLASS3NH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bob from Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    4,906
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter
    I am a strong believer in Personal Responsibility.
    I would rather keep the lid on Pandora's Box closed as tightly as possible.
    AMEN to what QK said....and I'm not flaming you Jon......
    Why Waltz when you can Rock-N-Roll


  2. #47
    Ex Member Array Phil Elmore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    305
    I'll say it again -- either we view our fellow citizens' freedom of action as a benefit to all of us, or as a threat that must be managed, preempted, and controlled. Those holding the latter view have no place in a free society.

  3. #48
    Senior Member Array older gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJon
    Nope. Again, check my initial post -



    Close. You almost got it all, but you'll have to go a bit deeper to nail it. The right to keep and bear is, in fact, referred to in the Constitution as you suggest. And, yes, the Constitution was written by men for men as you also suggest. But, what your post suggests you may not realize the Constitution did not create the right - it only recognized it as pre-existing, and then addressed it only in the context of protecting it from governmental infringement.

    A premise taken as a given by the Framers was something Jefferson and the other guys meant by "inalienable rights" - the notion that we have certain rights not because the government gives them to us, but simply by virtue of being living human beings. If you subscribe to that school of thought - that our inalienable rights do not come to us by anything earthly, then they can only be God-given (if you believe in God, of course).

    So, the parts you missed were that God gave us certain rights, not the Constitution, and that our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, recognizes, depends on and, in fact seeks to protect these rights, not create them. In that way, I'm saying that our 2nd Amendment Rights are God-given. I hope that explains it, because I'd hate for you to waste time continuing to search the Bible for direct references to gun control - not that you'd have too anyway; cmidkiff already got that part pretty well covered in his post.

    Best,
    Jon
    Jon,
    You said it very eloquently. I was trying to think of how to respond regarding my earlier comment that I think my right to bear arms to defend myself and my family is God given. Then I read your post. Thanks for putting the right words to my feelings. You did it very well.

  4. #49
    Senior Member Array rachilders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Longview, TX
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by cmidkiff
    Sounds like you need to do some more reading on the subject :) I highly recommed anything by Larry Pratt.

    Judges 5:8, the time of Deborah and Jael, the people forsook God, and they were, therefore, disarmed and oppressed
    I Samuel 13:19,22 Israel was captive to the Philistines, and disarmed
    Luke 11:21-22 first you take their weapons, then you take their goods
    Proverbs 25:26 A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.
    Nehemiah 4:17-18 Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built.
    Unless LP's changed his name to big "G", it's an apple/orange comparison. FYI, I listen to his "Live Fire" show regularly and he usually hits the nail on the head.

    As for the quotes, I looked pretty hard and never found a single place where God says Americans have the right to own and carry guns. Actually, I don't see anything where it says a single individual is required, should, will, can or may own a weapon.

    The Bible is open to much interpretation. The one I get from the above quotes would seem to apply more to nations and peoples in general rather than as individuals. Then again, that's just my interpretation. One good thing about America is we're all entitled to our own opinion (for now), and yours is just as valid as mine whether they agree or not.
    "... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane

  5. #50
    Ex Member Array Phil Elmore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    305
    Actually, opinions are not all equally valid. They can be judged according to the degree with which they correspond to objective reality.

  6. #51
    Senior Member Array rachilders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Longview, TX
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJon
    Nope. Again, check my initial post -
    Actually, I think you read more into the statement than was there. I was simply saying you opened a can of worms with the original post.

    Close. You almost got it all, but you'll have to go a bit deeper to nail it. The right to keep and bear is, in fact, referred to in the Constitution as you suggest. And, yes, the Constitution was written by men for men as you also suggest. But, what your post suggests you may not realize the Constitution did not create the right - it only recognized it as pre-existing, and then addressed it only in the context of protecting it from governmental infringement.

