Who's Right?

[MR Redneck]

Over the past several months we have all discussed topics on gun control. Gun control is something we all pretty much agree to hate.
We also discuss the right to carry and reasonable restrictions. These are two subjects that get a lot of different opinions. I for one try to read everyones opinion with the effort to undersrtand what my fellow man believes in. So far nobody has convinced me that regulations and reasonable restrictions benefit the public. No proof has been shown to support this idea, nor has anyone provided factual information that disarming and regulating the honest public prevents crime.
One word I use to describe regulation and restrictions on rights is " Elitist". I feel as if people dont want everyone to share the same rights as they have , thus denying the 14th amendment to all freemen. The ratification of the 14th amendment was the reason Texans lost thier right to carry. The Texas Constitution was amended by E.J. Davis to create Gun Control in the State Of Texas. Today, those amendment still apply.

Some argue that reasonable restrictions are Constitutional. Lets look to our founding father to define and debate this subject!

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

When I read Mr. Washingtons quote, I understand what he meant because I smile when I look at my guns. They are precious to me and are truly an honor to have.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

Thomas Jefferson is one of my favorite sources for information about the 2nd amendment. No matter who debates restrictions, gun control, or states rights to enforce those restrictions, Thomas Jefferson has already established the foundation for those debates. When people voice their opinion on my rights, I look to Thomas Jefferson for answers. So fare, everyone has been wrong and any opinions that allow restricitons on my rights are not valid with the effort my founding fathers made for me.

" With a view to prevent crime"
I often study this subject to try and find one good reason why legislature should regulate the wearing of arms. My honest opinion, I think they should. I also think they have no right at all to create laws that restrict the rights of honest Texans that have not committed any crimes. This subject leaves me with one opinion, the opinion that Law Makers need to regulate criminals and leave the honest man alone.

"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake."
Malcolm Wallop
former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)

When I read this, I understand why Wyoming has better right to carry laws than Texas.
This quote makes a lot of sence when I read the infringement that E.J. Davis established on Texans.

" Reasonable Restrictions Apply"

If you believe rights of honest citizens should be restricted, then go ahead and sign up with this gaggle of numbnuts!

Pro Gun Control


"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things." "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933


" No argument from me"

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

 

[Bithabus]

Does the 2nd amendment apply to the States?

If it does not then State Constitutions can allow for restrictions.

If it does then our right to keep and bear arms should be protected from infringement by all levels of government.
__
Does the 2nd amendment allow for "reasonable restrictions"?

Clearly it does not. It is, and was intended to be, an absolute. SCOTUS aside. The courts can decide which restrictions they believe to be reasonable when room for restrictions has already been carved out by the Const. (such as the reasonableness clause in the 4th) but the SCOTUS does not have the authority to amend the Bill of Rights.
__
If there were a reasonableness clause in the 2nd amendment, which restrictions would be reasonable?

I would be hard pressed to defend ownership of nuclear arms and weaponized biological agents by average citizens, or anyone outside of highly secure and specialized military installations. We have way too many crazies and scumbags in our society.

 

[txinvestigator]

For those who profess to believe in no restrictions, I have questions on two seperate issues

The first amendment does not allow for restrictions either, but as we all know the right to free speech is not absolute. So, why is the 2nd different?

Regarding the 2nd; here are but a few questions;

1) Should ANY PERSON be allowed to carry a firearm without restriction? 12 year olds to school? You in a prison? A convicted felon out on parole?

2) Define "arms" Should it be lawful for you to walk around with hand gernades? How about a 12 year old at school? A Convicted Felon? How about other

Bithabus, you said both of these things

Does the 2nd amendment allow for "reasonable restrictions"? (sorry to single you out)

Clearly it does not. It is, and was intended to be, an absolute.

I would be hard pressed to defend ownership of nuclear arms and weaponized biological agents by average citizens, or anyone outside of highly secure and specialized military installations.

Those statements are incongruent. Are they not?

 

[Bithabus]

Bithabus, you said both of these things Those statements are incongruent. Are they not?

This was meant to be one line of thought:

If there were a reasonableness clause in the 2nd amendment, which restrictions would be reasonable?

I would be hard pressed to defend ownership of nuclear arms and weaponized biological agents by average citizens, or anyone outside of highly secure and specialized military installations. We have way too many crazies and scumbags in our society.

