Is Owning A Gun a Civil Rights Issue?

[Parche]

Poll question: Is Owning A Gun a Civil Rights Issue?

:shrug::hi:

[Joey Kidd]

1. Not at all.

but Gay rights is for sure.

[SteveM]

20. Uh, better check up on that again...

www.georgiacarry.org

Search locally for legal briefs submitted on behalf of Heller in SCOTUS decision. That should clear things up.

[Edweird]

2. Look up the history of 'gun control'. It's about racism.

[Dappleganger]

7. Racism and bigotry.

And yes, I do think it's a civil rights issue.

[Rowdyboy]

3. Sadly, owning a gun is a non-issue, at least with the current political parties....

I remember in the 1960's there was some serious attempts to limit handguns which ultimately failed. Since then its been a joke.

We've moved so far to the right since 1968 that serious gun control is no longer even conceivable to me.

[cleanhippie]

46. What would be your idea of "serious gun control"?

[slackmaster]

4. Owning personal property in general is a civil rights issue

Of course the right to own a gun is a civil rights issue.

[divideandconquer]

13. Yeah, like an A-bomb or meth or child porn or blood diamonds or dangerous dogs

Real rights such as healthcare and education are pissed on in America but the bogus right to kill or threaten with a gun is worshipped.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

22. Really? I thought Cowman hit it right on the head. nt

[Parche]

24. calling people liars?

:shrug:

[cowman]

27. I didn't call him a liar

I asked if he was mis-informed or a liar. Reading the post in its context will clear that up.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jazzhound]

44. Very well stated.

The Limbaughs of the Left richly deserve to be called out for their bigotry, dishonesty, hyperbole, cowardice, arrogance, intellectual laziness, hypocrisy and willful ignorance.

They are the reason that the NRA's coffers are full and gun "control" is going down in flames.

[cowman]

28. Thank you

on a lighter note, am immensly enjoying my retirement although I am volunteering once a week at our local FD, just as a Paramedic, no firefighting, had enough of that for the rest of my life.

[cowman]

26. Yep

but only when that same old tire shit comes up, and say good by to your post, attacking a fellow DU'er will get you deleted.

[Parche]

29. r u a fellow DU'r?

and when did i attack anyone?

[cowman]

30. Calling me rude and obnoxious is a personal attack

And yes, I am a fellow DU'er, you've been here long enough to know that, why, what are you trying to insinuate?
If I bug you that much, then put me on ignore.

[Parche]

31. the truth shall lead

[cowman]

33. Whatever that means

At least have the courage to say what you are insinuating and stop being what you think is cute and snarky

[cowman]

40. Just as I thought

call out the anti's and what do they do? Run and hide.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bold Lib]

63. Do you have a response other than bigoted name calling and personal insults?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bold Lib]

65. It is amazing how many of your posts are being deleted.

Perhaps what you are feeling is projection.

[jazzhound]

43. Guess that puts you at the rear of the line, doesn't it? NT

[cowman]

45. BTW

Welcome back to the jungle.

[cleanhippie]

47. What does that mean?

You are making no sense.

[slackmaster]

18. Nuclear Straw Man

Is still a weak debate tactic.

...the bogus right to kill or threaten with a gun...

A bogus right that exists only in the twisted logic of gun ban extremists.

[SteveM]

21. More junk from culture warrior/prohibitionists? GOP loves it. nt

[Caliman73]

23. Seems like you are not interested in neither discussion nor debate.

From your statement, it seems that you are only interested in creating a highly emotional atmosphere not conducive to any type of discussion or even debate. Your examples are extreme and inaccurate. Nuclear material is classified as hazardous and controlled through Federal law and international treaty. Methamphetamine is a controlled substance which can be owned and used under prescription from a licensed doctor. The manufacture, use, and distribution of Methamphetamine is illegal without permission from the authorities. Child pornography is illegal to possess because it is the proceeds of criminal activity. Blood or Conflict Diamonds are not illegal to possess but are discouraged because their sale is used to finance wars. Opting into the accords on diamond sales has been voluntary unless the laws have changed. All dogs can be dangerous under the right circumstance. It is legal to own most breeds of dog as long as the individual dog has not had a history of attack. Dogs that have incidents of violence are typically destroyed. None of the above are rights enumerated in the constitution and as such are not appropriate to the topic.

While I agree that universal free, or very low cost health care should be a right, and education is a right. Owning a firearm is also a right. What you do with that firearm is controlled by Federal, State, and local ordinances. No one has a right to kill, although the right to self defense may lead to actions which cause the death of an attacker. Threatening with a gun is illegal in many jurisdictions as well and would lead to the suspension of the right to own firearms after due legal process.

