Where you draw the line

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 30 Jan 2012, 13:26

I wanted to start a post on how each of us see gun rights. What I want to do is without responding to others, post below where you draw the line as far as gun ownership, ammo restrictions, government required training, concealed carry, etc. ~~PLEASE NO RESPONSES TO PARTICULAR PEOPLE'S POSTS.~~ I just would like to use the thread to paint the picture on where each of us feel the line should be drawn for a lack of better terminology. I will start on the next post. Responses allowed now. Seems we have a picture painted, let the debates begin

Note, this is for small arms. Not things that are considered heavy ordanance, like mortars, RPGs, etc. Lets keep this to small arms.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 30 Jan 2012, 13:35

People Barred from ownership: Felons and legally insane.

Limitations on Firearms: None whatsoever. I don't believe in even designating weapons according to NFA. If you are a law abiding citizen, you should be able to own. People should have access to whatever companies put out, and companies should not be held responsible for people's actions.

Limitation on Ammo: None. People should have access to whatever companies put out, and companies should not be held responsible for people's actions.

Training: Hunters Education provided at States Request with 100% reciprocity in order to by a Hunting license. No restriction to use a firearm or buy one.

CCW: No restriction as long as you are legally allowed to own and carry a weapon.

Buying/Registration: Instant Background Check, then paperwork is shredded. Children without parental/guardian consent if under 18 years old should not be able to buy a firearm.

Buffman · Post by **Buffman** » 30 Jan 2012, 14:00

^^ I'd pretty much have to agree with this. Just like how they don't want import M1 cabrines. Criminals get whatever they want. Why can't I have a chance to purchase an M1 cabrine, just because people say they have detachable magazines that make them evil targets for criminals to acquire.

Post by **Rapier1772** » 30 Jan 2012, 14:46

Permanently prohibited: violent felons, repeat offenders, insane
Temporarily prohibited: 1st time non-violent felons should be given a chance to earn their rights back. Suicidal persons*

I believe that everyone, who is not prohibited by the above restrictions, (& is 18 or older) should have the right to own any firearm the government has. This is for firearms - not every weapon the gov has.
Purchasing - 1-800 number for instant background checks.
Right to own any ammo the government has. That said, I am glad that EA & some other companies voluntarily restrict some of their ammo sales. I've seen what some of that ammo can do & it is somewhat calming to know that it is not out there for any halfwit to misuse. Abuse is what leads to government imposed restrictions which are much worse.
BATFE needs to go away.
Gun/ammo makers should not be held liable for the actions of others.
Putting a requirement for training is equivalent to restricting a right. However, any responsible gun owner would take it upon his/herself to get the training needed before going out & using a firearm of any sort.
Concealed carry - if you can own, you can carry. But educating people on the laws is also necessary, else they may end up in the prohibited section. So some training & making sure they can shoot is highly encouraged.

* - Suicidal persons: the police should be able to flag certain persons as suicidal & temporarily deny clearance at the 1-800 number. Maybe 6 months? This would have to be substantiated by sworn statements of at least 2 people. End of 6 months, expunged from record or a new entry made

ddouglas · Post by **ddouglas** » 30 Jan 2012, 16:53

I agree pretty much with Irish, but I would change his "CCW" response to:

CCW: over 21 and require 8-hour training in firearms handling, responsibilities of CCW license holders, liabilities expected in use of deadly force

N4TAB-Tom · Post by **N4TAB-Tom** » 30 Jan 2012, 19:27

*WRT individuals judged to be suicidal or otherwise suspect, where is the trusted source on either side of the argument? Who decides what? Interval? Who provides the "I'm OK, now" sticker? There is a slippery slope any time a subjective evaluation is required/offered/defined.

Interesting discourse.

Tom

Post by **Rapier1772** » 30 Jan 2012, 20:31

I said the suicidal bit because I have a friend who, within the past 2 weeks, has stated that he/she is depressed, mentioned putting a gun to head, hurting self & wanted to buy a gun. At least 3 others have been present when these comments/actions were made. Maybe its for attention, maybe it is serious. If you want to ignore that, go ahead but I take it seriously. Make it a sworn statement, that you have seen/heard this person threatening/doing to harm his/herself & the same penalties for lying as the courts have now.

Interval was a question - I don't know what would be a "correct" interval. Each person would likely be different. As for the "OK sticker" - if that person is still making suicidal comments when the interval is over, not ok. Otherwise, ok.

CenCalSplicer · Post by **CenCalSplicer** » 30 Jan 2012, 20:54

I also agree with Irish and Rapier.

I will also agree with Ddouglas in referrence to the CCW. I think if you are going to carry concealed then you should have some training.

I feel that if you join the military and are willing to lay down your life for our country then you should be able to purchase at 18.

Post by **f3rr37** » 30 Jan 2012, 22:20

Agree with Irish and Rapier.

Get rid of any mandatory CCW training, start adding firearms training to schools curriculum that way EVERYONE has the opportunity to learn. If you graduate before it is added to school curriculum, then maybe have some sort of training available for free for a year, but I don't think it should be mandatory... The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear to me.

SeaHawkDriver-B · Post by **SeaHawkDriver-B** » 31 Jan 2012, 01:56

First thing I would do is lay some groundwork.....

-There should be a difference between being a "citizen" of the United States, and a "civilian" of the United States. I think my position is a bit extreme but it addresses the problems with democracy. Its no more extreme than the positions of Jefferson and Franklin in their time however.

Citizens: Have the right to vote, cannot be convicted of a felony within the last 10 years, cannot EVER have been convicted of a capitol crime such as rape or murder, may carry OPENLY or CCW ANYWHERE, must be at least 20 years of age, must have completed at least 2 years of civil service and/or military service and as part of that service qualified and trained to safely handle weapons, may own any "small arm" whatsoever and purchase any type of ammunition as such, only proof of citizenship required for purchases.

Civilians: Do not have the right to vote, have the right to bear a sanctioned list of arms/ammo after 1) Completing a requisite training course 2) Undergoing a thorough criminal background check and obtaining a license 3) Documenting fingerprints and photograph 4) Undergoing a standard psychiatric evaluation 4) This periodicity for the license is 10 years and it must be fully renewed. May only carry CCW.

Llagoud · Post by **Llagoud** » 31 Jan 2012, 04:30

On equipment I don't have a line.
If I can build it, it's mine.
If a company or individual can build it and I can afford their asking price, it's mine.

Post by **Cyberfly** » 31 Jan 2012, 05:56

Small arms education should always begin at home, but safety courses should also be taught in school. Shooting competitions should also be a competitive sport, just like baseball, football, soccer, etc.
Any small arms available to our military should be available to the public. No restrictions on magazine sizes. Some ammunition, though, might be better being restricted to military and law enforcement.
At age 18, without felony restriction, any long gun becomes available. At age 20, any handgun with same caveat. Non violent felons may petition the courts to regain 2A rights once their debt is paid.
Non citizens (legal aliens) are not barred from legally owning, however any illegal alien is already a criminal by definition and should be treated as such if discovered with a firearm.
Remember, a Right is only a Right if it is NOT infringed upon. ANY infringement upon your RIGHT makes it a priveledge.

Website · Post by **jgreenberg01** » 31 Jan 2012, 06:14

Guns: The only restrictions should be to criminals, aside from that any gun should be available to any law abiding citizen.

NFA items: None. BATFE's arbitrary, conflicting and often discriminatory rulings make no sense and the bureau should not even exist.

Ammo: The only rounds I believe that should be limited are incendiary rounds. As cool as they are and as much as I would love to play with them, I don't believe they have a place in the civilian world.

CCW: Any law abiding citizen who is old enough to serve and die for the country should be able to CCW.

Training: I know many here will disagree with this, but while we do have our 2A rights, guns were designed to destroy/kill things and I believe that there should be minimum safety/handling training. To me, it is a common sense thing, if we have to pass a test to drive a car, which was not designed to kill/destroy (but does), then it makes sense to do the same for guns. Yes, I know this has been debated many times before and I also believe that there is merit to both sides of the argument however... I have seen way too many stupid people doing moronic things with guns. I'm guessing they had no gun education at home although maybe they did and just are morons and I also know you can't cure stupid, buttttt... if classes can keep even just 1% of the morons from hurting other responsible people, then I think it's a sensible step to take.

Oldbindlestiff · Post by **Oldbindlestiff** » 31 Jan 2012, 07:02

Quite an interesting thread. When I moved to TN, I was surprised to learn that an eight hour course was required for a CCW permit even if you had a valid permit from a state with reciprocity. The class itself turned out to be worth the money from the perspective of a good discussion of firearm laws in TN. While I had already read the laws, the instructor provided insight into how they are actually enforced.

I was quite surprised to see that about a third of the class had never actually fired a handgun! Totally foreign to me since I grew up in a family of hunters and started shooting about age 8 or 9.

So, should you be able to purchase a firearm if you are of legal age; not a felon or adjudicated mental case? Yes. Should you also get some training before you take it out to Zombieville, yes. Should it be required by law? No.

VeTTeMaNC486 · Post by **VeTTeMaNC486** » 31 Jan 2012, 07:50

My biggest gripes;

1) Locations I can and cannot carry. In my opinion this is about as pointless and stupid as a law can get. I believe that the reason many violent crimes happen in the gun free zones because the law abiding citizens there will be obeying the law and will be defenseless.

2) machine gun registry. Open it. Now.

