Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

[mikeb302000]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to me means I can bring my kids to the playground without worrying about which of the other parents is carrying a gun, about which one of them might be in a domestic squabble with her husband who's about to storm into the playground shootin'.

But I don't have that. The reason is someone else's idea of freedom has trumped mine. This was done as a planned and systematic assault on the legislative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Now, what we've got is something which would be totally unrecognizable by the sacred and revered Founding Fathers, not something they would approve of, but something they would be baffled and confounded by.

http://www.mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[DrDan]

exactly! your safety and mine are secondary in gunner-world

[hack89]

24. The funny thing is that your world is steadily getting safer. nt

[PavePusher]

32. Cite, please. n/t

[Remmah2]

33. And just how would you propose enforcing this w/the gang bangers, drug dealers and bullies?

The anti 2A crowd is always screwing w/the pro 2A people. Seriously, if there were no threats in the world I'd be happy to go gun free. Utopia does and will never exist. Criminals don't obey laws, yet anti-2A agendas do not address them. Criminalizing law abiding people seems to be (pardon the pun) the target.

More children have been injured or killed on playground equipment than from my firearms (zero for the record).

[DrDan]

35. so your idea of demonstrating your point is to compare ALL playground equipment

with your personal firearms.

Let me state that there have been infinitely more lives lost by guns than by the playground equipment on my property.

There - proves it. Guns are dangerous, and downright deadly.

[Remmah2]

40. Actually you stepped in it.

Anti-2A groups equate the actions of criminals with the actions of all firearms owners. Firearms owners are lump summed for a greater agenda.



Don't chew on the pressure treated lumber at your playground.

[rl6214]

37. WTF is a "gunner-world"?

:rofl:

[LAGC]

1. You don't have it, because you're not a U.S. citizen.

You're an Italian ex-patriate. So why even pretend you're an American?

[DrDan]

2. everyone has those rights - not just U.S. citizens

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[DrDan]

6. these are unalienable rights - not consititutional

[LAGC]

8. That would be news to many countries.

How can a right be unalienable when so many countries blatantly disregard them and abuse their citizens?

Without a constitution clearly spelling it out, and courts willing to defend it, there's no way to protect those rights.

[Fumesucker]

10. Heh, you think Constitutional rights aren't blatantly disregarded in the USA?

Bless your heart..

[LAGC]

11. No, they certainly are.

But much moreso in many other countries who don't even pretend to respect them.

[Fumesucker]

12. Well, that certainly excuses the disregard of Constitutional rights in the USA..

The drug war has been driven world wide by the USA, that's but one example of disregarding rights that has been instigated largely by the USA.

[DrDan]

19. violation of natural rights is not new nor rare

[LAGC]

22. I kind of find it odd that you speak of "natural rights."

Do you believe they are "God-given" rights as well?

[DrDan]

23. I believe they are natural rights - applying to everyone

not sure why that is odd.

[LAGC]

25. If they are so "natural" then why do so many governments not recognize them?

You'd think it would be self-evident to everyone if that was really the case.

[DrDan]

29. "governments" believe they have control over all individual rights

Do you not believe we are born with certain natural rights?

[LAGC]

36. Well, I kind of like the rights we are supposed to have here in this country.

But then again, I was born here, so I must confess to a certain amount of bias.

If I was born in Saudi Arabia, I'd probably have a different view on rights, especially as it came to women.

I think there's a certain amount of cultural anthropology in play here.

While its nice to think our assumed values should be extended to everyone on this planet, reality is a slightly different creature. I certainly don't support using military force to shove our "freedoms" down everyone else's throat, especially when they aren't ready or wanting it.

[DrDan]

38. Here is a basis for universal human rights from the U.N.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

[PavePusher]

94. Noteably short on a right to self-defense and access to effective tools for same.

Interesting, huh?

[iverglas]

102. damn, you're right

Almost makes you think that those "rights" aren't inherent human rights at all ... and are just silly gobbledygook.

How come Eleanor Roosevelt didn't insist on that stuff being in there??

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. A sad state of affairs.

It truly is. At the end of the eighteenth century the statesmen and leaders here in the US evidenced a profound trust of and commitment to the ideals of liberty and personal freedom. Since then, of the almost 200 nations in the world, all but a dozen or so have a constitution and many were modeled after our founding documents.