 

[Bithabus]

The first amendment does not allow for restrictions either, but as we all know the right to free speech is not absolute. So, why is the 2nd different?

Speech can be used to harm other people. Keeping and bearing arms can harm no one. I do believe there should be strict restrictions on the use of arms in the form of laws prohibiting murder, agg assault, etc...

 

[MR Redneck]

For those who profess to believe in no restrictions, I have questions on two seperate issues

The first amendment does not allow for restrictions either, but as we all know the right to free speech is not absolute. So, why is the 2nd different?

Regarding the 2nd; here are but a few questions;

1) Should ANY PERSON be allowed to carry a firearm without restriction? 12 year olds to school? You in a prison? A convicted felon out on parole?

2) Define "arms" Should it be lawful for you to walk around with hand gernades? How about a 12 year old at school? A Convicted Felon? How about other

Bithabus, you said both of these things Those statements are incongruent. Are they not?

Wow! Such a great day and so close to the new year. Good thing I agree with you.
I actually feel the same way and what you just stated is what I believe reasonable restrictions should be.
I think adults need to answer fro themselves and children should be parented.
I see no reason for a child to carry guns around unless accompanied by the parent.
Convicted felons should be restricted untill they go through the process of re-establishing their rights. If they meet the requirements, I agree. Hell, I actually have a friend who is a convicted felon who went through this process. He even own fully Automatic weapons. He done his time and prooved he's not a threat to the public.
Convicted felon out on parol, hell no. I dont even agree with parol. One thing I do agree with is a person being reformed and paying his debt. After that, they should be able to proove themselves worthy of their rights. Kinda of a opinionated subject..

People carrying grenades and such, " Why the hell would any honest person need to carry a grenade around"?

What I agree with about regualtions and restrictions, is regulating people who are a problem such as criminals!
Why should I be regulated, I have done nothing wrong to anybody. Unlike most of the CHL forums I visit, I could care less about shooting someone. I like to focus my effort on " Not shooting" people. If a woman shoots a bad guy, I'll agree she should have. If a man shoots a worm for trying to rob him, I ask WTF is wrong with your fist?

Regulations with a view to prevent crime do not apply to me. I commit criminal acts against anyone! So how is Texas Law justified? How are they preventing crime by infringing on my rights?
Punish people for misuse of firearms because the posession and ownership is not illegal.

 

[MR Redneck]

Speech can be used to harm other people. Keeping and bearing arms can harm no one. I do believe there should be strict restrictions on the use of arms in the form of laws prohibiting murder, agg assault, etc...

All of this pertains to misuse of those rights. Should our rights be denied to keep us from misuseing them?

 

[txinvestigator]

Speech can be used to harm other people.

agreed, but in keeping with the theme of strict interpretation, the Bill of Rights does not allow for ANY restrictions, such as those that might harm others.

Again, this is just for conversation

 

[txinvestigator]

Wow! Such a great day and so close to the new year. Good thing I agree with you.

Don't mistake questions for opinions. I am just asking questions.

I actually feel the same way and what you just stated is what I believe reasonable restrictions should be.

In this thread I have not stated how I feel.

I see no reason for a child to carry guns around unless accompanied by the parent.
Convicted felons should be restricted untill they go through the process of re-establishing their rights. If they meet the requirements, I agree. Hell, I actually have a friend who is a convicted felon who went through this process. He even own fully Automatic weapons. He done his time and prooved he's not a threat to the public.

So you support "reasonable" restrictions? Is that not in conflict with the following comment from your opening post;

So far nobody has convinced me that regulations and reasonable restrictions benefit the public

You also wrote;

People carrying grenades and such, " Why the hell would any honest person need to carry a grenade around"?

A grenade is an "arm" Again, you DO support reasonable restrictions. This confuses me as to your original post.


And on another point;

What I agree with about regualtions and restrictions, is regulating people who are a problem such as criminals!
Why should I be regulated, I have done nothing wrong to anybody. Unlike most of the CHL forums I visit, I could care less about shooting someone. I like to focus my effort on " Not shooting" people. If a woman shoots a bad guy, I'll agree she should have. If a man shoots a worm for trying to rob him, I ask WTF is wrong with your fist?