3) Having sbrs, suppressors, sbs, etc as an NFA item. I believe that everything besides full auto should be for sale at walmart. I believe the process for getting full auto isn't terrible, just can the 200 dollar stamp. Also rid the process of having to have sheriff signature for them.

4) any kind of ammo restrictions. This is stupid.

SeaHawkDriver-B · Post by **SeaHawkDriver-B** » 31 Jan 2012, 08:22

Wouldn't it suck to have invested into the $100,000's of dollars in NFA full auto weapons, only for the machine gun registry to be opened tomorrow... and your mint condition H&K MP5 that you paid $35,000 for, is now a used-condition, old-ass, Gen-I POS that barely fetched $250.... LMOA!!!

I agree though, open the machine gun registry.. no more tax stamps for SBR or Suppressors.

Llagoud · Post by **Llagoud** » 31 Jan 2012, 09:08

No more 'Permission Slips' to exercise rights.
It puts the onus of 'proof of innocence' on a law abidding citizen rather than a 'proof of guilt' requirement on gov.
The ability to regulate and restrict Rights is the ability to take them away.

“The people... shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.”-Thomas Cooley,Treatise on Constitutional Limitations,1868

Treatment of some citizens as 'more equal than others' is a slippery slope.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
-Thomas Jefferson

firestorm248 · Post by **firestorm248** » 31 Jan 2012, 10:28

Alright, my views on this subject has seemed to raise a lot of ire lately but here goes my complete view on the subject on where to draw the line. Agree or disagree with me, it’s my personal view.

Gun ownership- legal as long as you have not been convicted of a violent crime or been declared mentally unfit to carry a weapon. Age 18
Full auto weapons- licenses required. Extensive background check. Training required.
Silencers, night vision optics, and other attachments- no additional licenses or training required.
Shotguns- no additional licenses or training
Rifles(semi and bolt action)- no additional licenses or training
Handguns- No additional licenses or training
CCW- training and licenses required, licenses are recognized in all states. Training will cover general go and no go places for CCW.
If you built it- if you personally build it, its legal, goes for firearms or ammunition
AP rounds for pistol- license and training required. Excludes personally built ammo. AP rounds are round specifically designed to penetrate level IIIA body armor.
ATF Function- go after ILLEGAL firearms and weapons and stop focusing on the legal ownership. Be consistent and release a set in stone criteria for legal and illegal firearms and ammunition as opposed to the retarded system they use today. For example 2 gun manufacturers submitting the same firearm and one being rejected as illegal. Ya I saw an article about this.
Stand your ground clause- I believe every state should have this for self defense and it should also cover civil liability. If it’s a good shoot, it’s a good shoot, no lawsuits.
Tax breaks for firearm training- I do think you should be able to write off recreational and quality firearm training on your taxes…call me crazy

I think that covers everything
My main worry is similar to Cyberflys worry, bad guys with bad intentions getting ahold of powerful weapons and doing bad things. I also have a worry of idiots that don’t know what they’re doing killing themselves or someone else. I worked armored cars, did police work in the military and have done about a year in private investigating. There are times that have scared the crap out of me, and knowing the bad guy could have legally of obtained AP ammo is not something I find very comforting. Put yourself in a situation where you have to change $160,000 in ATM money in the worst part of a bad area and see how comforting it is. In the year I worked at brinks there were dozens of robberies nationwide and about half ended in the messenger (guy who delivers or picks up the money) getting shot.

The slippery slope of gun control does worry me but at the same time there needs to be a line where that gun control can’t go any farther. Gun ownership is a right that can’t be taken away however the courts have said that it’s not an absolute right without limitations.

toyslr · Post by **toyslr** » 31 Jan 2012, 10:50

CCW Permits should require atleast 8hr course with atleast 150 rounds of range time. Handgun basics (move & shoot, cover and shoot, seeking concealment, basic handgun operations) I have seen people run through courses that SHOULD NOT be released to carry staplers, must less weapons.
Once these tests are passed, you should be able to carry in any state, anywhere, anytime, other than air travel.

As for weapons legally owned NFA weapon has never been used in a crime (to my knowledge) You can keep the application and fee but stream line it to once you've been vetted you get a permit and only have to be cleared once.

Everyone should be albe to own a wepaon other than those with violent crime convictions or previous mental health treatment, until cleared by a medical board.

Ammo is ammo! Legal or not you can get what you want for a price

FNtacticalNUT · Post by **FNtacticalNUT** » 31 Jan 2012, 14:21

TOYSLR and IRISH summed it up pretty well for me. Great input

Cohiba · Post by **Cohiba** » 04 Apr 2012, 03:03

Is the constitution a contract or a statment of belief that an entity called GOD exists and granted certain "rights" to humans?