Today, the real statesmen and leaders are following those same ideals. Over the past 25 years, many states are affirming their trust in liberty by passing laws that move away from non-issue and may issue concealed carry and toward shall issue/unrestricted carry.

The sad part is that many folks deny that these states are headed the right way. :shrug:


ETA: No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill

[iverglas]

80. sad

That bunch of statesmen and leaders in the US were just struck by a bolt of lightning, one supposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic rights for (at the time) all Englishmen. These rights continue to apply today, not only in England and Wales, but in each of the jurisdictions of the Commonwealth realms as well. The Act set out that there should be:

no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.

no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes.

only civil courts, not Church courts, are legal

freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution

no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.<7>

no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)

no royal interference in the election of members of parliament

the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament

"grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void

no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed

1689. It's your history. Know it. Embrace it.

These days, most countries in the world adopting bills/charters of rights are modeling them on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has many similarities to the US Bill of Rights, with the progress that might be expected after another couple of centuries of human thought and experience.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. your feeble...

...attempt at criticism is, well, feeble...

Or should I say "you're"... ;)

Have a nice day.

:fistbump:

[iverglas]

101. the term "natural rights"

actually has a particular meaning, and if you don't intend that meaning, it would be best to avoid it.

The usual modern term is "inherent rights", for expressing the fact that human rights are part and parcel of the status of human being.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

79. Correct - they are.

Maybe now you can accept that with the right to life comes the right to protect your life.

[RSillsbee]

77. Hate to say this but, Dr Dan is 100% right

Those rights belong to every human being on the face of this planet. Whether or not said humans are willing to fight to enforce them is another topic.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

99. agreed

people have rights, all of them

all the people, have all of their rights, all the time

:toast:

[baldguy]

3. Last time I looked the Constitution didn't limit it's protections to American citizens.

Why pretend that it does?

[LAGC]

5. Sure, within U.S. jurisdiction.

Within U.S. borders or U.S. citizens overseas.

[Flatulo]

7. That's a bizarre notion - are you suggesting that the US Constitution protects

every person on the planet?

I wonder what other countries think about *their* own constitutions?

[iverglas]

81. now read that slowly

"The US Constitution doesn't limit it's protections"

The US Constitution doesn't grant protection to anyone outside the US, US citizen or no. (Unless said US citizen is dealing with their own government, say.)

So why would you ask whether it protects every person on the planet?

It protects every person on the planet if ever and whenever they are in the US.

I'm not a US citizen. If I cross the border into the US, I have all the protections of the US Constitution, say against cruel and unusual punishment.

Ditto if you cross the border into Canada, you just might get some extras in that deal.

[Flatulo]

96. Sorry, but I was replying to baldguy, who stated

"Last time I looked the Constitution didn't limit it's protections to American citizens"

I was questioning if he really believed this to be true (which of course I do not).

[iverglas]

98. um, sorry, I had figured that out

baldguy: Last time I looked the Constitution didn't limit it's protections to American citizens

you: I was questioning if he really believed this to be true (which of course I do not).

... and I was pointing out that you're wrong ...

[Flatulo]

103. 'm sure British subjects will be delighted to hear that they too benefit

from the Bill of Rights.

[iverglas]

115. how about British prepositions?

You don't discriminate against them, surely.

I know that if someone tried to deny me, as a Canadian citizen, the benefit of your Bill of Rights when I was in your country, like say by subjecting me to unreasonable search, or cruel and unusual punishment, well, that ACLU of yours would pitch a fit.

And lots of people in Canada would pitch a fit if the government here tried to deny you the benefit of our Charter of Rights, say by making a law that legal residents who were citizens of the US could not be covered by a province's universal health insurance plan. Tsk, that would violate section 15 of the Charter, equal benefit of the law.

Now mind you, a US citizen who did not also have Canadian citizenship could not benefit from section 3, because it says that every Canadian citizen has the right to vote. That's what we call a "civil right", a right associated with formal membership in a particular society organized as a state, which can indeed depend on citizenship or residency.

Kind of like that second amendment thing of yours.

The fifth one says "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property ..." (so of course it doesn't actually cover subjects or prepositions). That means no person, be the person short, tall, British or Texan.

