Will you actively protect my rights? - Page 2

Will you actively protect my rights?

This is a discussion on Will you actively protect my rights? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by oakchas Michael... Hmmmm.... On the one hand, we don't need the BOR, because of state's rights... No, we don't need a BOL ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 59
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: Will you actively protect my rights?

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Michael... Hmmmm....


    On the one hand, we don't need the BOR, because of state's rights...
    No, we don't need a BOL because the power to infringe on any of the rights mentioned in that BOL was never given up to the Feds.

    And now you ask if I will support your specific rights to own, and carry any weapon... I mean, if, constitutionally, you believe I should support your right to a machine gun; then it follows that I should support your mounting a Ma Deuce in the back of your Jeep.
    Being as the Constitution was never intended as a restriction on the individual States or the people then yes the Feds could not prevent you from owning one.

    I can do that...but where does it end? Suitcase nukes? Covered by treaty, you say....? Based on the right guaranteed in the BOR, there is no limitation on "arms." So, why not? Treaty would be unconstitutional, and therefore, void.
    Nothing in the Constitution prevents the States from prohibiting weapons.

    I do support your federal right to a machine gun... Your state may not. In which case, you can vote with your feet, by moving to one that does.
    Exactly as it should be.

    The question eventually becomes... Which extant rights will you support? The gay marriage ... ahem... right.. exists until there is a law against it... Locally, or federally... Would you support that individual right? Or, since it doesn't effect you specifically, or individually... would you let someone else worry about the rights they are concerned with?
    I can support and fight for a persons right to do something without agreeing with what it is they are doing. I support the KKK and Black Panthers right to march and protest. I do not support what they say but will gladly fight for their right to say it.


    My responses are in bold.

    Michael
    DaveH likes this.


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414
    Yes, I get your points... But you don't answer mine...

    Without the BOR, all the states could restrict your rights to weapons, or at the least, infringe on them greatly, ala Chicago, IL, or CA. Without recourse to SCOTUS.

    Some states do not guarantee the right to arms in their own constitution...
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Yes, I get your points... But you don't answer mine...

    Without the BOR, all the states could restrict your rights to weapons, or at the least, infringe on them greatly, ala Chicago, IL, or CA. Without recourse to SCOTUS.

    Some states do not guarantee the right to arms in their own constitution...
    Then you either fight to change the laws within your State or you vote with your feet and leave.

    Michael

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    I can support and fight for a persons right to do something without agreeing with what it is they are doing. I support the KKK and Black Panthers right to march and protest. I do not support what they say but will gladly fight for their right to say it.


    My responses are in bold.

    Michael

    Okay, here you are defending the right of free speech... As enumerated IN the BOR.

    But you say nothing in support of rights NOT enumerated.. So, if the enumerated right to KBA were not enumerated, should it be supported by those who don't support it, because it isn't written?

    What then are they to support? Your belief in the right... Or the Brady Bunch's?

    As it is, we have enough difficulty with the interpretation of that right, as written... If it were not included at all in the constitution, we would REALLY be paddle-less in swiftly moving water heading for the falls.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414
    Let's extrapolate to the possible end with no BOR... And let's use prohibition...

    Other than "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Imbibing in alcohol is not an enumerated right.

    Prohibitionists were able to amend the constitution so that it was against the law to imbibe, or to make alcohol even for yourself.

    Fast-forward to today... only without the 2A...
    Oklahoma can make auto weapons, and residents can own them. The rest of the states have gone the way of Chicago... and most (maybe not all) have banned firearms... Over the decades... A lot of folks have moved to OK...

    But, now, President Emanuel (good ol' Rahm his self) has called for the people of the country to ratify a new amendment to the constitution.. Banning all firearms in the country, except for LEO and military... It's already that way in 45 states... So it will pass... States rights or not. Because, like prohibition,We the people ratified it..

    And, why not... Heck, there's no BOR issue to even consider...
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array NC Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NC Foothills
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by ntkb View Post
    I donít recall anything in the 2nd amendment stating anything about felons, only people. If they can be trusted to roam in society and act like a citizen why not allow them to defend themselves.
    Provided that their offence wasnít of the violent nature.

    Should they violate this, revoke their freedom and we wonít have to worry about it?
    And hence answering the original posters questions of supporting rights we may disagree with and following my statement that we support what we believe in.

    The second amendment didn't reference anything about a past felon or if the crime was violent or not. We have seen fit to modify the 2nd to exclude felons even after their sentence is complete and restoring their second only on a case by case evaluation.

    The Bill Of Rights is but a starting point that we were given to base our country off of and as such modifications and stipulations are added as seen fit by the popular vote.
    North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit Instructor
    NRA Personal Protection and Basic Pistol Instructor

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Let's extrapolate to the possible end with no BOR... And let's use prohibition...

    Other than "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Imbibing in alcohol is not an enumerated right.

    Prohibitionists were able to amend the constitution so that it was against the law to imbibe, or to make alcohol even for yourself.

    Fast-forward to today... only without the 2A...
    Oklahoma can make auto weapons, and residents can own them. The rest of the states have gone the way of Chicago... and most (maybe not all) have banned firearms... Over the decades... A lot of folks have moved to OK...

    But, now, President Emanuel (good ol' Rahm his self) has called for the people of the country to ratify a new amendment to the constitution.. Banning all firearms in the country, except for LEO and military... It's already that way in 45 states... So it will pass... States rights or not. Because, like prohibition,We the people ratified it..