Staying one topic, isn't this incongruent with your original post, wherein you stated;

One word I use to describe regulation and restrictions on rights is " Elitist". I feel as if people dont want everyone to share the same rights as they have , thus denying the 14th amendment to all freemen.

? Am I mistaken?

Punish people for misuse of firearms because the posession and ownership is not illegal.

I believe that is done now.

 

[MR Redneck]

Well there ya go again chopping everything up.
Reasonable Restrictions should be focussed toward those who misuse their rights. Such as criminals.
Restricting those who have done nothing wrong does not prevent crime.
And yea, I think restricting people from carrying around grenades is reasonable. Grenades are not a good personal protection weapon. At least not if other people are around.
I please not;
Im not against reasonable restrictions at the state level, im just against restricting people who have done nothing wrong. When you restrict the honest public, its called " Infringement"!

 

[txinvestigator]

Well there ya go again chopping everything up.
Reasonable Restrictions should be focussed toward those who misuse their rights. Such as criminals.
Restricting those who have done nothing wrong does not prevent crime.
And yea, I think restricting people from carrying around grenades is reasonable. Grenades are not a good personal protection weapon. At least not if other people are around.
I please not;
Im not against reasonable restrictions at the state level, im just against restricting people who have done nothing wrong. When you restrict the honest public, its called " Infringement"!

Who decides Grenades are not good personal protection weapons? Why can't I carry one if "I have done nothing wrong"? That restricts me, the "honest public", an "infringement" on me. See, in this one post you have contradicted your stated belief.

The truth is, people want to do whatever THEY, as individuals believe is reasonable, right, or whatever. You cannot, with any congruency, say that you cannot restrict those who have done nothing wrong, then say at the same time that certain arms should be banned. It is not consistent.

This is why we have legislators who make laws for ALL of us. This is why the Supreme Court has to determine what restrictions are reasonable. Everyone in this thread who has stated an opinion has said that some restrictions are not only reasonable, but necessary. The debate is in the determination as to what is reasonable.

I will gladly have a discussion on reasonableness as long as we can all agree that there MUST be some restrictions.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

I still think we should abolish the FOPA, GCA, and NFA personally, and there are plenty more ridiculous laws where all those came from.

 

[txinvestigator]

I still think we should abolish the FOPA, GCA, and NFA personally, and there are plenty more ridiculous laws where all those came from.

May I ask a few questions? I'll just address the GCA;

Do you believe that Felons and Fugitives from justice should be able to lawfully posses and carry firearms, etc? How about Drug Addicts and those with severe mental disease? Illegal aliens?

 

[MR Redneck]

Who decides Grenades are not good personal protection weapons? Why can't I carry one if "I have done nothing wrong"? That restricts me, the "honest public", an "infringement" on me. See, in this one post you have contradicted your stated belief.

The truth is, people want to do whatever THEY, as individuals believe is reasonable, right, or whatever. You cannot, with any congruency, say that you cannot restrict those who have done nothing wrong, then say at the same time that certain arms should be banned. It is not consistent.

This is why we have legislators who make laws for ALL of us. This is why the Supreme Court has to determine what restrictions are reasonable. Everyone in this thread who has stated an opinion has said that some restrictions are not only reasonable, but necessary. The debate is in the determination as to what is reasonable.

I will gladly have a discussion on reasonableness as long as we can all agree that there MUST be some restrictions.

Reasonable restriction, like I said before and I'll say it again need to apply to those people who have done something wrong. I do not think restricting honest peoples right to carry firearms is reasonable. Private property owners can restrict me becuase I accept the rights of " Private Ownership". Besides, I dont have to go there.
When you speak of grenades your own a different subject. Grenades are not firearms. I see no reason for anyone to go shopping with a belt full of grenades strapped on their waist. I cant buy grenades anyhow. I can legally purchase, own, and sell firearms. State law simply says I cant carry them untill I pay for that right.
If you can legally buy it, you should be able to carry it.
Last I checked none of the milsurps had any grenades for sale because their illegal for me to purchase.

 

[M. Sage]

Who decides Grenades are not good personal protection weapons?

Problem with the premise of that question. The thrust of the Second Amendment is not personal protection by its current definition. It's militia activity to defend ourselves against foreign invaders and our own government when it gets out of bounds. Frame the question in the proper context and you'll get the correct answer.

Are hand grenades useful to resist foreign invaders or home-grown tyranny? Obviously they are, as are anti-tank weapons and artillery pieces. Yes, those should be legal for ownership by law abiding citizens.

 

[MR Redneck]

Problem with the premise of that question. The thrust of the Second Amendment is not personal protection by its current definition. It's militia activity to defend ourselves against foreign invaders and our own government when it gets out of bounds. Frame the question in the proper context and you'll get the correct answer.

Are hand grenades useful to resist foreign invaders or home-grown tyranny? Obviously they are, as are anti-tank weapons and artillery pieces. Yes, those should be legal for ownership by law abiding citizens.

You make a good point there. So should we decide that grenads might be regulated as public carry, but we can also agree that we have a Constitutional right to keep them. If I could legally buy grenades I would have a few cases of them around here. I would also expect to get some kind of lecture if I were to carry them in public though.
Does a 50 Barret classify as Anti Tank?

 

[Bithabus]

All of this pertains to misuse of those rights. Should our rights be denied to keep us from misuseing them?

You just said you believe our 2nd amendment rights should be restricted:

I think adults need to answer fro themselves and children should be parented.
I see no reason for a child to carry guns around unless accompanied by the parent.
Convicted felons should be restricted untill they go through the process of re-establishing their rights. If they meet the requirements, I agree. Hell, I actually have a friend who is a convicted felon who went through this process. He even own fully Automatic weapons. He done his time and prooved he's not a threat to the public.
Convicted felon out on parol, hell no. I dont even agree with parol. One thing I do agree with is a person being reformed and paying his debt. After that, they should be able to proove themselves worthy of their rights. Kinda of a opinionated subject..

People carrying grenades and such, " Why the hell would any honest person need to carry a grenade around"?

Carrying hand grenades can not possibly do harm to anyone. Intentionally giving someone the wrong instructions to operate a machine which causes an accident involving death is an example of speech being used as a weapon. The "yelling fire in a movie theater" is also an example of speech being used as a weapon. Our right to free speech is not infringed but our right to use weapons is not absolute and was never intended to be We all believe it should be illegal to randomly fire guns towards someone's home, for example.

 

[Bithabus]

agreed, but in keeping with the theme of strict interpretation, the Bill of Rights does not allow for ANY restrictions, such as those that might harm others.

When speech is used as a tool to harm others the gun has been drawn and fired. We do (and should) have plenty of restrictions on the use of weapons.

 

[Bithabus]

When you speak of grenades your own a different subject. Grenades are not firearms. I see no reason for anyone to go shopping with a belt full of grenades strapped on their waist. I cant buy grenades anyhow. I can legally purchase, own, and sell firearms. State law simply says I cant carry them untill I pay for that right.
If you can legally buy it, you should be able to carry it.

This is an awful argument.

It follows from your argument that any weapon made illegal to possess by a government can be rightfully banned for carry.

What about modern machine guns? Illegal to possess. High cap mags in CA, illegal to possess. There is a long list of weapons made illegal to possess which citizens should be able to keep and bear as they please.

 

[txinvestigator]

Reasonable restriction, like I said before and I'll say it again need to apply to those people who have done something wrong. I do not think restricting honest peoples right to carry firearms is reasonable.

"Firearms"? You made this thread about the 2nd amendment. It speaks of ARMS, not just "firearms". But to your statement, should honest 12 year olds be allowed to carry "firearms" around?

When you speak of grenades your own a different subject.

It is YOUR topic, and it is about the 2nd amendment. That addresses ARMS, not firearms.

Grenades are not firearms. I see no reason for anyone to go shopping with a belt full of grenades strapped on their waist. I cant buy grenades anyhow. I can legally purchase, own, and sell firearms. State law simply says I cant carry them untill I pay for that right.

Since both gernades and firearms are "arms" should they both not be treated the same? After all, the 2nd is about arms and, according to you, someone who has done no wrong should not be restricted. And while we are talking about it, either you CAN restrict the 2nd or you cannot. It is one or the other. If you cannot restrict then leave felons, parolees and others who have "done" wrong alone. The 2nd does not say you can restrict those who have "done wrong".