The second says "the people". I'd certainly say that doesn't cover Brits. It means the people of the USofA. It's a civil right.

Not a human right, not a fundamental right, not an inherent or inalienable right. Just a right that a particular group of people decided they would have: a civil right associated with citizenship or residency in a particular society organized as a state. Pretty much like the right of Canadian citizens to vote in Canadian elections.

Canadians get to decide whether they have a right to vote and who gets it, USAmericans get to decide whether they have a right to "keep and bear arms" and who gets it. Nobody else's concern in either case. Just a quirk of the society/state in question.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[gejohnston]

43. it protects all persons in

US and its territories. It does not protect anyone anywhere else, US citizen or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. You are correct. That is why my state has an Alien Firearms License for legal residents.

[baldguy]

47. Morons missing the whole point of the Op

He doesn't have to worry about "responsible gun owners" threatening his children when he's in Italy. HE DOES WHEN HE'S HERE.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

48. No we get the point he's trying to make

Problem is, his "point" is rather dull.

What he feels has no bearing on what others must do.

[jmg257]

49. I think the OP referred to such unfounded fears as

"illusory, ungrounded in facts and irrrational".

Yup that was it.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[PavePusher]

91. No, he doesn't actually.

THAT (his utter logic failure) is the whole point.

[liberal N proud]

9. Really?

[LAGC]

14. You tell me.

Did all those Iraqi men, women, and children killed in the war have those rights?

[iverglas]

100. "Did all those Iraqi men, women, and children killed in the war have those rights?"

Indeed they did.

And those rights were egregiously violated.

You have heard of "human rights violations", right?

If the people involved didn't have the rights, how would they be violated?

[ileus]

16. kinda makes you wonder what was in the minds of the italian founding fathers.

I didn't even realize Italy had a 2A.

[ileus]

13. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are what the 2A is all about.

I made that statement a few months ago in this forum.

[Hoyt]

18. You were wrong then, and wrong now. The OP has a good point.

Personally, if we have to allow people to carry guns into the public, I'd support a law that guns are off-limits unless the owner of the property specifically posts a sign saying "strap em on and bring em in" or something to that effect.

[rl6214]

44. The constitution protects rights, not grants them so the property

owner does not have to post a sign granting permission to enter with guns, that is a given guaranteed by the constitution.

[Hoyt]

45. Not true -- but I've heard same thing from Hannity and Limbaugh among others.

[rl6214]

51. Why are you listening to Hannity and LImbaugh?

Is that where you get your gun quotes from? That would explain everything.

[Hoyt]

54. Hannity like most right wing bigots believes "gun control is using both hands."

Supposedly he has permit from several states. I guess he grabs it when those he hates approach.

Hopefully, Limbaugh can't get a permit since he's a drug addict -- but I wouldn't be surprised.

My experience is that the vast majority of gun toters are similarly aligned with these two right wingers.

[rl6214]

57. You must not have a whole lot of experience...

"My experience is that the vast majority of gun toters are similarly aligned with these two right wingers."

First, what is a "gun toter"?

Second, what kind of experience do you have? Not too much I would think.



"I guess he grabs it when those he hates approach."

This statement makes absolutely no sense, as do most of your posts.

[gejohnston]

62. Hannity is one of the few

that has an NYC CCW. Rush would be a prohibited person because of his drugs, but that did not stop Bloomburg's PD from giving coke head Don Imus one. If Rush has one, it is most likely an NY one.
Your experience is nothing like mine.

[ileus]

69. Sandbags are better....or a lead slead.

[jmg257]

53. Sure looks like the framers thought the rights existed before the constitution and BOR...

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Are they granting privileges or securing rights?

Maybe Madison was 'among others' you heard from?
"that among the advocates for the Constitution, there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty & individual rights."
"the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted"
"I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights"

Maybe the Ratifying Committees of numerous states?
"That there be a declaration or bill of rights asserting, and securing from encroachment, the essential and unalienable rights of the people, in some such manner as the following:.."

Maybe Jefferson?...
"If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."

Yup - granting powers, but securing rights - rights they already recognized as existing.

[Hoyt]

55. I don't pay much attention to slave owners, those who prohibited women form voting or

endorsed killing of Native Americans for their land. I doubt they really understood "rights."