    And, why not... Heck, there's no BOR issue to even consider...
    An amendment banning all firearms would be the proper way for the States and the people to give up their rights. That is the way the Founders set it up. I would not like it but it would be the correct way to go about it. The States gave up their individual power to declare war against other Countries giving that power to the Feds in the Constitution. This would be no different.

    Other than "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Imbibing in alcohol is not an enumerated right.
    The Constitution before the BOR did not list any rights. Does that mean that we had no rights? Do you believe that the individual Colonies and their citizens would draft a document giving up all their rights to a new untested government? Or could it be possible as many of the Founders believed that we derive our rights from God and that we only gave up those mentioned in the Constitution?

    Before the BOR the only rights mentioned in the Constitution were those that we agreed to give up to the new government. If it was not enumerated in the document the feds had no power to do it. On the other hand if it was not in the document it was within the power of the States or their citizens.
    The Feds powers were to be carefully enumerated. Not your rights.


    Michael

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    And hence answering the original posters questions of supporting rights we may disagree with and following my statement that we support what we believe in.

    The second amendment didn't reference anything about a past felon or if the crime was violent or not. We have seen fit to modify the 2nd to exclude felons even after their sentence is complete and restoring their second only on a case by case evaluation.

    The Bill Of Rights is but a starting point that we were given to base our country off of and as such modifications and stipulations are added as seen fit by the popular vote.
    The second amendment also did not give you a right to bear arms. What it did state was why that right was necessary and that the new Government could not infringe on it. The right preexisted the amendment. The Founders merely reminded the Feds that they could never threaten it.

    Michael

  9. #24
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Fully unequivocally yes. Funny I know of a couple of members who wouldn't dare post here.

  10. #25
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    I'm proactive (as much as I can be by myself)...for everyone's rights. This is a national and country wide ordeal......not linked to gated neighborhoods, race, political affiliation, tax status, or anything else. Obviously the team aspect is seldom thought of these days since it's a selfish world. What caused this to distance us from ourselves and the basics? Trust. I've been alive for some 47+ years, and I can count on one hand the people I actually trust. In reality......I dislike humanity for what it is or has become. Compassion will be my downfall. I'll die by the hands of others for my own simple reasons and on my own terms willingly. In the past....I was willing to lay my life on the line for all in this great country. It's really not so great anymore, and I seem to be willing to sacrifice less each and every week for someone else that can't pick up a gun or won't lift a hand for OUR rights. I grow tired in my old age. Tired of many things we could have taken care of years ago....while we were too wrapped up in having a good time not worrying about things like this.

    Will you actively protect my rights? I have my doubts.

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    An amendment banning all firearms would be the proper way for the States and the people to give up their rights. That is the way the Founders set it up. I would not like it but it would be the correct way to go about it. The States gave up their individual power to declare war against other Countries giving that power to the Feds in the Constitution. This would be no different.


    The Constitution before the BOR did not list any rights. Does that mean that we had no rights? Do you believe that the individual Colonies and their citizens would draft a document giving up all their rights to a new untested government? Or could it be possible as many of the Founders believed that we derive our rights from God and that we only gave up those mentioned in the Constitution?

    Before the BOR the only rights mentioned in the Constitution were those that we agreed to give up to the new government. If it was not enumerated in the document the feds had no power to do it. On the other hand if it was not in the document it was within the power of the States or their citizens.
    The Feds powers were to be carefully enumerated. Not your rights.


    Michael
    You are correct about the rights we had naturally (or by God), prior to their enumeration in the document. Heck, they existed before the document was conceived!

    But, those listed in the BOR were rights guaranteed to "We the people" for the very reason you give in your response to someone else... The people didn't want to leave themselves exposed to someone using the document to eliminate those rights.

    Conventional wisdom of the time dictated that R2KBA was a natural right, but with the BOR, there was a double guarantee, of sorts. And, conventional wisdom does change over time.

    I am extremely grateful for the BOR for that reason alone... It makes it that much more difficult for the federal gov't to usurp the rights enumerated therein
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    When it comes to gun laws will you actively fight to protect all rights or will you only put effort into protecting those that you agree with? I am not asking if you will support a ban. I am asking if, even though you do not personally approve of something, will you step up to protect the freedom for those that do to exercise that freedom?
    Truthfully you didn't need to post this thread. The answer can be found in many of the threads that have been posted on this forum. Just my observation........
    Ram Rod likes this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  13. #28
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowman View Post
    Truthfully you didn't need to post this thread. The answer can be found in many of the threads that have been posted on this forum. Just my observation........
    And......BAM!

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodle View Post
    Fully unequivocally yes. Funny I know of a couple of members who wouldn't dare post here.
    I do not see why any person should be afraid to voice their opinion. Thats how we discussions work, listening to views other than our own.

    Michael

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,785
    There is one guy and I , who have been having this discussion. He conceal carries, but thinks NO ONE should be able to open carry, and is totally against it. He argues open carry should be banned. I was surprised he would not only NOT defend their right to do it, but would campaign against it.

    I was a bit amazed. I would stand up for anyone's right .... as it relates to guns. I may not want to do what they are doing, do what they are in terms of the way they are doing it, or even think they are dumb for doing it...... but I'ld sure defend their right to do it. I think there are too many people who would easily take away all of our rights, if it was up to them (e.g. Bloomberg, Rahm, etc).
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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
  •  

Search tags for this page

arkansas machine gun shoot
,
it is a rare occasion that i point my finger and today i do it and call you a coward.
,
protect my rights
,

what steps does an ex felon need to take to get back second amendment rights

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors