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; Oh, I forgot one thing. Everybody here keeps saying criminals will find guns easily. Would not the felon who really is rehabilitated be trying to ...
August 27th, 2012 10:48 AM
Oh, I forgot one thing. Everybody here keeps saying criminals will find guns easily. Would not the felon who really is rehabilitated be trying to buy a gun for legit reasons. This is idiotic. The Constitution grants rights. Now we want to take them away because of past behaivior. I have seen on this forum where folks have had ND's, AD's, have left a firearm where kids can get to them and killed themselves or someone else, and people say, well, you still can't take their rights away to own firearms.
I don't get it. I am not naive but there are plenty of people I would prefer not to have guns and some of them are not felons. Folks are using their own moral compass to dictate who should and who should not own firearms and want it legislated so that felons can not have firearms. My views on who should and should not have firearms are personal. I d not want the government ot get more involved in the issue.
Owning a gun is not a friggin club. It is a right. You serve your time, deemed not a threat to society, you get your rights back. If you are still deemed a threat, let out all the potheads who are non violent and keep the violent ones in. And like I said earlier. If the ex con wants a gun to committ a crime he will get one. This does not stop one crime at all.
August 27th, 2012 10:48 AM
August 27th, 2012 10:50 AM
Yep, they are all innocent and good upstanding citizens. We also know that a lot will return to prison (while being Innocent).. I fully understand where you are coming from. I do not want to see innocent people getting screwed, but in the same breath do not want sexual offenders or any felons having the same rights as I, or any law abiding citizens.
Originally Posted by suntzu
The rehab rate is not that good, agreed, but a wolf does has a hard time changing who he is...
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
August 27th, 2012 10:54 AM
I'd love to be able to give specific examples of privately owned battle-capable ships that're ostensibly approved of by the Founding Fathers. That would rock my ability to conduct future debates! Please, please, please give a citation! It would be awesome.
August 27th, 2012 11:07 AM
The only rights the constitution grants are the rights of suffrage, the rights of all races to vote, and the rights of adolescents to vote (at 18 YO)... and it even does it in a backwards way.... the right to vote "shall not be denied..." to those classes of people
Originally Posted by suntzu
all others enumerated or not are covered by the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Technically, you never lost your rights as a person.... only your citizenship rights (voting, holding office) elsewise I agree with you.... gun laws never stopped any crime committed by a barred person... it merely added to the crimes of which he was guilty... felon in possession, etc..
Originally Posted by suntzu
It could be worse!
August 27th, 2012 11:32 AM
So you got a guy who has plenty of money, and says, think i will just get me a little thermonuclear warhead thingy. Showing it off to his wife, she says, 'how nice, how about turning it off, and come to dinner'. So he is looking at it, and not being a nuclear scientist, is trying to remember, did the dealer tell me to take the red wire off first, or the green.
Originally Posted by peckman28
Do you believe mustard gas is an 'arm'.
Do you want to be living next to that guy? Does society say that RKBA doesn't include this because the risk to too many is outweighed by the right of one?
You can take the level or armament back by steps from that nuke to 2k bomb, to a mortar, to a rpg, to a machine gun, to a rifle to a handgun to a spear, to a slingshot to a rock.
Is there a slope or not. If not, then the answer to OP question is you have to support it all. If you don't think your neighbor should be playing with claymores, then your answer is you won't unquestionably support what the OP asked.
August 27th, 2012 11:54 AM
"Owning a gun is not a friggin club. It is a right. You serve your time, deemed not a threat to society, you get your rights back."
Possessing rights is not a club. You enjoy and exercise your constitutionally given rights with a responsibility toward the society in which you live. The fear of the loss of those rights should be extended to those who would deliberately choose to trample society. Societal responsibility is a serious matter as is blatant irresponsibility toward society. Punishments as provided by law should be administered harshly for the protection of society and the advancement of civilization. There is nothing wrong with the law making an example of miscreants for the benefit of the other members of society who contemplate lawbreaking. A society is no better than its criminal element when it will not effectively protect itself and we cannot be said to be properly protecting ourselves at this point in American society. Yes, post release restrictions of rights would protect society through the example they make of the felon. Fear of retribution is understood. Fear of retribution is used by many to manipulate others to one degree or the other in order to have their way. The law is rendered ineffective when a proper fear of retribution is removed. Our society has come to think that fear of retribution is always bad and any such fear must be completely eradicated from the human existence. Permanent denial of rights to lawbreakers is a serious matter. It is the lawbreaking and crimes against our society that ought to be taken more seriously.
We really need to be spared all hand-wringing over the possible innocents caught up in the penal system. They are constantly held up as a caution against doing anything at all that would be truly effective to protect society from the ravages of crime. The incidents where a truly innocent person is falsely convicted and punished are a horrible tragedy but no more so than the far, far greater number of victims who are preyed on because of our tolerance and our twisted notions of what constitutes justice. What about the thousand-fold victims on the outside?
"Unfortunately that mob mentality spills over and kills innocent folks. That is not the society I want to live in."