However, as I said, I doubt you are interested in any of this and would rather continue to send out emotionally charged, inaccurate, and irrelevant arguments. If not then give a clear and cogent argument.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. That poster has a well known trackrecord

[Euromutt]

39. "The bogus right to kill or threaten with a gun is worshipped"?

Last time I looked, killing and threatening were both still illegal, with a gun or by other means. From the laws of my own state, Washington: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32 and http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270; yep, still illegal.

Or are you referring to the "barbaric" idea that, given that the government refuses to take responsibility for protecting individual citizens from violent crime, individual citizens should be able to possess the means to effectively defend themselves?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. More of your anti union nonsense again?

[Callisto32]

51. REAL rights eh?

Neither of those things is a right, unless secured for one's self.

Here is an old post of mine explaining why. If you disagree, show me how making a good/service a right to have is NOT enslaving.

Mon Dec 21st 2009, 11:46 AM
For those of you from outside this forum, or who have forgotten about me in my long absence here is the same old disclaimer: I am a libertarian, (note the lower case "l"), not a Democrat, or anything that could probably be confused therewith.

I would say that if the bill states that you cannot get an abortion on the public tab, it is fine. Of course, I don't think that the state should be paying anybody's medical bills, and certainly not calling it a right to receive health care. Here is why. For something to be a right, I believe, it must be able to be fulfilled entirely by the voluntary actions of the person asserting the right. So, for example, you would have the right to enter into contracts with medical professionals for the tender of care in exchange for any valuable consideration you may agree upon. You cannot simply have a right to health care. Because if you have a right, you cannot rightly be denied it, and so someone HAS to provide that service for you. This is tantamount to enslaving the person who is forced, by your "right," to provide a service. Firearms are the same way. If there was a bill that was going to use tax (read: "stolen") funds to provide the populace with firearms, that would be wrong too because of the force involved in moving the wealth around. But, if someone can acquire a firearm and all of the accoutrement, and use that firearm, both in ways that do not harm others or the property of others, then he has a right to possession of that firearm.

[krispos42]

58. The right to self-defense is real

And that includes threatening an attacker, using lethal force on an attacker, and killing an attacker.


You subject line is crap, hyperbole, a farce. However, I agree with you on the healthcare and education issue. But remember, if Dems are in the minority because the Dems push gun control, then the Dems can't fix healthcare and education.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. It is not a civil rights issue

It won't become one until somebody suggests that some people should have the right to bear arms and others should not.

[slackmaster]

6. That's already happened, Jack Rabbit. Have you ever heard of the Gun Control Act?

Some people are not allowed to own guns.

[Caliman73]

36. civil rights are not about protected classes.

Civil rights are about what each individual citizen has the right to do. People under the age of consent cannot marry without parental consent, but all people should have the right. People cannot vote until they are 18, but cannot be barred otherwise unless through due process. Every citizen who wants to own a firearm should have the right to do so unless barred through due process. Cities like Chicago have had outright bans on possession of firearms. The right to own a firearm is a civil right. Issues affecting that right make it a civil rights issue.

[DissedByBush]

48. That is exactly the source of the first gun laws in this country

They were intended to strip free blacks of their right to keep and bear arms while allowing whites to carry.

As the Florida Supreme Court once said about a gun control law, "The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied."

[Callisto32]

52. You mean like how only the violent arm of the state should have them?

That is often suggested.

[beevul]

54. You mean like...

You mean something like this:

"Only the police and the military should have guns".



Never seen that said before?

[jazzhound]

60. Looks like Rachel Maddow has made it a civil rights issue...

.............according to your argument, since she doesn't believe that ordinary citizens should have the right to own guns in their homes. (I'm going to assume that she believes that it's alright for law enforcement to carry firearms.)

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-late-night-jimmy-fallon?ref=http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-late-night-jimmy-fallon

[closeupready]

8. Yes.

And duh, read the Bill of Rights.

[Xithras]

9. Of course it is

Civil - of the citizen as an individual; of, pertaining to, or consisting of citizens;
Rights - that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc

The definition of Civil Rights, a term which can be traced back to Oliver Cromwell in the 1600's, are the rights due to the common people as guaranteed by law and morality. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960's and subsequent decades has used the term to highlight the fact that citizens are being DENIED the rights they are guaranteed.

Gun ownership is a guaranteed right in the United States (per the current USSC's interpretation of the Second Amendment), which makes gun ownership a civil right. It's not nearly as endangered as some other rights, but that doesn't detract from it's status as a civil right.

[Statistical]

10. Yes it is.

[Common Sense Party]

11. It's a constitutional right.

How could it be anything other than a civil right?

[proteus_lives]

12. Yep, racism is a core feature in gun control.

[Caliman73]

14. Yes it is.

It may seem tempting to say it is not because when the concept of "Civil Rights" comes up, the association that accompanies it is typically about women and minorities having the right to vote, desegregation, GLBT equality in marriage, and the like. The right to own firearms is a right enumerated in the Constitution's initial Bill of Rights amendments and it pertains to "the people" just like the others do, so yes it is a civil right. Gun owners are not a protected class of citizens due to a history of oppression, but it is the civil right of anyone, not excluded through due process to own firearms.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. No more than owning something useful like a toaster is.

[cowman]

17. Uhhhh

where in the BoR does it say that owning a toaster is a civil or constitutional right?
Now there is a constitutional right to RKBA

[SlimJimmy]

34. That would have to be one serious kick ass toaster to be covered under RKBA (nt)

[cowman]

35. Yeah

as you depress the handle to lower the bread, it shoots a .45 cal. bullet.

[SteveM]

25. Why, yes! You're right. I saw "Kenmore Toaster" in Amendment...what was it...? nt

[krispos42]

57. If the government arbitrarily decided to outlaw ownership of toasters, then it is.

The right of the businessman to sell his make and sell his products, and my right to buy and use those products.

Of course, if there was a compelling public safety issue, then the law would be upheld. But absent one...

[onehandle]

37. It's a corporate issue.

The current corporate conservative SCOTUS wouldn't touch it unless it benefited corporate America.

[cowman]

38. I'm probably going to regret this

but how the hell is a civil right a corporate issue?
Can't wait to hear this.

[SteveM]

42. Now, do you really expect an answer from the crypt? nt

[Callisto32]

53. Ah yes, the corporations raised again as an evil spectre.

Tell me, what are you views on the fact that the corporations you claim to hate so much are the creation of the government to which you want to give so much power; and that that government is the biggest, most powerful, least responsive corporation of all.

I say end it all, corporate immunity, as well as immunity for government workers. Hold people responsible for the harm they cause.

[Pavulon]

55. Please elaborate...(nt)

[Glassunion]

59. Oh noes!! It's the corparashuns!!

[Euromutt]

41. Owning a gun per se isn't a civil right

However, what is a civil right is the ability to defend oneself against unlawful violence, especially given that government has consistently taken the position that it has no obligation to protect individual citizens against violent crime. Self-defense being a right, it follows that the individual citizen must also be permitted to possess effective means of self-defense, and at present, firearms are the most reliable and effective means to that end.

If anyone ever develops a "less lethal" weapon that is as effective or better than a firearm in reliably incapacitating an assailant (a phaser with stun settings, or something like that), then it might become acceptable to heavily restrict private ownership of firearms (provided ownership of the new device were not similarly restricted). Until then, guns it is.

[MicaelS]

56. That is an excellent post, thanks.

A very interesting perspective.

[one-eyed fat man]

66. Endless irony

Most of the jurisdictions that either prohibit or heavily regulate firearms are equally as heavy handed in denying their inhabitants from using or possessing less lethal self defense devices. The very same people who insist that guns only belong in the hands of the State and its agents will, when pressed, grudingly admit that criminals will flaunt the law. Somehow their vision of an idyllic world where only cops and crooks possess firearms makes it dubious that they would ever allow a mere citizen to have a "phaser set to stun" even if it existed.

STATES WHERE STUN GUNS / TASER GUNS ARE RESTRICTED:

HAWAII
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
RHODE ISLAND
WISCONSIN
ILLINOIS

CITIES WHERE STUN GUNS ARE RESTRICTED:

ANNAPOLIS, MD
BALTIMORE, MD
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD
CHICAGO, IL
DENISON, IA / CRAWFORD COUNTY (*According to Sheriff Tom Hogan*)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PHILADELPHIA

STATES WHERE PEPPER SPRAY IS RESTRICTED:

Wisconsin - Special state formulation does not allow UV dye, therefore only pepper spray that contains OC PEPPER will be accepted in Wiscosin.

Michigan - Specific pepper or tear gas formulations are required.

New York -Note Carefully Dog pepper spray can be shipped to NY but regular pepper spray must be purchased from a New York state licensed firearm dealer

Massachusetts - Must have Firearms Identification Card (FID)

State and/or local restrictions on stun guns & pepper spray

[krispos42]

67. They take the "government has a monopoly on force" to the extreme, don't they? n/t

[hack89]

61. Civil rights are the only rights in the Bill of Rights. nt