[rl6214]

58. So you don't pay much attention at all to the Constitution or BoR?

Maybe you should move over to italy with Mikey. And don't complain about your rights being trampled on by gun owners anymore, since your really don't pay much attention to the Constitution or BoR since they were written by slave owners, those who prohibited women form (from) voting or endorsed killing of Native Americans for their land. I suppose back then you would have organized an #occupy Philadelphia movement to protest those things.

[jmg257]

61. "Back then ..." Back then, he, and his family, would have been eaten by bears. nt

[Hoyt]

68. I do pay attention to things like "a well regulated militia . . . . ." that you guys always forget.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

74. Like i said...

you claim some protections while disregarding those you dont like.

[rl6214]

75. Yeah, well, that's already been decided, just not to your liking

So move on to something else now, your mom is calling.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. We don't forget it.

You are just determined to misconstrue it.

[jmg257]

85. I never forget...can I have my M16 now?

Me, and many of us, being in the Militia and all.

Please work to have all restrictions on the M9, M4, MP5, P226, M14 (and their accoutrements) lifted too, including any limitations on where they can be kept and beared.

Those militia-grade weapons of course being likely arms for 'a well-regulated Militia', and that 'being necessary to the security of a free state'.

Thanks!

[PavePusher]

93. And yet, you've not been able to provide any evidence, historical, contextual or grammatical....

that your interpretation is actually applicable.

We await your doing so.

[Hoyt]

106. I believe in the ACLU's position -- and it is that of many legal scholars.

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

[gejohnston]

108. which is inconsistent with

expanding individual rights in general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/us/07firearms.html?pagewanted=all
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html
http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=290

[DissedByBush]

105. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

You like to forget that one.

BTW, everywhere else in the BoR, "people" means each person individually, so there is no logical reason to think "people" in this amendment means collective.

[Hoyt]

107. Of course not, if guns are an essential part of your life.

But the majority of people do not own even one, and 96+% don't carry one or two in public.

[Union Scribe]

109. I'd have to guess that you think about guns more than this whole forum combined.

Given the amount of posting you do about guns, they would seem to be an essential part of your life, as well.

[DissedByBush]

122. Oh yes, rights are dependent on what the majority does

Why even bother having constitutionally protected rights?

A very small minority is gay, smaller than those who own or carry guns, so why bother about their rights?

[Marengo]

113. That too was written by slave owners, as you say.

Why then do you pay attention to that?

[jmg257]

59. That may be true, and it may even be true that there is no such thing as natural rights,

but to insist that the constitution/BOR was written and ratified to GRANT rights and not to recognize & secure them would still be wrong.

Of course since you choose to ignore some of our most basic rights, that would explain why you have such a hard time with the right to keep and bear arms. Not a biggie, as I think the choice you make to ignore the rights secured to you & we the people is also your right (foolish as that decision may be). As long as you don't violate the lawfully protected rights of others - we are good!

[gejohnston]

63. not all of them owned slaves

Tom Paine was too poor. Then there is John Jay.
IIRC, women did vote until the 19th century in many places.

[TPaine7]

72. Thomas Paine was very strongly abolitionist; he supported equal rights for black people. n/t

[RSillsbee]

104. The first woman elected to public office in America

Was Esther Hobart Morris in the 1870s in Wyoming

[gejohnston]

110. this is true

and Women had the vote since 1860. Wyoming and Texas elected the first woman governors in 1924, but Wyoming's inagration was three weeks earlier than Texas'. That made Nellie T. Ross the first gov.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

73. Slave ownership was normal at that time.

Sucks for you, but you have to accept that reality as much as you must accept they had no indoor plumbing.

Women were not prohibited from voting. They just had to own property.

Killing the current residents of their land to take it over has been the method since the dawn of time. Can't fault anyone for that. It is how it is done.

Regardless of your feelings about these actions, you cannot on the one hand claim the protections of the document while decrying what you don't like based on disagreements with what was normal for the time on another.

[Hoyt]

82. Is that why you tote, because others do? Hardly reason to own slaves or screw women & NAmericans.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

86. No hoyt, I carry...

because I choose to. It is simply one more piece of safety equipment that I have if i need it.