    A premise taken as a given by the Framers was something Jefferson and the other guys meant by "inalienable rights" - the notion that we have certain rights not because the government gives them to us, but simply by virtue of being living human beings. If you subscribe to that school of thought - that our inalienable rights do not come to us by anything earthly, then they can only be God-given (if you believe in God, of course).

    So, the parts you missed were that God gave us certain rights, not the Constitution, and that our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, recognizes, depends on and, in fact seeks to protect these rights, not create them. In that way, I'm saying that our 2nd Amendment Rights are God-given. I hope that explains it, because I'd hate for you to waste time continuing to search the Bible for direct references to gun control - not that you'd have too anyway; cmidkiff already got that part pretty well covered in his post.

    Best,
    Jon
    Well, to restate myself, the Constitution was written by men. The Bible, though often quoted as the word of God, is man's - many men, really - interpretation of what they believe God means us to know, usually in the way of parable and allegory. It was compiled from the Jewish Torah (the Old testament) and mainly letters and stories (the New testament). That's one reason there are many versions of the Bible and so many variations of Christianity. The only thing actually "set in stone" (literally) by God for all mankind are the Ten Commandments. You also seem to have gotten the wrong idea that Iím looking for something in the Bible that advocates gun control. Never implied any such thing. I think we all should have the right to own any gun we want and be able to use that gun for recreation, defense or any other legal reason we want. If someone demonstrates through their actions they are unsafe or has used a weapon for criminal activity, then the right to own a gun should be removed.

    As for the constitution, while it states we have the right to keep arms, I don't remember seeing any mention of where they are to be kept, how they may be carried or giving us the unlimited right to carry a weapon where ever, whenever and however we please. Now that I think of it, if gun ownership IS a God given right, how can we justify taking them away from criminals? There seems to be no exception in the Constitution saying that only law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms.

    Anyway, we're drifting off into religion, biblical interpretation and literal vs. theoretical constitutional law instead of the original subject of CC licensing. I think some degree of training should be required, though I don't necessarily think it should be a pass/fail subject that prevents you from getting a license. As for a license itself, l feel that EVERYONE should be able to get one, like a drivers license, unless you have some legal or mental problem in your past that prevents it.
    "... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane

  7. #52
    Senior Member Array rachilders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Longview, TX
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Elmore
    Actually, opinions are not all equally valid. They can be judged according to the degree with which they correspond to objective reality.
    Which means what in English?? That my reality may be different than yours due to my own unique circumstances, therefore my perception of what's important may be different than yours. As such, using my reality as the basis for assigning priorities, what's important to me is of higher priority (at least to me) as it directly affects me while your reality doesn't. Therefore, my opinion is more important than yours. Or, am I mistaken?
    "... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane

  8. #53
    VIP Member Array Bud White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Away - Health Problems
    Posts
    17,352
    We need to get off of the religion aspect in this topic.. This usually leads down the slipper slope of Flame war so lets get off it

  9. #54
    VIP Member Array Rob72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,468
    Quote Originally Posted by rachilders
    Which means what in English?? That my reality may be different than yours due to my own unique circumstances, therefore my perception of what's important may be different than yours. As such, using my reality as the basis for assigning priorities, what's important to me is of higher priority (at least to me) as it directly affects me while your reality doesn't. Therefore, my opinion is more important than yours. Or, am I mistaken?
    "I believe I am Superman. I can stop a speeding bullet with my forehead."

    The belief, however fervently held, is wrong. You will die. Equally, you may have an opinion ("belief") on how to wire a generator, build an engine, etc., etc.. Without practical knowledge, and a functional understanding of the mechanical limitations and structure of your intended goal, you will fail. Socially, we must accept that there is "right" and "wrong", and that the definition of each transcends individual circumstances. If we do not, we have what we are currently experiencing the beginnings of: social psychopathy.

    Without set, defined limits, I can rape your wife, screw your child, eat your dog, and lock you in the basement of my home- if I am larger/stronger/meaner/tougher than you are. How is this "justified"?

    Without some ultimate standard, and trying to view the world through "my/your reality", you are unable to recognize the existence of other people- they may not "exist" at all, and therefore, cannot be hurt, and are amusements for the perciever. The only existence you can prove is you own.

    "Your pain is my pleasure. Pleasure is always good." This is the philosophical failing of Relatavistic Humanism.

    Think it through- how can you prove to another person that you are harmed, by action or word? You can't. A Social Contract must have boundaries.

  10. #55
    Ex Member Array Phil Elmore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    305
    Spot on, Rob. The ultimate standard of which you speak is objective reality -- the metaphysically given, which can be defined and which operates according to identifiable principles.

    Which means what in English?? That my reality may be different than yours due to my own unique circumstances, therefore my perception of what's important may be different than yours. As such, using my reality as the basis for assigning priorities, what's important to me is of higher priority (at least to me) as it directly affects me while your reality doesn't. Therefore, my opinion is more important than yours. Or, am I mistaken?
    An inability to understand written English should not be construed as a failure on the part of another to write in English.

    Reality is objective, not subjective; it exists regardless of individual human beings' failure to perceive it accurately. Our task, therefore, is to apply logic (the science and art of non-contradictory identification) to the data of our senses in order to integrate that data into concepts. It is these concepts that we use to make conclusions about reality -- hopefully accurate conclusions.

    The degree to which our conclusions -- our opinions -- actually match the metaphysically given (one, objective reality) is the measure against which we determine whose opinion is valid and whose opinion is invalid.

    In other words, no, one guy's opinion isn't as valid as another's when those guys' opinions are diametrically opposed in the same context. One of them is right and one of them isn't. When a gun control advocate starts spewing his poison about banning firearms to make us all safer, for example, his opinion is not as valid as mine. My opinion is based on facts, on reality -- on an understanding of the topic of discussion. His opinion is invariably built on lies, misinformation, and distortions of reality, for this is the stock in trade of gun control advocates.

    The gun control advocate's opinion is thus objectively and verifiably wrong. It is invalid because it does not correspond to reality.

  11. #56
    Senior Member Array cmidkiff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    835
    My appologies for the biblical quotes, didn't mean to change the tone of this excellent thread:)

    My position remains: The constitution recognizes that our rights are granted by our creator, and states that one of those rights, the right to keep and bear arms, is not to be infringed. Reading the comments on the subject made by the authors of the constitution, their interpretation of the ammendment is made quite clear.

    There will always be idiots in this world. Making laws to prevent idiots from exercising their rights infringes on the rights of every man.

    In Missouri, we recently got our right to carry (with permit) reinstated. The law that prevented CCW was written to prevent blacks from carrying weapons after the civil war. This horrible example of 'Jim Crow' legislation prevented every MO citizen from CCW for decades.

    A licensing charge or (non free) training class requirement to exercise your rights may not exclude you and I, but there are many less affluent people who would be unable to pay, and thus be denied their rights.

    The right to keep and bear arms should be unrestricted for every law abiding citizen of this nation, as our founding fathers intended it to be.
    Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. It's worth it.

  12. #57
    Senior Member Array rachilders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Longview, TX
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Elmore
    Spot on, Rob. The ultimate standard of which you speak is objective reality -- the metaphysically given, which can be defined and which operates according to identifiable principles.



    An inability to understand written English should not be construed as a failure on the part of another to write in English.

    Reality is objective, not subjective; it exists regardless of individual human beings' failure to perceive it accurately. Our task, therefore, is to apply logic (the science and art of non-contradictory identification) to the data of our senses in order to integrate that data into concepts. It is these concepts that we use to make conclusions about reality -- hopefully accurate conclusions.

    The degree to which our conclusions -- our opinions -- actually match the metaphysically given (one, objective reality) is the measure against which we determine whose opinion is valid and whose opinion is invalid.