If its the first then it can be altered at will by whoever has the power to do so. control the courts and you control the country.
If its the latter then those rights extend to every human, no matter what country they live in and the USA has the responsibilty to overthrow every country worldwide that limits the rights of our fellow human beings.

In this context you must #1 believe in GOD and #2 believe all men are your brother.

SOOO...

So do you think that the omnipitant bieng that created the known universe out of nothing 14 billion years ago...who constructed the cosmos and the laws of physics, who spawned the spark of life that allows a sentient being to even fathom its exisitence...
cares if a bullet has a black tip? or if burst should be legal on an AR?

brianz · Post by **brianz** » 04 Apr 2012, 04:39

One does not need to believe in a god in order to recognize the rights in the Constitution as inalienable. They set the foundation of this country and if you mess with the foundation, the entire structure could very well collapse. My opinions have pretty much been covered but they sum up to...

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No classes for CCW. No NFA items. No lawsuits for actions of self defense.

The only place I can see room is a waiting period/period of parole (I'm not sure how long, a few years perhaps) for people convicted of violent crimes or people adjudicated as mentally unstable once they are declared stable. The reason for the beliefs is two fold. Everyone makes mistakes and saying they should never be allowed to own firearms for crimes they might commit is too similar to what the anti's try and do now. "No one should be allowed to own high capacity assault clips because SOMEONE might use them for evil".

It should also be noted that my opinion on people convicted of violent crimes is something I have been thinking about for a long time and did not reach my current conclusion until just a short time ago so it may not be as fully formed as it should be.

Cohiba · Post by **Cohiba** » 05 Apr 2012, 03:04

i do not advocate felony disenfranchisment.

I see the rights as a contract, not as some divine gift from "santa o' the clouds".
There may very well come a time in this country/ world that personal possesion of firearms will be abolished.
Hopefully I wont be around to see it.
I would guess that it will follow the return of Jesus-Alah-Bhudda-ect, the killing of a bigfoot, the catch-tag-release of Nessie and the proof of aliens living under the pacific rim.

Post by **Cyberfly** » 05 Apr 2012, 10:41

Contracts can, and are, broken on a regular basis.
If my rights are granted upon me be some man made government, then that same government can take those rights back whenever they deem it for the good of the whole. But if my rights are granted unto me by my Creator, whether I believe in that Creator or not, then nobody can infringe on those rights.
Period.
Government's ONLY role is to protect my rights when I cannot.

Post by **f3rr37** » 05 Apr 2012, 16:07

Cyberfly wrote:Contracts can, and are, broken on a regular basis.
If my rights are granted upon me be some man made government, then that same government can take those rights back whenever they deem it for the good of the whole. But if my rights are granted unto me by my Creator, whether I believe in that Creator or not, then nobody can infringe on those rights.
Period.
Government's ONLY role is to protect my rights when I cannot.

:thumb:

Mister Freeze · Post by **Mister Freeze** » 05 Apr 2012, 18:46

+1 on the civilian vs. citizen concept. Citizens have earned their rights as recognized and protected by the Constitution. It doesn't matter where the rights came from. There are plenty not addressed by the Constitution. Citizens are, in my book, inherently vetted, and should have no firearm restrictions. Civilians should have to ask for and be granted certain PRIVILEGES, such as purchase/ownership or ccw.

A minimum safety training should be obtained and proven by civilians (like a driver's license) before a request for ownership should be considered. Once granted, ownership type should be determined by type and level of training. Example: in Tx, if you qualify with a revolver for ccw, you can only carry a revolver. Training should have to be updated to retain purchase/ownership/carry privileges, similar to staying current on a pilot's license.

Convictions can lead to citizenship revocation/loss of civilian privileges.

Citizens have invested in the country and should rightfully enjoy much that civilians don't.

Cohiba · Post by **Cohiba** » 06 Apr 2012, 03:04

If thats the case then how come "rights" have already been taken away/ altered?
If they were a "right" then wouldnt the creator you speak of enter the scene and fix the problem?
I know if I were the all powerfull omnipitant being that he is claimed to be I would want my gifts intact.
Why doesnt GOD smote Diane Fienstien?

If rights are just that then why do you need a permit to demonstrate?
Why are there any gun laws, infringment right?
If these things are rights and are absolute and they are being denied and altered then what is it going to take to make you do something?

I find it funny how people who declare RIGHTS never do more than moan about them.

Let me make this simple...

#1 Is it your opinion that your second Ammendment rights are being violated?
#2 in what way ?

