Is the following statement consistent with your understanding of Rightful Liberty and 2A?
The second amendment isn’t specific about who can carry, and it’s up to society to restrict someone if they’re a nut, or not of socially redeeming, morally grounded character.
Ya, and once again we have to ask ourselves. "Who decides who's a nut"? What dictator wouldn't soon be changing the definition of "nut". Commies love the mental heath thing. In the later part of the bad ole days in Russia. Someone said;" you would have to be crazy to break the law in Russia"ReplyDelete
Which started a whole new era in the fact that as long as you were crazy, they could put you directly into the nut house. No trial!
Your crazy if you want to own a gun?.........MTHead
Uh...no and fuck no!ReplyDelete
The reason I concealed carry is, if I meet a nut/scumbag with a gun, I figure I at least have an even chance. Let everyone carry and it'll all sort itself out after a period of time.ReplyDelete
This bullshit of punishing people for life because they have a "felony" conviction" is 100% unconstitutional.
Every man-and woman- has the right to defend themselves;self defense is a basic human right.
Once a person has served their sentence in jail/prison-ALL rights should be restored-as they were prior to the 1934 NFA.
Punishing someone for life for their "felony" conviction is clearly double jeopardy,as they are being punished for life for a crime that they have "paid their debt to society" for.
The denying rights to the "mentally ill" is also bullshit-unless the guy-or lady- is the equivalent of Dr. Hannibal Lecter,and under the are of a psych DR.-there is zero reason for them to be denied the means to defend themselves or their families.
As .gov inc. churns out more laws and fedgov regulations-all of us commit several "felonies" every day-the addition of ODD to the DSM was no coincidence- it's another reason for the FBI,through the NICS background check system,and BATFEIEIO to deny you your God given right to defend you and yours.
Currently, .gov inc.-specifically the FBI,DHS,and BATFEIEIO are working to create new rules/regs/laws to deny more people their God-given right to self-defense.
Pharmacy computers are all connected,look for FDA to be on the list of .gov in. agencies working to deny gun rights soon-they will use a 23 year old prescription for valium to claim a person is "mentally ill".
All this bullshit needs to stop.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"ReplyDelete
The original did not make provisions regarding anything about being a "convicted felon" , mentally abject, or a habitual drunkard, resident of a state, etc. Almost all of these such restrictions were written into states constitutions years later. Illegal federal gun laws began in 1934 and really overstepped their boundaries in 1968.
As a note worth mentioning, by the original Constitution of 1787, only white men 21 years and older could vote. I don't necessarily believe that same logic wold apply to firearm ownership in the newly formed nation. The language states "the right of the PEOPLE". It does't read SOME people. Just food for thought. This was probably because there were instances during the revolution where young folks, women folk, and even slaves (white and black) took up arms and aided the resistance to the Crown.
Military age males, no felons, infirm, or mentally deficient, as determined by the military authority. You know, the militia.ReplyDelete
I worked Security in Hospitals and I can tell you there are people that should not have Firearms. BUT that should be decided by a Panel of Doctors, not Politicians.ReplyDelete
There are plenty of Liberal/ Commie/ Socialist/ Fascist Doctors that would simply opine that a patient is unfit to possess a fire arm, even if they are fit - they have agendas too!Delete
This decision does not belong in the hands of doctors -freedom has its costs. That may mean innocent people may die at the hands of a crazy person or criminal, more likely a criminal. If a crazy person/ criminal cannot get a gun, they can make a bomb or use a car, or any other number of creative ways to commit mass murder.
The entire issue is over-hyped because it aids the Liberal/ Commie/ Socialist/ Fascist narrative and end goal - control of the people.
Considering the large number of people in this country, the number of homicides committed by firearms every year is a very small percentage of the population - roughly .0035 percent. Note that it says "homicide" which isn't necessarily murder. This equates to 3.5 1,000ths of a percent or 3.5 in 100,000! I wonder what the percentage is of the number of people whose state and federal constitutional rights are violated every year?
The best defense against a crazy person/ criminal intent on harming others is an armed society. Of course there is the added benefit of deterring would-be tyrants, the underlying reason for 2A in the first place.
Sure, the people as a whole possess the right to bear arms. But only fit, military age males who haven't broken the laws of the country they claim to serve belong in the militia.ReplyDelete
Jeffery, a reference for your consideration:ReplyDelete
I agree with HK-91 and gamegetter II.
I am not sure what you thought my belief was Grog, but let me say I believe that a PERSON has the right to be armed and to protect themselves, their families/loved ones, property, etc. In colonial times it would have been almost impossible to field an effective militia without individuals first being armed. My primary reason for firearm ownership is personal protection, I also hunt, enjoy shooting and collecting. I believe the framers meant for arms to be in the hands of the citizenry as a fail-safe to tyranny. I really cannot say what they thought about mentally defective people being armed. Maybe they thought it was such and obvious common sense issue that no person would even consider a mad man owning a gun. I do not think breaking a "made up law" is grounds for forfeiting ones right to ownership forever. I too agree with Gamegetter II in that panels. doctors, etc. can be biased or prejudiced. Who is to say whether someone has the right to own a gun? It would be similar to saying who can have children. Let everyone carry. It is a self-solving issue.Delete
Jeffery, thanks for elaborating on your view of 2A.ReplyDelete
I didn't post the link to be rude, more to share info that you briefly pointed out, although I did wonder if you knew of the foundational language of 2A, since you didn't elaborate. Not many people consider the revisions that gave us the 2A we have now, personally I'd rather have one of the original versions, it's more specific.
If i might add, we have no rights under the constitution. The government is prohibited from violating pre-existing rights we retain as humans. No other qualifing factors involved! None!Delete
I don't ask the government for permition to eat, breath, have sex, etc.. And i don't ask their permission to defend myself!
Just my .02, but its a distinction i think we need to set hard in minds......MTHead
Bullseye. freedom is about not having to ask for permission.Delete
Rightful Liberty is all about knowing where your freedom ends and another's begins, and practicing fortitude in not abusing the rightful liberty of others.
This is the only just standard of governance I have ever seen articulated. But without a populace each in possession of a well formed conscience, it cannot work, because they will not recognize their own abuses, only the abuses of others, and thus they will/can not practice self restraint. (Where do we so commonly see this today?)
Freedom in the context of a society of sound morality is a blessing. But freedom outside that framework is a curse, because it amounts to nothing more that freedom to be barbarous and self-destructive...
There is no true Liberty without freedom from sin. In the individual, or in society as a whole. The less we suffer from sin, the more natural and rightful our liberty becomes.
The opposite is also true, as we currently witness...
WE HAVE BEEN WARNED
No rudeness taken Grog. I found the website very informative. Particularly, the comment by Alexander Hamilton regarding the individual right to be armed actually surprised me. That perspective was a stark contrast to his views on the protection and promotion of industry which would today be considered fascism (similar to the GM bailout, Wall Street bailout, etc.). The seeds of corruption and the infringement of liberty by .gov were sewn by this ideology. It should have been nipped in the bud by Arron Burr's bullet, but it was not. From this grew CW1 and eventually the mess and bureaucratic Godzilla we have today. Check out this video.Delete
After reading T. Paine's Common sense , And I quoteReplyDelete
"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."
If "K" believes that society is the Government then to me that statement is just false/incorrect. If they mean that it is the family members or friends that see that Person "X" is not fit to have a fire arm, then I can agree.
K didn't write the quote in italics.ReplyDelete
K believes that any man or woman who can't be trusted with a firearm, can't be trusted among us. Any man or woman who is trusted to be among us, must be permitted arms - no matter what any other person thinks.