Unfortunately that is exactly the sort of society in which you live at present. Only it's the host of innocent on the outside who suffer along with the few on the inside who deserve to be exonerated. Our society does not have to be this way. It just is this way because we collectively do not have the stomach for bringing a proper measure of justice to those who prey on it. Too many dither over the few innocent who might be caught up in justice's error to effectively protect the many innocent who are being caught up due to a lack of proper justice applied at all.
Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society
“No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”
Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893
August 27th, 2012 12:10 PM
Yes I know the Constituiton doesn't grant rights. Was typing to fast LOL
Originally Posted by oakchas
August 29th, 2012 12:17 PM
August 29th, 2012 12:24 PM
The 13 Colonies, having declared their Independence, had only 31 ships comprising the Continental Navy. To add to this, they issued Letters of Marque to privately owned, armed merchant ships and Commissions for privateers, which were outfitted as warships to prey on enemy merchant ships. Merchant seamen who manned these ships contributed to the very birth and founding of our Republic.
Originally Posted by CanuckQue
see Privateers or Merchant Mariners help win the Revolutionary War
“You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”
― Robert A. Heinlein,
August 29th, 2012 02:09 PM
Once again, if what someone else is doing isn't harming you, they have the right to do it. The 9th and 10th Amendment are some things you should brush up on, following the logic of this post. As far as gay rights go, it is an example of something the federal government was not granted constitutional power over. You don't get your rights because you're gay or straight, or for any other superficial reason. You get them because you are an individual. The other labels are meaningless in the eyes of a proper legal construct.
Originally Posted by oakchas
I don't see what you're trying to say here, in relation to what you quoted from me. My only point is that a convicted violent felon who truly can't be trusted with guns should not be let out of jail in the first place, short of proof of innocence coming to light. The issue of allowing prior felons their citizenship rights should be moot.
The people who are entitled to the right to keep and bear arms are not limited to citizens of the USA. These are the enumerated rights of those who LIVE in the United States:
▪ freedom of expression
▪ freedom of speech
▪ freedom of assembly
▪ freedom to petition the government
▪ freedom of worship
▪ the right to bear arms
A felon lives in the United States... Even if he has some or all of his citizenship rights revoked... he still lives in the United States. He can lose his right to vote, a citizenship right.. But not his right to petition the government (for his citizenship rights, if nothing else) and he need not petition for the right to bear arms.
IF you examine the War of 1812 you will see examples of privateers in their warships harassing the British Navy on behalf of the U.S. In response to the bottom statement about "marching all the time", I would have to give the admittedly unsatisfying answer that it really takes a change in peoples' mentality more than marches in the streets. Supporting the rights of someone else could be as simple as withholding your support for those who would deprive them. What level you would want to take it to must be up to you.
I've heard there were privately owned canons (but cannot find a corroborated source)... but not ships with canons... though there may not have been corporations (as we know them today) that owned these things... and possibly not true warships, but cargo ships with plenty of armament to protect itself from privateers... And, as I have said, I have no problem with you owning a canon or a Ma Deuce...
I might git a little twitchy if you insist on having a ricin bomb... or a nuke (suitcase or otherwise)... After all, we've seen and heard of plenty of well trained , expert gun folk, inadvertently shooting themselves or another... And while that's a rare occurrence... it would only take one negligent discharge with a nuke or chemical bomb.... to affect scores of people (not just the idiot that just "Had to have one, 'cause it's sooo tacticool")
So where do we draw the line in support of one another? or do we? And if we don't draw a line in our "job to support" rights, how can we find the time for our "job to support" ourselves, and our families... we'd be out marching all the time...
August 29th, 2012 02:26 PM
As for the OP, I am trying to better educate myself first but yes I would like to become more active in fighting for our rights. I do become more active in 2A and other rights discussions but I sometimes feel intimidated. Id rather have the right ammunition so to speak than make myself and the rest of us look stupid by saying the wrong things.
I completley agree with your second post about some gun owners dont care about others rights. Ive known some hunters especialy who see no need to carry or do anything beyond hunting. I guess when they have their rights taken away too, they will have to get their meat from the grocery store like the rest of us.
Anyone else ever been told you wont always have a calculator in the real world? Now you do, if you have a cell phone.
Originally Posted by HotGuns
But yes, technology is deffinatley dumbing us down. Even now, on the rare occasion that I use a computer, I forget to use spell check because I am so used to not having it on my phone. Oh what would I do without spell check.
"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you can not confirm their validity."
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky. dangerous animals."
August 29th, 2012 03:00 PM
You're not "one of my loved ones," so why--what did you do?
Yes, I tend to support others, as far as I can.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
"For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield
August 29th, 2012 03:25 PM
I leave that stuff to the community activists.
August 29th, 2012 04:10 PM
I agree. Someone thinks it is ok to cc but doesn't like open carry. Or they might think it is ok to have a mag with 9 rounds but doesn't think it is ok to have 1000. It shouldn't matter. Gun rights are just that rights. I let them take your rights away by not trying to protect them sooner or later they are going to take mine.
Originally Posted by pir8fan
Our House Is Protected By The Good Lord And A gun. You Might Meet Both Of Them If You Show Up Inside My House Uninvited.
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.