Post by **Cyberfly** » 06 Apr 2012, 21:16

Seriously?
Is that some mindless rhetorical spew or did you really expect an answer?
Do you really expect God, the creator of everything, to stop what He's doing and come back to this filthy planet with all of it's vile, evil, unbelieving, hate-filled...I almost hate to call them people...and intervene EVERY time there is some minor injustice?
He gave mankind something called 'free will'. And with that came the responsibility to do what is right...or face the consequences. Either in this world or the next. Or both.
For those who don't believe, they're in for a rude awakening. For those who do, at least they have an idea of what is expected.
Either way, mankind has a responsibility. An INDIVIDUAL responsibility. It can't be mandated by the government. It has to come from the heart. But if you don't believe, I'm wasting my time trying to explain it. You'll poo-poo anything I say, because you 'know better'. You are 'far too intelligent' to fall for any invisible Santa Claus in the sky story, or fear the ramifications of not doing what is moraly right.
So we are right back where we started.
I still declare that my rights are granted unto me by my creator and that any attempts by the government to infringe upon those rights reduces them to priveledges. Without those rights being endowed by a Creator, then they are endowed by the government and what the government can give, the government can take away.
YOU can believe (or not) whatever you wish. But my Constitution states what it does. And that Constitution happens to be the law of the land. And until it is officially overturned or removed, I expect my government to 'read and heed' and uphold that very same document until the very foundations of this nation crumbles into the ashes of history.

Post by **Esteves** » 06 Apr 2012, 22:32

My own view on rights and liberties and obligations.

Rights come with obligations. If exercised, the exerciser of those rights and liberties should use their own judgement on what their obligations, under the circumstances, are.

Gross failure to meet obligations (e.g. criminal acts as determined by due process) should result in appropriate removal of rights and liberties.
Crimes should be limited to those acts that cause or direct damage to others or directly endanger them, and those crimes of paperwork that are on the books should be rescinded. BS charges (e.g. disturbing the peace) are a symptom of a nanny state and should be thrown out if they have the effect of chilling a right. Misdemeanors don't count. If the case can't be made for a felony, the individual is not a felon. Rights should default to being reinstated when the debt to society is paid. If it can't be paid, throw away the key (or hang 'em, rope is cheap.)

Children do not have the same set of rights (nor obligations) as adults. Parents may decide what is or isn't appropriate for their own children under their direct supervision. Schools may decide what is or isn't appropriate for their student body. Parents may choose what schools their children attend.
Locations and events that require disarmed attendees should be obligated to protect those attendees.

Liberty and self reliance are assets to be cherished and given up only grudgingly. The state has been known to be wrong on occasion, or even to start off right and then backpedal by degrees. Much of that backpedaling took place before any of us had a voice in the matter and corrective action is necessary.

Post by **Cyberfly** » 07 Apr 2012, 00:08

Hear, hear!! A manly statement if ever I read one. Well stated, sir. If only I could have such forethought.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 07 Apr 2012, 08:24

Mister Freeze wrote:+1 on the civilian vs. citizen concept. Citizens have earned their rights as recognized and protected by the Constitution. It doesn't matter where the rights came from. There are plenty not addressed by the Constitution. Citizens are, in my book, inherently vetted, and should have no firearm restrictions. Civilians should have to ask for and be granted certain PRIVILEGES, such as purchase/ownership or ccw.

A minimum safety training should be obtained and proven by civilians (like a driver's license) before a request for ownership should be considered. Once granted, ownership type should be determined by type and level of training. Example: in Tx, if you qualify with a revolver for ccw, you can only carry a revolver. Training should have to be updated to retain purchase/ownership/carry privileges, similar to staying current on a pilot's license.

Convictions can lead to citizenship revocation/loss of civilian privileges.

Citizens have invested in the country and should rightfully enjoy much that civilians don't.

When Heinlein wrote about this, he was doing so satirically and as an anti-fascist. I would share his sentiments, and say this is a terrible idea. How do you gauge what criteria citizens have to meet? What bureaucracy do you create to administer such a program? Seems to be just another way for a government to deny otherwise inalienable rights, and therefore a woefully dangerous idea. Food for thought...

Website · Post by **jgreenberg01** » 07 Apr 2012, 08:27

I don't know what you're talking about Irish. It worked just fine in Starship Troopers!!!

Anything with Denise Richards in it can't possibly be wrong.

I'm just sayin'...

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 07 Apr 2012, 08:29

:laugh:

Exactly. Man, seeing that twice in this thread was just way too much. The most powerful thing about satire is that often, those that it is attacking, have no clue they are being attacked.

Cohiba · Post by **Cohiba** » 07 Apr 2012, 11:05

OK...
If the idea is that they are "RIGHTS" and they are a bestowment-grant-gift from GOD...
And GOD is GOD, then he-she-it is everyones GOD.
So the Rights are everyones, not just Americans. Unless you belive that GOD somehow only wants Americans to be free.
So why are we not more outraged at the violations happening all over the planet to other humans whos rights are being disavowed?
It would seem to me that the singular purpose of our lives would be in fighting to assure these rights to our fellow human and to dismantle every organization that exist to deny those rights, by any and every means needed.
That the only true wars we should fight would be to the ends of freeing our brothers from enslavement.

But thats not my perception.
I think they are a contract and that to keep our end of the bargin we are required to fight for their protection. We are obligated to serve our country in order to be able to say "I HAVE EARNED THESE RIGHTS".
What exeactly is it that the accident of birth in being an American grants you? Why should lazy, uncivil, unconcerned peoples be allowed to enjoy the same rights I had to serve to enjoy?
No they are not gifts, they are the profit of a transaction. I worked, bled and fought to earn them and , NO, someone shouldnt be allowed to benifit from my service just because they were born in America.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 07 Apr 2012, 12:15

And again, how would you regulate and evaluate one's laziness or incivility, or lack of concern? It would require tyranny.

Cohiba · Post by **Cohiba** » 07 Apr 2012, 12:48

the rights that were established were done so only after times of tyranny and repression and war. they were earned.
its my opinion that the books are in the red and it may be time for people to step up and earn them again.
you see the reason that the current populace is indifferent towards "rights" is because they have done nothing to earn them so they dont appreciate them.
perhaps its a good think for the govenment to trample them and force americans to step up to the plate.
or do you think its working the way it is?
what rights exist now?
you have to draw a permit (ask permission) to protest.
you have to file a yellow form (ask for permission) to buy a firearm.
suspicion passes for probable cause nowdays.
Border checkpoints 100 miles INSIDE the borders...

I continue to be nauseated by people who scream "2nd ammendment!!!" and carry CCW permits.
bear=to have and carry.
permit=permission granted.
So some belive that they have a right but then they do what? bow down...cowtow to the oppressive govenment by following the rules that they hold so feverently are violations.
And when B-C transaction become controlled like A-B transactions are people will be lining up to file petitions for permission. when ammunition and powder/ primers become controlled the way firearms purchases are people will take thier reloading class and get thier permit card.

Post by **f3rr37** » 07 Apr 2012, 12:56

Cohiba wrote:OK...
If the idea is that they are "RIGHTS" and they are a bestowment-grant-gift from GOD...
And GOD is GOD, then he-she-it is everyones GOD.
So the Rights are everyones, not just Americans. Unless you belive that GOD somehow only wants Americans to be free.
So why are we not more outraged at the violations happening all over the planet to other humans whos rights are being disavowed?
It would seem to me that the singular purpose of our lives would be in fighting to assure these rights to our fellow human and to dismantle every organization that exist to deny those rights, by any and every means needed.
That the only true wars we should fight would be to the ends of freeing our brothers from enslavement.

But thats not my perception.
I think they are a contract and that to keep our end of the bargin we are required to fight for their protection. We are obligated to serve our country in order to be able to say "I HAVE EARNED THESE RIGHTS".
What exeactly is it that the accident of birth in being an American grants you? Why should lazy, uncivil, unconcerned peoples be allowed to enjoy the same rights I had to serve to enjoy?
No they are not gifts, they are the profit of a transaction. I worked, bled and fought to earn them and , NO, someone shouldnt be allowed to benifit from my service just because they were born in America.

Have you ever even read the Declaration of Independence? Clearly you never have, so I'll post the full text of it here for you. (emphasis of text is mine)

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Post by **f3rr37** » 07 Apr 2012, 13:06

Cohiba wrote:the rights that were established were done so only after times of tyranny and repression and war. they were earned.

The rights you speak of are not earned. They are "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them".

Cohiba wrote:its my opinion that the books are in the red and it may be time for people to step up and earn them again.
you see the reason that the current populace is indifferent towards "rights" is because they have done nothing to earn them so they dont appreciate them.

I think you're confusing "rights" for "privileges".

Cohiba wrote:perhaps its a good think for the govenment to trample them and force americans to step up to the plate.
or do you think its working the way it is?

Again, rights are not earned... they are defended. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Cohiba wrote: what rights exist now?
you have to draw a permit (ask permission) to protest.
you have to file a yellow form (ask for permission) to buy a firearm.
suspicion passes for probable cause nowdays.
Border checkpoints 100 miles INSIDE the borders...

And this is where Government has become destructive of the duty to secure (protect) these rights.

Cohiba wrote:I continue to be nauseated by people who scream "2nd ammendment!!!" and carry CCW permits.
bear=to have and carry.
permit=permission granted.
So some belive that they have a right but then they do what? bow down...cowtow to the oppressive govenment by following the rules that they hold so feverently are violations.

I agree, most people do bow down. But then again, there probably more people out there that you don't know about that do not. There have been many of times where I have weighed risk of arrest vs the safety of myself and my family.

Cohiba wrote:And when B-C transaction become controlled like A-B transactions are people will be lining up to file petitions for permission. when ammunition and powder/ primers become controlled the way firearms purchases are people will take thier reloading class and get thier permit card.

I believe any administration and/or government we have will be dissolved before that happens, especially in the current political climate. I could be wrong.

Post by **f3rr37** » 07 Apr 2012, 13:09

I forgot to address this little golden nugget.

Cohiba wrote:No they are not gifts, they are the profit of a transaction. I worked, bled and fought to earn them and , NO, someone shouldnt be allowed to benifit from my service just because they were born in America.

Wong, wrong, and wrong again. You fought to defend them. You cannot earn something that is freely given to you. Your statement is beyond being egotistical and very foolish.

Post by **Rapier1772** » 07 Apr 2012, 13:27

Cohiba wrote:Why should lazy, uncivil, unconcerned peoples be allowed to enjoy the same rights I had to serve to enjoy?
No they are not gifts, they are the profit of a transaction. I worked, bled and fought to earn them and , NO, someone shouldnt be allowed to benifit from my service just because they were born in America.

I don't know about you but part of the reason I volunteered to serve was to defend those who cannot defend themselves - defend their lives, homes, and rights.
Some people are just better suited for military service than others. I know several people who are good people & will work within their abilities to make this a better country but they would have made lousy service members, if they made it all. I don't judge someone based on their willingness/ability to defend this country militarily.

nrv216 · Post by **nrv216** » 07 Apr 2012, 17:15

The government should have three functions:
Courts to decide disputes between individuals or entities and make sure the constitution is being followed.

Police to make sure that no individual is denying or disabling the rights of another individual to excercise the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

Military to protect our nation from outside threats that would deny our country the right to the freedoms we have earned and established in the constitution.

Anything else, in my opinion, is a violation of the right of the citizens of the US of A and an abuse of government power.

nrv216

Cohiba · Post by **Cohiba** » 08 Apr 2012, 03:31

Fuzzy,
do you love the people of North Korea and Iran? They are humans just like you and me and if the "rights" are granted by God then those people deserve them as well.

Do you allow our rights to be usurpt?
Do you ask permission to buy a firearm? carry a pistol? hunt? Or do you commit civil disobiedience and do this things without a permit?

Post by **f3rr37** » 08 Apr 2012, 07:07

Cohiba wrote:Fuzzy,
do you love the people of North Korea and Iran? They are humans just like you and me and if the "rights" are granted by God then those people deserve them as well.

You're right, they "deserve" them as well. It is up to them to correct their government... not us. But then again, we're not Team America World Police.

Cohiba wrote:Do you allow our rights to be usurpt?
Do you ask permission to buy a firearm? carry a pistol? hunt? Or do you commit civil disobiedience and do this things without a permit?

Yes to all of the above.

Cohiba · Post by **Cohiba** » 08 Apr 2012, 11:20

How is it "up to them"?
We are the nation that declared them to be human rights and we are the people who enjoy them. If you really belive them to be what you say.
I dont feel the way you do but if I did I would think that it would be against GOD not to do everything in your power to help the oppressed.
Isnt that your duty? Or is it just to enjoy your freedoms?

Mister Freeze · Post by **Mister Freeze** » 08 Apr 2012, 11:54

Rights vs. Privileges, and who should get protection of either seems to be the real debate here.

Exercising a protected right is either taken for granted or treated like a privilege. Unprotected rights are still yours, but carry a penalty.

Post by **Rapier1772** » 08 Apr 2012, 13:14

Forcing the world into our beliefs is tantamount to a form tyranny isn't it? Even if our belief is that of a constitutional republic.
Not everyone believes as we do & forcing the other governments of the world to change would make us the bad guys.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 08 Apr 2012, 13:37

^^^^exactly.

Cohiba · Post by **Cohiba** » 08 Apr 2012, 15:07

but its GOD's will, right?
either that or you are mistaken about the origin of "rights".
you dont belive that GOD wants you to spread his gifts to the world? Christianity has spread the "word" of GOD through force, why not the gifts of inalienable rights as well?

Post by **Esteves** » 08 Apr 2012, 15:15

Reminder: The original post included these guidelines:

flyingirish04 wrote:...What I want to do is without responding to others, post below where you draw the line as far as gun ownership, ammo restrictions, government required training, concealed carry, etc. PLEASE NO RESPONSES TO PARTICULAR PEOPLE'S POSTS.
...
Also saying I agree, or using :agree: is allowed.

Anything else is off topic. Yes, I'm still a moderator, and yes this is a "shape up" warning.

Cohiba · Post by **Cohiba** » 08 Apr 2012, 15:44

ok.
By definition, anything that requires a person to register, request, provide ID, make a statment of use or agree to guidlines set about by any agent of the govenment in an infiringment.
therfore all new firearm purchases, concealed weapons permits, ammunition restrictions and titled tax stamp purchases are unconstitutional if one agrees that the second ammendment is a true "RIGHT".
The "Bill of Rights" is actually the popular name for a joint resolution passed by the first U.S. Congress on September 25, 1789.
Joint resolutions, with the exception of proposed amendments to the Constitution, become law in the same manner as bills.
SO the short of it is that while we may call them "rights" they are subject to be changed.
Supreme Court decisions account for the quickest way for a "RIGHT" to be altered.
If the SC says your rights have been infringed, they have. If you file a case that makes it to the SC on the grounds that your 2nd ammendment rights have been violated by, say, felony disenfranchisment they will decide the case and therby set about a precendent that will ripple throughout the system making new law regarding whatever actoin spurred the case.
IF... the NRA wanted to, they could call file suit against the Federal Govenment for violation of our rights and state that making a person fill out a yellow form is an infringment.
they wont do it, of course, becasue the case will be thrown out.
My personal opinion, however, is that all gun laws should be abolished and the citizens should be allowed to own any and all weapons avail to the military.
That is the original purpose of the ammendment, to serve as a failsafe for the people to be able to fight an oppressive govenment with force.
And if we have already lost that ability then what reason does the ammendment have to exist? to protect duck hunters?

Post by **f3rr37** » 08 Apr 2012, 18:52

Esteves wrote:Reminder: The original post included these guidelines:

flyingirish04 wrote:...What I want to do is without responding to others, post below where you draw the line as far as gun ownership, ammo restrictions, government required training, concealed carry, etc. PLEASE NO RESPONSES TO PARTICULAR PEOPLE'S POSTS.
...
Also saying I agree, or using :agree: is allowed.
Anything else is off topic. Yes, I'm still a moderator, and yes this is a "shape up" warning.

Good call, Esteves. Sorry about going off topic, Irish.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 08 Apr 2012, 20:11

I participated in it as well. No harm.

Post by **Cyberfly** » 08 Apr 2012, 20:34

I rather enjoyed the banter.
I could 'almost' see his point, but he was missing the bigger picture.
Thanks, tho Steve. For pointing out what should have been obvious to all of us. Too often I just go to the thread and hit the 'first unread post' button, and...

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 09 Apr 2012, 06:04

I don't mind it either. In fact I edited my OP so let the fray resume.

Quick questions for Cohiba though, since this is my thread:

How do you feel about Snakes?

AND

How do you feel about overdue library books?

Just curious.

Post by **f3rr37** » 09 Apr 2012, 06:58

flyingirish04 wrote:I don't mind it either. In fact I edited my OP so let the fray resume.

Quick questions for Cohiba though, since this is my thread:

How do you feel about Snakes?

AND

How do you feel about overdue library books?

Just curious.

:facepalm:

Website · Post by **jgreenberg01** » 09 Apr 2012, 07:40

flyingirish04 wrote:I don't mind it either. In fact I edited my OP so let the fray resume.

Quick questions for Cohiba though, since this is my thread:

How do you feel about Snakes?

AND

How do you feel about overdue library books?

Just curious.

I was taking a swig from my water bottle as I was reading that.

Big mistake.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Snakes.

Post by **Cyberfly** » 10 Apr 2012, 06:22

I was slurping coffee at the time.
With cream.
And sugar.
BIGGGERR MiStAkE!
Thank goodness I gots a TuffBook! hahahaha

toyslr · Post by **toyslr** » 10 Apr 2012, 09:01

"Christianity has spread the "word" of GOD through force"

Religion has been the cause for more wars and battles than any other reason known to man.
Forcing someone to change their beliefs or way of life to fit into you ideals is wrong. our Governments continued attempts to do so is why we have planes being flown into our buildings
and a two front war. We can't keep our own laundry clean but yet we (Our Government) feels the need to dictate what others should think, feel, or allow?
How about we stop giving away BILLIONS we borrow from the Chinese and Saudis and worry about fixing our own problems. Pull in the troops, surround our borders and fix this country before we worry with the others.

Post by **Cyberfly** » 11 Apr 2012, 05:17

Oh, I LOVE that last line...

toyslr · Post by **toyslr** » 11 Apr 2012, 06:02

Its stupid! We dump how much money into Pakistan? Only to find them harboring the person we are dumping money into their <profanity> whole country to help us find in the first place?
Don't even get me started about F**kin Mexico...Use to LOVE going there to dive but I won't go because I don't want to but money into their pockets

brianz · Post by **brianz** » 11 Apr 2012, 06:14

To play Devil's advocate (at least in dealing with disaster relief), there were quite a few countries that donated money and supplies during the aftermath of Katrina.

Who is online