As far as owning slaves, can't help you there. I've never done it or condoned it. I recognize that it was once the practice in the majority of the world, but I feel no guilt for what happened long before I was born.

Screwing women? Do it every chance I get. I happen to like women as my bed partners, and yes, some of them have been American Indians - in fact, my ex wife is American Indian. I fail to see why that has anything to do with the discussion.

[iverglas]

121. no, it was the norm; that does not make it normal

Slave-owning was also the norm only for a particular class of people who constituted a distinct minority. For others, including others of the same race, indentured labour was still common (as it was elsewhere in the world), not to mention plain poverty.

It was that small class of people that exercised decisive influence in making the rules, including the US Constitution.

Women were not prohibited from voting in the US in the late 18th century?


Killing the current residents of their land to take it over has been the method since the dawn of time. Can't fault anyone for that. It is how it is done.

Yes, it was indeed kind of a matter of how it was done: brutally and systematically, as in "genocide". By the time in question, a dim view of this was actually taken in some parts of the world, as it had actually been for quite some centuries in some places.

And in fact, slaughtering the residents of a territory -- the old, the women, the children -- rather than waging war against their militaries really wasn't how it was done elsewhere. The British and before them the French in Canada had long since abandoned it. They'd decided that things like "treaties" worked better; exploitive they might have been, but they were qualitatively different from extermination.

The fact is that the colonies in what became the United States of America and subsequently were operated by and for the benefit of that particular class of people, not just to the detriment but to the death and enslavement of others.

The past is often the predictor of the present.

[PavePusher]

92. So, you'll notice that we've fixed most of their shortcomings...

and have been working on the remainder....

Or have you actually been asleep at the wheel for the last 4-5 decades?

Holy fuck-stick Batman...

[mikeb302000]

125. thanks Hoyt, that's the best comment of the bunch. nt

[jmg257]

129. If that's 'the best', why would you care what would befuddle the Founders?

"Now, what we've got is something which would be totally unrecognizable by the sacred and revered Founding Fathers, not something they would approve of, but something they would be baffled and confounded by." Mikeb

"I don't pay much attention to slave owners, those who prohibited women form voting or ..." Hoyt
"thanks Hoyt, that's the best comment of the bunch" Mikeb
:silly:

In other words, you can really give a rat's ass about what the FF would approve, or what their intent was? (whenever they are shown not to agree with you at least) As long as you get your way, I guess.

Ya know, like Hoyt's, that's an opinion you're entitled to, but then please don't start out as otherwise. Seems a bit...disingenuous, no? Yup - like someone with an agenda just blowing in the wind as their pretended foundations crumble beneath them.

[Remmah2]

15. Do you have children? nt

nt

[pipoman]

17. ..

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to me means I can bring my kids to the playground without worrying about having to explain 2 daddies..

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to me means I can bring my kids to the playground without worrying about a mob of people "occupying"

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to me means I can bring my kids to the playground without worrying about my child being influenced by religious symbolism..

Your interpretation of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," has fuckall to do with the reality of the meaning of the idea.

[SteveM]

70. And that about sums it up. nt

[jmg257]

20. To me, "Life and Liberty..." includes the natural right of

defending that life, and the right and ability to defend that liberty. The existence of a right of course requires the means to enjoy that right.

"The common good, therefore, is the end of civil government, and common consent the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was necessary that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order that what remained should be preserved....But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc."


The founding fathers were well aware of what they called 'natural rights'. They knew they included the right to defend one's own life, and liberty.

They also knew a tyrannical government that would threaten the people's liberties could best go unchallenged if that govt alone controlled the roots of power, specifically including that bane of liberty - a large standing army, and if THE PEOPLE did not have the means - in this case, the arms - to oppose them. That is why WE THE PEOPLE were given the very important responsibilities of defending our own liberties, in the constitution. (And why it was mandatory that a very large proportion of the people possess militia-grade arms, besides whatever personal arms they desired in their lawful pursuit of happiness).


For these reasons - for self defense and the common defense, with the consent of the people, the right to keep and bear arms was distinctly secured in the Bill of Rights, and the recognition of the neccesity of the state Militias (made up of we the people who would supply/keep/bear their own arms) was made. To assure THE PEOPLE would always have the means, the power, to defend their lives AND their liberties (despite any powers given to the new congress).


