Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)


"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145361859.938606.90830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145278964.577629.228740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145221609.603399.12880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns97A7874993636hopewell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1145216503.872789.194620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Sorry, but you've already told us that they can chose to ban
any
weapons which aren't carried by the police or issued by the
state
to
the militia. So they would be free to ban all sorts of weapons.

Please stop misquoting me and making *** up to suit your need
to
find
fault with my model.

This is actually what I said: "e. A state may limit the
possession
of
various types of firearms and ammunition within that state so
long
as
the limitation does not exceed
those placed on regular militia forces within the state."


Which means that they could regulate or ban any weapon not
normally
allowed in the militia. If the militia were only issued M16s,
then
anything else could be banned and in some states would be. As
Scout
said.....

Yep, he seems to keep changing his claims first it's protected,
then
it's
allowed, then it can be prohibited, then it can't be prohibited,
then
it's
only allowed, then it's protected......round and round and
round......his
model is way to inconsistent for my tastes and depends way to much
on
what
the government "allows" for you to have.

What you have now is what the government allows you to have.

And what we would have under your model would be the same, except that
the
government would be able to legitimately withhold such arms.

Thanks, but I prefer accepting that we have a government that needs to
be
restrained to what is legitimate rather than legitimizing their extra
Constitutional infringements.

Seems you can't respond.


I'm amazed at how the only suitable policies are the ones your
imagination has created-- based on a system your imagination has
created.

So the Consitution is just a matter of imagination.

Another common tactic of those opposed to guns, claiming the
Constitution
doesn't apply.

And again.

And it's not my fault you attribute meaning to sentences where that
meaning isn't there and wouldn't be assumed to be there by most
reasonable readers-- and where you don't bother to ask for
clarification where there might be some misstatement.

And yet another common tactic claiming that their convulted reading of
the
2nd is somehow the proper and only method and that it is commonly
accepted
as the truth.

And again.

Sorry, but a 14 year old having taken basic English grammer can
diagram
the
2nd and tell you to whom the right exists and what shall be done in
protection of that right. Further they can also explain to you that
giving a
reason for something is NOT a limitation of the nature of what is
being
explained.

And again.


But like I said, I've gotten something out of your comments-- so
you're
not totally useless.

And so have I. You are a gun grabber in sheep's clothing attempting to
appear as an innocent supporter of guns, but the reality is that you
wish
to
turn our right into a government granted and approved privilege
subject
to
whatever constraints the government chooses to place upon us.

You are deluded if you think you are not now subject to the constraints
the government chooses to place on you. Ruby Ridge? Waco?

Just because I may be subject to such constraints does NOT make those
restraints legitimate. Your "model" would much such restraints legitimate
and allow such restraints as a matter of course. Sure those restraints
may
be no more than what I am now subjected to, though I have serious reason
to
suspect they could be much more, but the key difference would be that one
set of restraints would be wrong and contrary to the "model" the other
would
be fully supported by and compatable with the "model".

So once again I will stick with the current model, "shall not be
infringed".
It may not be perfect in application, but at least we can fight that that
application isn't proper.

You are
even more deluded if you think the future is going to bring you freedom
from such constraints.

I see, so I should just give up my rights now without a fight, and then
later when my concealed carry is prohibited and my few remaining weapons
are
prohibited, well, it's just what the future is going to bring. If this is
true, then why in hell would I accept a model that gives up more of my
freedoms? Why wouldn't I hang on to every scrap I have for as long as I
can
hold on to it?

Sorry, by your very arguement above there is absolutely no reason to
accept
your model and every reason to reject it so as to hold on to as much of
our
freedom as we can rather than give it away.

Further I note that my freedom with guns is increasing and I see no
reason
to suspect that trend will change. Sure, in the future it might, by why
would I work to remove my rights as your model would require?


The majority of Americans are supportinve of
militations on the right to keep and bear arms-- especially when they
read the inflated rhetoric of nutz like you.

Another empty tactic of gun control, to suggest that people actually
favor
banning guns. When the reality is utterly different. Most people feel
that
people should be free to own guns.


And your inaccurate restatements of my model should embarass you.

Really? Care to point out in the language of your model were my
statements
are contrary to what is set forth?


Recognizing and protecting a right to self-defense using a firearm
throughout the 50 states and territories is not "gun-grabbing" in any
sense of the phrase.

No, but giving up access to a bunch of other firearms by needing special
licensing which may or may not be authorized, IS gun-grabbing.


It is an expansion of the protections we now have.
Duh.

Ok, then if it is an extension of the protections we have now....then why
should all those other arms now require special licenses by the state or
be
allowed to be prohibited by the state? After all our CURRENT protection
is
that our possession of arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Anything else is NOT
an
extension of that protection. I think what you really mean is the nature
of
the illegitimate violations of those protections that exist, but even
then I
don't see how your model reduces overall those violations. It does help
protect one small segment but would allow everything else to be violated
at
will.

So, sorry, if your model allows ANY infringement of our right to arms,
then
it does NOT extend our protections it retracts them.

You don't get to avoid an entire post in which I correct your errors
(snip all after name-calling...) and then come back and expect me to
continue to respond to the same thing over and over again.

Well, if you can do so without the name calling I will be happy to listen,
but when you start off a response by calling names, then you have nothing
there I want to bother reading.

I have no
intention of responding-- again-- to your same points since you have
not given me the courtesy of admitting your errors because I "called
you a name."

So I should ignore your bad manners?

I get it. You believe that your RKBA is provided for by the 2nd
amendment and that the right "shall not be infringed."