    In other words, no, one guy's opinion isn't as valid as another's when those guys' opinions are diametrically opposed in the same context. One of them is right and one of them isn't. When a gun control advocate starts spewing his poison about banning firearms to make us all safer, for example, his opinion is not as valid as mine. My opinion is based on facts, on reality -- on an understanding of the topic of discussion. His opinion is invariably built on lies, misinformation, and distortions of reality, for this is the stock in trade of gun control advocates.

    The gun control advocate's opinion is thus objectively and verifiably wrong. It is invalid because it does not correspond to reality.
    I stand corrected... I think?

    I guess we'll have to let it go at you have your opinion and I have mine. What's important to you isn't necessarily important to me and vice versa.
    "... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane

  13. #58
    Ex Member Array Phil Elmore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    305
    I guess we'll have to let it go at you have your opinion and I have mine. What's important to you isn't necessarily important to me and vice versa.
    The point I was making, however, is that we can't both be correct when our opinions differ. ;)

  14. #59
    Senior Member Array BlueLion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    It Changes...
    Posts
    950
    Yearly refresher would really hurt because this would be time consuming and costly. Moreover, would they then consider disarming an individual if they become old and motor skills start to dim. As of now there is no need to re-shoot just reapply. I think this ensures that we all that CCW will be able to until way into our old age or at least until we feel comfortable. My 2cents....
    Listen, Think and React.....Nuff Said.....

  15. #60
    VIP Member
    Array gunthorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    home office
    Posts
    2,355
    Thanks to all for one of the best threads and posts on one of the best forums. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but we already have a law, passed by those who were more familiar with the framer's intent but shrouded by the cobwebs of PC.

    One of the earliest laws enacted by the newly formed Colonial Government required every able bodied freeman citizen between the ages of eighteen and fourty-five, specified as the unorganized militia, to possess two fighting tools, a firearm and a blade. It was assumed that the firearm would be the most modern and effective of the period within the individual's means to acquire. The generally acceptable blade could be a knife, bayonet, sword, or tomahawk. Freshly unfettered from foreign domination, distrustful of any central or federal power, and unable or unwilling to provide the resources for a large standing army, the young congress enacted these laws to guarantee the defense of the new nation as well as insure that the government would be of the people, by the people, and for the people. The right, and the duty, of the individual for self defense was a theme woven through the writings of most of the framers of the constitution and leaders, or temporary guardians, of the republic.

    Jesse Ventura, previous governor of MN, stated that "You can't legislate (against) stupidity. Periodic or ongoing training should be a matter of education, not legislation, personal responsibility, not authoritarian dictate. In MN a basic safety class is required every 5 yrs for renewal. I rely on the instructors I train to motivate their students to frequent this forum and the range as often as possible.

    We may agree that all this permit/training stuff should be unnecessary, or that we ought to be able to possess any weaponry available to the military who should freely train us in its use, but reality suggests we need to proceed, legislature by legistature, to re-inact our God-given rights to self defense and indemnification from civil suits brought by our assailants or their heirs.

    If we work selflessly to educate others with facts and logic, if we remain faultless ambassadors of permit holders everywhere, and if we maintain political activism, we will secure for our posterity the 2nd ammendment rights, on a national level, that our founding fathers intended. That is not hypothetical.
    Last edited by gunthorp; December 3rd, 2005 at 02:15 PM.
    Liberty, Property, or Death - Jonathan Gardner's powder horn inscription 1776

    Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
    ("Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.")
    -Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 95

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. "Gun with 3 safeties" blamed for inability to shoot home invader
    By paramedic70002 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: February 18th, 2011, 01:15 AM
  2. (Open carry) "Help, Officer, he brandished his weapon at me!"..."No i didn't!!"
    By RR9501 in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: October 9th, 2010, 02:48 PM
  3. Replies: 49
    Last Post: October 15th, 2008, 11:45 AM
  4. Columbus Police Shoot Suspect Wielding an "Assault Rifle"
    By buckeye .45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 4th, 2007, 10:43 PM
  5. "Good shoot" in Jacksonville, FL Store owner case
    By profshadow in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: June 28th, 2006, 03:21 PM