"The reason is someone else's idea of freedom has trumped mine."

I think the 'idea of freedom' of A LOT OF PEOPLE has trumped yours. Including and especially the Founding Fathers.

They would certainly be baffled by the HUGE US standing army. They would likely be baffled by the elimination of the constitutional Militias of The Several States, which they gave such important responsibilities to and declared were necessary in the 2nd. I am also pretty sure they would be baffled how the people allow a power granted congress in the body of the constitution (say the commerce clause or militia clauses) to be used to impose on rights secured to the people in the amendments that came after.

[iverglas]

89. oh, c'mon now

the Founding Fathers ... would certainly be baffled by ...

The founding fathers would have been baffled by the 19th century.

I think that's kind of the whole point.

Maybe people who live in a century should be the ones in charge of deeciding how to do that, and maybe they should be expected to discuss how to do that without asserting people and parchments from two and a half centuries earlier as their irrefutable justification.

[jmg257]

95. No real argument from me, I was responding to the OP...

"Now, what we've got is something which would be totally unrecognizable by the sacred and revered Founding Fathers, not something they would approve of, but something they would be baffled and confounded by."

in which he was referring to the 2nd amend.


Much of what I refer to re: that amendment has already been revised by the people...the militia, the standing army, etc. I do believe I covered the Intent though pretty well! Which is what I took to be the OPs issue...how the 2nd is being grossly (mis)interpreted.

[beevul]

123. But they ARE in charge of deciding how to do that.

"Maybe people who live in a century should be the ones in charge of deeciding how to do that, and maybe they should be expected to discuss how to do that without asserting people and parchments from two and a half centuries earlier as their irrefutable justification."

But they ARE in charge of deciding how to do that, and a process is there for those that wish to change the status quo.

Those who wish to, should USE that process as it was meant to be used.

[aikoaiko]

21. bwa - hahahaha!

on a more serious note: How, if your ideas on gun control would be enacted, would that lead to the condition where it was impossible for someone to be carrying a firearm in the manner that displeases you? Wouldn't you still have to worry about criminals who aren't following the law?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. Hey Mikey,

I snorted coffee out my nose on this one.

Thanks for the laugh this morning.

I do believe this may turn into your best thread yet.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[hack89]

30. Isn't alcohol a greater threat to your "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,"

don't you agree that getting hit by a drunk driver while driving to and from that park is more likely to happen then getting shot?

[PavePusher]

31. Let's recap:

Lawful carriers: Not the people you need to worry about.

People with harmful intent: Not under our control, never have been. Not usually stopped by signs or ink on paper (laws).

And yet again you attempt to conflate the two. Shame on you.

[mikeb302000]

126. no, there's no conflation

all bad guys with guns we have to worry about.

some good guys with guns we have to worry about.

problem is, they all look alike.

[rrneck]

34. A legitimate post. Well done.

You are assuming rights you do not have.

You do not have the right to compel others to contribute to your peace of mind. Demanding that others be governed by your belief that the possession of a firearm is a danger to your peace of mind is a violation of their first amendment rights.

The assumption, via governmental power, that any individual is a danger to you without evidence and depriving them of property is a violation of their fifth amendment rights.

Demanding, via governmental power, to know what people carry in their pockets without actual evidence that carriage is a danger to you is a violation of their fourth amendment rights.

Your rights stop at the other guys nose. If you think the carriage if firearms by anyone is a danger to you then you need to prove it before you can have the government compel them to do otherwise.

If you are able to produce that proof and enact policy to that effect, you have to offer those who are not a danger but who nevertheless are injured by compliance with your policy some remedy.

Anything less makes you just another self centered, arrogant, bloviating mandarin more interested in his personal ideology than in the people it is supposed to serve.

You aren't one of those are you?

[rl6214]

39. First of all you have to live here to bitch about whether you can

take your kids to the playground (which I doubt that you have any kids of that age). You don't live in this country so you've lost that arguement.

"The reason is someone else's idea of freedom has trumped mine. This was done as a planned and systematic assault on the legislative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment."

Again, you don't live in this country so you can't bitch about the 2A, it dosen't apply to you. YOUR idea of freedom is not being trumped.

Unrec for the usual reasons. Must have been a slow news day if this is all you could come up with.