No, I believe that we have RKBA no matter what the 2nd has to say, and that
the 2nd states that the federal government (and via the 14th Amendment the
state and local governments) have no authority to enact any laws which
violate that right.

Only a small number of people in our society agree with you.

Actually, that would be the majority of the people in our society.

However, I am curious. What part of "The right of the people..." do you
think refers to just the militia?


I'm not
so sure-- as I have posted elsewhere here-- that the 2nd amendment was
intended to do what you think it was. And there is still plenty of
debate on the issue-- despite your conclusive belief.

The only debate is between those that would deny what it states and the
supporting commentary that supports that intent, and those that try to
educate them that it really does mean what it says and that meaning is
really the intent of the people who wrote it. Indeed the whole BOR was
considered unnecessary since the because the federal government had only
those few and limited powers it was specifically granted and that it had
been granted NO power to regulate the arms of the people it couldn't do so.
However, the anti-federalists were concerned that a lack of a specific
enumeration of such a protection might allow the federal government to
assume such powers and do so away. History indicates that not only were they
right, they weren't paranoid enough in their beliefs of an overreaching
federal government.

So feel free to demonstrate the no individual's arms were intended to be
protected by the 2nd.


And regardless of the intent of the 2nd amendment, the American people,
while many are supportive of gun ownership-- are supportive of
"stricter gun controls."

No, many badly run polls make that false assumption. They ask a leading
question to invoke a particular response and then use that response to
project a willingness to support more restrictive gun control. In the only
polls that matter, by voting, the people have shown by a strong majority
that they do NOT want stricter gun controls.

And there is not even a major segment of the
population that is going to mobilize to support your right to keep and
bear a .50 cal MG. If you think so, you are again, deluded.


Actually, I expect a significant portion would. Heck, the last mobilization
over "assualt weapons" cost the Democrates the control of Congress. So it
seems that enough people do support that right to kick one party out of
power because they infringed upon that right.


So, I don't agree that you have the theory right. I don't think the
2nd amendment was intended to recognize and protect the right of all
the people in America to keep and bear arms without any infringment.

Please support your claim by discussing how "the people" isn't a referent to
the people in America but just the militia and support that contention by
showing the language, meaning and grammatical linkage using the standard
rules of English langauge, composition, and grammar.

I mean it's nice that you assert it doesn't mean what it states, but let's
see if you can defend your assertion by showing it is supported by the
langauge.



The FFs were, for example, generally in agreement that the RKBA was
suitable only for "peaceable citizens" and did not include children.
So, obviously, the right was not absolute even in their minds.

And freedom of speech doesn't cover slander. So what's your point? That
because criminals can be charged for misusing their rights and that children
don't enjoy all the rights of adults that somehow translates to everyone
else?


And I don't agree that you have the application right. The RKBA is not
appropriate for children, seriously mentally ill people, violent
felons, terrorists, etc.

Interesting assertion, but too bad you can't support it.

Your "shall not be infringed" was never meant
to be an absolute in application-- unless you are talking about the
state's right to keep a militia.

If it were refering to a state's right, then it would have stated "the right
of the state..."

Further the state has no more right to arms than the people of the state do
since the rights of the collective can be no more than an extension of the
rights of the individuals within that collective.

If you don't believe me then maybe you would from one of the Founding
Fathers.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them
all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum
of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison,
1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

You have yet to address how some of the limitations on your RKBA
prevent you from effectively exercising the right.

Main Entry: lim·i·ta·tion
Pronunciation: "li-m&-'tA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : an act or instance of limiting
2 : the quality or state of being limited
3 : something that limits : RESTRAINT
4 : a certain period limited by statute after which actions, suits, or
prosecutions cannot be brought in the courts

If it's a limitation then it by definition has to reduce the extent to which
I can exercise my right.

QED.



I have said, for example, that requiring a license to carry-- a
definite infringment-- does NOT effectively keep me from effectively
exercising my right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, for defense
of others, for defense of the state, for hunting, for sporting and
recreation.

Really? Care to tell that to the people of CA or HI?

Are you really prepared to tell us that requiring a license to carry does
not infringe upon your right to carry when that license can be denied?

I thought it was your position that your model was needed because of these
very violations of our rights. Now you're trying to assert that CA requiring
a license isn't an infringement of your right to carry for self defense.
ROFL...

You need to get off your merry-go-round and try some consistency in your
arguements.

So, if the limitation doesn't prevent you from effectievly
exercising the right, how is it that you claim it is not legitimate?

Well, since it DOES, then how can you claim it is legitimate?

Further, even if we assumed that such licenses were all shall issue, it
could still be viewed as a violation of my rights since I would effectively
have to seek governmental permission to exercise my rights. Do you have to
get a permit to print a book? Have a speech on your front lawn? Go to
church? Somehow I bet that if the government attempted to impose licenses
for these actions even if it never denied those licenses most people would
consider that a violation of their rights. Sure they could still exercise
their right.....AFTER getting permission to do so. However, if we have the
right to do something then we shouldn't need to get permission from anyone
to exercise that right.

So, yes, I consider such licensing to currently be an infringement because
it does restrict the exercise of my right, and I would also consider any
requirement to have to get such a license to be potentally a violation as
well.


What is the basis for your statement?

That I can't carry a gun concealed everywhere.

Wasn't that the whole issue that caused you to produce your "model"????

Are you going to tell us it is no longer an issue because our rights aren't
violated by the need for such licenses?



.

Quantcast