Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)


"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144680090.367619.299530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144635640.156352.65240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

James F. Mayer wrote:
"Morton Davis" <antikerry@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0md_f.90075$oL.85329@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"James F. Mayer" <jfma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Cdd_f.5028$i41.3016@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144593902.544705.33640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And yes, the U.S. Superme court has upheld limits to the means
you
may
use to self-defense. A sawed-off shotgun, for example, is not a
weapon
you may legally poessess to defend yourself.


Yes it is if you have the correct paper work. Just goes to show
how
much
you don't know.


Also, you can own a sawed-off shotgun if it over the defined length.
In
the
end, Homespun is just spouting the same anti rights troll crap as
all
the
other anti rights trolls who came before it. only homespun thinks
it's
spouting "ne concepts". It is hard to find ignorance that deep.


I think that he thinks that he has found a new angle that we won't
see
through and that he is just another gun control advocate hiding behind
that
angle.

Limits on your right to keep and bear arms are going to be a fact of
life in the U.S. for many, many years to come. Barring some
apocalyptic event that changes the world as we know it, technological
trends both generally and in firearm manufacture will provide more and
more avenues for anit-gunners to restrict and infringe upon the rights
of Americans more and more.

Yep, our freedoms, all of our freedoms, are slowly being stripped away.


That's the reality now. And that's likely to be the reality in the
future. If I thought your All or Nothing Approach had any chance of
ensuring my right to self-defense with a concealed carry handgun would
be protected across the U.S. then I'd be right there with you in
support of it-- maybe.

Then maybe you should check out this link

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

I already have the link boomarked, thanks. I'm a fan of Jeff Dege's
work-- which is why I invited him to this thread and asked that he
share his wisdom with us.

Interesting considering the lack of respect you have for the wisdom of those
you have already asked to share their thoughts with you.

If you read Jeff's comments carefully, you'll see he recognizes that
limitations on your RKBA exist and that some may be reasonable.

Yep, I also agree there are limitations, just as I can't claim the freedom
of speech protects slander, neither do I claim that RKBA protects murder.
Misuse IS something that can be addressed. However, what he recognizes as
limitations, and what you consider limitations probably have little to do
with each other. Particularly some limitations you considered reasonable
which not only are not reasonable, they aren't even Constitutional.


Jeff Dege said: "A law that forbids convicted a felon from possessing
firearms is a reasonable infringement. A law that forbids every
resident of a city from possessing firearms is not."

Yep, we can restrict the rights of criminals. However, I note you want to
restrict the rights of everyone.

So where does that place you within Jeff's comment?

Jeff's comments about the Pennsylvania Dissent are also dead on the
mark, I think.

As for winning in the RKBA, you should notice there are still two red
states-- where there is effectively no concealed carry-- and the
governor of Illinois just a few weeks ago tried to get an AWB passed.
(I haven't checked to see if Morton Grove-- or whatever that little
village in IL is called-- is still banning handguns.)

Yep, but given the situations 20 years ago in 1986 when it was 15 states
with no concealed carry, and 26 that were may issue which in practice
generally meant no issue. We have made vast strides.

We have gone from 20 states to 2 that are no issue, and 26 to 9 that are may
issue (some of which are still effectively shall not issue)

So as indicated by your claims that if all or nothing approach had any
chance to protect your right to self defense you would be in here with
us.....I know accept you into the fold since clearly it DOES have such
potential by the very fact that it IS working. More and more states have
been changing no-issue or may-issue into shall issue, in that unless
demonstratable reasons can be shown to deny you a permit shall be issued.
That's a vast improvement over what it use to be. Heck, I still remember
getting my first permit and having to demonstrate to the judge my NEED to
have a permit. Now that VA, is a shall issue people can get one simply
because they WANT one.

Further we also are working to get reciprocity agreements between the
states, and there are pushes to impose a federal mandate requiring states to
recognize these office acts of other states.


http://www.gun-nuttery.com/maps/2006.gif

I've travelled a bit, and I happen to be settled in IL for the moment.
I can't carry here. And my Bushmaster M-4 is in danger of becoming
unwelcome in this state. I lived in CA too. I didn't have a right to
concealed carry there-- and I haven't seen any changes to that since I
left. (As I recall, my M-4 wouldn't have been welcome there either.)

Maybe you should have picked some place else to move to. Further I note that
even in IL moves are being made to impliment CCW, and to help prohibit the
ban on certain guns. Are you helping out in supporting those movements to
impliment CCW, and protect your arms? How many state legislaters have you
written to in the last session supporting the pro-gun bills introduced?

Have you joined groups working to get CCW implimented in IL?

I mean it's not nice that your current and former states aren't gun
friendly, but what are you doing to change that. Needless to say others are,
and they aren't the ones willing to sell their rights down the river who are
making these gains for you.


I want it etched in stone. And yes, I'm willing to allow what I would
consider reasonable limitations that don't infringe upon my right to
carry a concealed handgun for personal protection (and protection of
others)

How narrow a view of your rights you have. It's like saying you don't carry
about violations of the freedom of press as long as you have your bible.

and that don't infringe on my right to keep certain other arms
for my personal protection (and protection of others and protection of
the state)-- in order to make sure my core rights are recognized and
protected across the U.S.

What core rights? To have and carry a handgun? Is that what you consider the
full extent of your right to arms is?



The trend is very much in our favor.

Because it sure is problematic in areas.

Yep, but with each passing year there are fewer such problematic areas.

But I
don't see that happening.

Have you bothered to look?

And as for the trend, you may already know that movements in
jurisprudence often follow the leadership trends of certain states--
California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts. (Apparently, it's
got something to so with the demographics and attention to legal issues
or something like that.) Anyway, I see that CA, IL, NY, and MA don't
have It etched in stone. Since I spend a lot of time in those states
and since I'm a citizen of one of them (and my CCL therefore doesn't
have a lot of reciprocity to it) I'd like to give those states a kick
in the ass. I don't know if anything can be done about CA with my
approach-- and NYC might be a lost cause that can keep NY from Seeing
the Light-- but I do believe that with the right safeguards-- i.e.
limitations-- the cities can be swayed enough to let the rural tide get
some changes made.

Appeasement isn't the answer. Educating the public and kicking legislators
our of office who don't protect our rights WILL result in improved
protections for your rights.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... Placing limitations on rights is entirely necessary and consistent with ... limitations does not downgrade a right to a "privilege." ... suitable for personal protection in places where I could conceivably ... If the answer to this is yes, then the policy is wrong. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... other anti rights trolls who came before it. ... more avenues for anit-gunners to restrict and infringe upon the rights ... carry a concealed handgun for personal protection (and protection of ... what a weapon looked like. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Steve Gough - update
    ... > their rights are being contravened under Article 10 of the ECHR ... > prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or ... > penalties as are prescribed by law" whereas simple public nudity is ...
    (uk.rec.naturist)
  • Re: Middle Class, endangered species
    ... protection is the only successful money system that has EVER worked ... and "personal rights protection" ever existed simultaneously? ... for example, I support gay rights and abortion rights, and I did agree ... Just as hateful and bigotted and biased as thier right counterparts, ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: OT: Land of the free?
    ... George Graves wrote: ... legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees. ... Please provide the specific quote from the Constitution that supports ... right is different than being afforded protection of that right. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)