[mikeb302000]

127. you don't know anything about me.

who the fuck are you to tell me what I can or can't bitch about?

unrec for the usual reasons - what are they that I express an idea that you disagree with? You are so democratic and liberal and progressive, you can't accept a differing opinion.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

41. Interesting....

Neither your life, your liberty, nor your ability to pursue happiness are constrained by someone's choice to carry a firearm. They are not constrained by a couple having a domestic squabble. Your fear of what others may do may constrain your pursuit of happiness, but that fear is of your own doing - and as we all know, you cannot hold others responsible for what you feel.

Seems to me you have a real problem Mikey. You think others should alter their lives to suit your feelings and don't want to accept that we disagree with you. I would suggest seeking assistance with that skewed perspective but doing so is entirely up to you.

Just because you don't like something or have an irrational fear of others does not mean people have to adapt to your desires. Unless and until you can prove actual direct harm to you, people are free to do as they wish.

[iverglas]

88. how's that constitutional challenge to speed limits working out?

Unless and until you can prove actual direct harm to you, people are free to do as they wish.

Huh.

Where can I register for your course in the philosophy of law?

:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Oh, there's something the founding fathers wouldn't recognize all right.

Your idea of "freedom", which apparently includes the right to inhibit the enumerated civil rights of another citizen, to make you feel... safer?

"without worrying about which of the other parents is carrying a gun, about which one of them might be in a domestic squabble with her husband who's about to storm into the playground shootin'."

I'd like to know what led you to this line of thought. That putting up signs that ONLY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WOULD OBEY, might stop your hypothetical playground-storming lunatic? How does that even compute for you? What leads you to conclude this sort of nonsense?

"something which would be totally unrecognizable by the sacred and revered Founding Fathers"
Indeed.

I wonder just how unrecognizable that sort of thi"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety (Franklin)"
I mean, it's not like they left us a lot of clues as to their mindse"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man (Jefferson)"
And it's not like it's been reaffirmed throughout the yea"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. (Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878))"

Maybe you could stick to your local politics, as you seem to have no grasp of the history of ours.

[Flatulo]

60. I'm always dumbstruck at that mindset.

'Golly, we really need more signs around here stating that firearms are not allowed.'

Right, as if someone who has made the decision to end another person's life would be deterred by a sign.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. You sound like you scare easily

Why are you scared of law-abiding people?

Are your phobias cause enough to violate constitutional precepts and deny people their inherent rights?

What about people who feel YOU infringe on their life, liberty and happiness? Will you submit to their phobias?

[jmg257]

64. It isn't all about you, Mike.

"But I don't have that. The reason is someone else's idea of freedom has trumped mine"

"means I can bring my kids to the playground without worrying"

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Atypical Liberal]

67. No pursuit of safety, though.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to me means I can bring my kids to the playground without worrying about which of the other parents is carrying a gun, about which one of them might be in a domestic squabble with her husband who's about to storm into the playground shootin'.

You will notice that the US Constitution doesn't say anything about safety.

And the fact is, you have virtually nothing to fear from people who lawfully carry firearms on their person. Those people are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

The fact is, if I had to choose the kinds of people around my child on a playground, I'd choose CCW permit holders every single time. They are among the safest, most conscientious people in the country.

But I don't have that. The reason is someone else's idea of freedom has trumped mine. This was done as a planned and systematic assault on the legislative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

You'll note a couple of things: First of all, your desire for safety does not trump freedom. Second of all, the "someone else" is most of the United States.

Now, what we've got is something which would be totally unrecognizable by the sacred and revered Founding Fathers, not something they would approve of, but something they would be baffled and confounded by.

Firearms existed for some 400 years prior to the founding of this country. I'm quite sure they knew what they were doing when the said that the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I think they would be dismayed to see the Imperialistic endeavors our nation has been able to indulge in with the usurpation of the state militias, but I think they would be pleased that The People still retain the ultimate means of resistance to violence and oppression.

[iverglas]

97. "First of all, your desire for safety does not trump freedom."

Really? Always and everywhere?

I'll bet it's illegal where you're at to advertise snake oil as a cure for cancer.

So much for freedom trumping safety.

And yet ... nobody was ever killed by an advertisement, even!

[AtheistCrusader]

111. Actually, people do that shit all the time here.

They just have certain restrictions imposed by the FDA around what they can claim. Which usually entails a footnote somewhere that it isn't proven to XYZ.

Much like we can't carry live bazookas, etc.

I would quibble with the poster you replied to over the phrasing, and maybe state it like this:

"First of all, your imagined method for failing to achieve your desired safety does not trump ... anything."

[iverglas]

116. but I replied to what was said

"First of all, your desire for safety does not trump freedom."

And of course, it isn't someone's "desire for safety" that trumps freedom, it is a society's concern for the safety of itself and its members. Which, if the proper tests are met, very definitely does trump freedom.


Your forumulation:

First of all, your imagined method for failing to achieve your desired safety does not trump ... anything.

is just an opinion, not backed up by ... anything. (Actually, it doesn't even make sense, but maybe that was intentional.)

Neither is the opinion in the OP, really. So I guess that's a draw.




click submit ... spot the typo that makes the sentence unintelligible ...

[AtheistCrusader]

119. Agreed

And our society consistently affirms that the right to carry, is, in and of itself, not a threat that warrants curtailment. (Outside the secured areas of a jail, and a few other locales)


As for typo, everything is spelled correctly. I see one spot where a semi-colon might have made more sense...

Disagree on the 'opinion' bit. I would reference the map of the expansion of must-issue CPL laws across states that previously never allowed concealed carry.

[iverglas]

120. my typo

As I clicked submit, I saw that my final line read "the opinion on the OP" when it was supposed to say "the opinion in the OP". I fixed it pronto. ;)

Forgive my use of commas rather than semicolons occasionally; I am posting at the genealogy board under the identity of someone who is less conversant with punctuation and who especially composes run-on sentences, and I am occasionally having a hard time avoiding spillover!


Disagree on the 'opinion' bit. I would reference the map of the expansion of must-issue CPL laws across states that previously never allowed concealed carry.

And I would refer to the fact that no one has a crystal ball, no statistical study has ever or can ever identify or account for all possibly operative factors, and nobody can say what the situation would be like absent the carrying of firearms in public.

In any event, as I'm sure you're aware, this concealed carry business is not a huge concern of mine. The problem is the completely unrestricted access to handguns in particular (and we all know I am not talking about theoretical restrictions, I am talking about effective restrictions); it isn't that these people should not be carrying them in public, it is that they should not have them, for a range of reasons that I don't think I need to keep restating.

The carrying of weapons in public is simply antithetical to multiple interests of a society and there is no shortage of justification for prohibiting it. If that were not the case, your society would have no justification for regulating it in any way, as it in fact does, and not in a minor way.

[Oneka]

112. nobody was ever killed by an advertisement

Neither has an advertisement, ever been, speech, protected by our constitution.

But you knew that didn't you.

[iverglas]

117. gosh, I wonder

Maybe that was my point ... except that you are wrong anyhow; limited protection of commercial speech is still protection.

Yer Clarence Thomas disagrees with that distinction, of course, as do other more learnèd sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech

Another example of the right wing being wrong on everything, except guns?

:eyes:

[Remmah2]

114. Funny that you mention snake oil.

Gun control is a lot like snake oil. It doesn't cure the underlying illness and it has the potential to do more harm than good.

:fistbump:

PS: The Brady Bunch, HCI, the anti 2A groups, they're always crying about firearms advertisements. And yet "nobody was ever killed by an advertisement".

:crazy:

[iverglas]

118. 'And yet "nobody was ever killed by an advertisement".'

And yet **I** didn't say there was any problem with regulating commercial speech.

Your point?

[mikeb302000]

128. your idea of "FREEDOM" is not the same as mine. nt

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[RSillsbee]

76. Simple solution

Come to America (If you can do so w/ out being arrested), Take your child(ren) to a park, find a legal concealed carrier and bring suit against them for violating your civil liberties by having a legal gun on their person.

Let us know how that works out for you

[krispos42]

84. That's nice.

Meaningless, but nice.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[beevul]

124. *snort*

" This was done as a planned and systematic assault on the legislative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment."


Uh...I thought that:

"Sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium..."


Strange how that sometimes applies, yet sometimes, doesn't.

And strange which crowd keeps changing their mind as to whether it does or doesn't, and under what circumstances.


:rofl: