I, Publius: A cold, dead hand is still dead

Apr 5, 2014 Full story: Berkshire Eagle 74

Some Americans really love their guns. In order to understand what is happening in this country, it is necessary to comprehend the salience of the gun issue to those who insist it is their right to keep and bear arms.

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Enough already

Danielson, CT

#1 Apr 6, 2014
This opinion piece is good. It appears we are at an impasse on gun rights. Let's just look at our rights and leave the guns out of the debate. Where is it acceptable to regulate or eliminate our rights under the Constitution? Where does it stop and what would you do if it did not stop? After all, the events in Europe or the Middle East can't happen here, we are the USA. History is an invaluable teacher we but we persist in making the same societal blunders. Let reason together about this.
Independent

United States

#2 Apr 6, 2014
Enough already wrote:
This opinion piece is good.
IMHO, That OPINION piece, beyond the first paragraph, is pure, guttersnipe, trash.

:^`P
Enough already

New York, NY

#4 Apr 7, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
IMHO, That OPINION piece, beyond the first paragraph, is pure, guttersnipe, trash.
:^`P
. My point was that it's a good piece to show that the 2 sides of this issue will never agree. I am a Life Member NRA and oppose all gun control that infringes on our rights. Maybe if the other side looks at it as just a rights issue, they will get their heads out of their ass.

Since: Feb 13

Amarillo, TX

#5 Apr 7, 2014
Enough already wrote:
<quoted text>. My point was that it's a good piece to show that the 2 sides of this issue will never agree. I am a Life Member NRA and oppose all gun control that infringes on our rights. Maybe if the other side looks at it as just a rights issue, they will get their heads out of their ass.
But it is a right they don't like.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6 Apr 7, 2014
Enough already wrote:
This opinion piece is good. It appears we are at an impasse on gun rights. Let's just look at our rights and leave the guns out of the debate. Where is it acceptable to regulate or eliminate our rights under the Constitution? Where does it stop and what would you do if it did not stop? After all, the events in Europe or the Middle East can't happen here, we are the USA. History is an invaluable teacher we but we persist in making the same societal blunders. Let reason together about this.
All of our Constitutional rights are regulated. That fact is neither scandalous nor misguided.

No serious person has any interest in eliminating any Constitutional rights. Any talk like that only comes from the marginalized fringe and represents zero legitimate threat to the Constitution.
Enough already wrote:
. Maybe if the other side looks at it as just a rights issue, they will get their heads out of their ass.
Describing your ideological opponents that way doesn't indicate that you have any real interest in genuinely "reasoning together."

Since: Jan 08

Grants Pass, OR

#7 Apr 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
All of our Constitutional rights are regulated. That fact is neither scandalous nor misguided.
No serious person has any interest in eliminating any Constitutional rights. Any talk like that only comes from the marginalized fringe and represents zero legitimate threat to the Constitution.
<quoted text>
Describing your ideological opponents that way doesn't indicate that you have any real interest in genuinely "reasoning together."
I take issue with a portion of your post. There is way to much information out there to show how many groups and politicians etc, are trying to eliminate our rights. Regulation to a limited degree is fine however this is not what is or has been happening.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8 Apr 7, 2014
talon7351 wrote:
<quoted text>
I take issue with a portion of your post. There is way to much information out there to show how many groups and politicians etc, are trying to eliminate our rights. Regulation to a limited degree is fine however this is not what is or has been happening.
Which rights do you believe anyone is trying to eliminate? Where have you seen that happening?

Since: Jan 08

Grants Pass, OR

#10 Apr 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Which rights do you believe anyone is trying to eliminate? Where have you seen that happening?
All throughout our history. Property rights, 1,2,4,5,6,9,10 AoA's violations or brushoffs...

Federal government ignoring SCOTUS rulings, trying to legislate everything through the commerce clause, etc.

This is actually to large a topic to really get into on this forum.....

Which would you like?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11 Apr 7, 2014
talon7351 wrote:
<quoted text>
All throughout our history. Property rights, 1,2,4,5,6,9,10 AoA's violations or brushoffs...
Federal government ignoring SCOTUS rulings, trying to legislate everything through the commerce clause, etc.
This is actually to large a topic to really get into on this forum.....
Which would you like?
You pick. Name two Constitutional rights that have been eliminated and how/when that happened.

Since: Jan 08

Grants Pass, OR

#12 Apr 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You pick. Name two Constitutional rights that have been eliminated and how/when that happened.
Did not say eliminated....trying to eliminate....

As this thread is on firearms we could start with the 2nd AoA

Then we could go to the 4th AoA with all the publicity that gets around over POlice Swat or non Swat 'mistakes'

These work for you ?

Could also go on property rights...... Again this is way to broad a topic....

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#13 Apr 7, 2014
talon7351 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did not say eliminated....trying to eliminate....
As this thread is on firearms we could start with the 2nd AoA
Then we could go to the 4th AoA with all the publicity that gets around over POlice Swat or non Swat 'mistakes'
These work for you ?
Could also go on property rights...... Again this is way to broad a topic....
There are efforts to regulate firearms. I am unaware of any serious effort to try to eliminate firearms.

Likewise no-knock raids based on legal warrants under the supervision of the legal system is a limit on the 4th, not an attempt to eliminate it.

So - no, those don't work for me. Those are examples of regulation, not attempts at elimination.

I'd invite you to go on if you had any actual examples of attempts at elimination, but I'm assuming you used your best examples first. Are there more that are actual attempts at elimination of our Constitutional rights?

Since: Jan 08

Grants Pass, OR

#14 Apr 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
There are efforts to regulate firearms. I am unaware of any serious effort to try to eliminate firearms.
Likewise no-knock raids based on legal warrants under the supervision of the legal system is a limit on the 4th, not an attempt to eliminate it.
So - no, those don't work for me. Those are examples of regulation, not attempts at elimination.
I'd invite you to go on if you had any actual examples of attempts at elimination, but I'm assuming you used your best examples first. Are there more that are actual attempts at elimination of our Constitutional rights?
Really?

Sorry but there are efforts and have been for decades to ban certain classes of firearms. We are still seeing it everyday.

NFA is a good place to start.

No knock warrants were/are only part of it... and your so called supervision or the legal system....run away/outlaw agencies are another major problem... serving color of law warrants which are filled in later if at all...
Enough already

Killingworth, CT

#15 Apr 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
All of our Constitutional rights are regulated. That fact is neither scandalous nor misguided.
No serious person has any interest in eliminating any Constitutional rights. Any talk like that only comes from the marginalized fringe and represents zero legitimate threat to the Constitution.
<quoted text>
Describing your ideological opponents that way doesn't indicate that you have any real interest in genuinely "reasoning together."
The marginalized fringe just happens to control the senate and governorship in Ct. They already have eviscerated the Second Amendment here. All attempts to reason have been dismissed or ignored by our elected officials. Hence my frustration which led to my less than complimentary description of my opponents.
Enough already

Killingworth, CT

#17 Apr 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Which rights do you believe anyone is trying to eliminate? Where have you seen that happening?
Connecticut, New York, Maryland, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, and New Jersey to name a few locations. Elimination of guns that are in common use as well as magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Until the Supreme Court ruling on the Heller case, DC, Chicago and NYC made it illegal to posses or carry a gun. This is a tad more than just regulation.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#18 Apr 7, 2014
talon7351 wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Sorry but there are efforts and have been for decades to ban certain classes of firearms. We are still seeing it everyday.
NFA is a good place to start.
No knock warrants were/are only part of it... and your so called supervision or the legal system....run away/outlaw agencies are another major problem... serving color of law warrants which are filled in later if at all...
Really? You think restrictions on types of firearms is the same as trying to eliminate the 2nd Amendment?

There have been efforts for decades to place restrictions on certain classes of weapons, but that is regulation, not an attempt to eliminate the Amendment.

And while government abuse happens, we are a nation of laws and we always reign things back in. That isn't an indication in any fashion that anybody is trying to eliminate any of our rights.

I'll take from your lack of further examples that you don't know of any actual attempts to eliminate our Constitutional rights.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#19 Apr 7, 2014
Enough already wrote:
<quoted text> The marginalized fringe just happens to control the senate and governorship in Ct. They already have eviscerated the Second Amendment here. All attempts to reason have been dismissed or ignored by our elected officials. Hence my frustration which led to my less than complimentary description of my opponents.
Seems like you may have a different definition of "reason" than I do.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#20 Apr 7, 2014
Enough already wrote:
<quoted text> Connecticut, New York, Maryland, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, and New Jersey to name a few locations. Elimination of guns that are in common use as well as magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Until the Supreme Court ruling on the Heller case, DC, Chicago and NYC made it illegal to posses or carry a gun. This is a tad more than just regulation.
Regulation of types of weapons does not eliminate your right to self-defense. Is there anything that's happened in any of those states that actually eliminates anyone's right to keep and bear arms?
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#22 Apr 8, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Regulation of types of weapons does not eliminate your right to self-defense. Is there anything that's happened in any of those states that actually eliminates anyone's right to keep and bear arms?
ANY infringement is an elimination of rights. When regulations limit rights then it is as if the right does not exist.

Example: Free press. If the press were limited to ten words on any subject, then the ability to express or convey a message of complexity is removed. Religion: Regulation of religion requiring a permit to practice or requiring your Bible or other religious items be locked up when at home and not being able to carry that item outside the home would also be "regulated" out of existence. Voting: Limiting your right to vote at an election to only ten votes in an election where more than ten offices are up would make the same elimination of a right.

To claim a right still exists after regulating it out reach for ANY citizen IS a removal and NOT a regulation of a right. For a right to exist it must be in reach for all or it becomes a privilege.

Can you imagine being required to have a permit to keep the government from searching your home anytime they wish? Can you imagine being required to have a permit to post your opinion or just speak it? Can you imagine being limited to only ten words on a subject or face prison time for going even one word over?

It is not regulation when a laws intent is the removal of a right. A right one can not practice at a citizens discretion is no longer a right. Anytime someone else or a government entity has control over or "regulation" of your rights then they are no longer rights.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#23 Apr 8, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>ANY infringement is an elimination of rights.
I'm gonna stop you right there.

If you honestly believe that, then honest, rational discussion of this issue with you isn't possible.

Contra principia negantem non est disputandum.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#27 Apr 9, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm gonna stop you right there.
If you honestly believe that, then honest, rational discussion of this issue with you isn't possible.
Contra principia negantem non est disputandum.
Let me stop you right there. "Rational" in the mind of a person wanting to infringe or deny a right would be a lie. When one side is intent on removing the rights of another then it is not rational but pure deceit. There is no issue. There is no reason for any discussion. My owning a gun is in any way is anyones business. 100,000,000 gun owners in this country have never and will never commit a crime with their gun. For any group to link crime to an inanimate object is either ignorant or has an alternative agenda.There is absolutely no proof that any inanimate object can effect human behavior. To lead the issue of humans harming humans to somehow being the fault of a potential victim wanting the most effective means possible for self defense and protection from those who DO harm others is ignorant and anyone who falls for that lie is just as ignorant.

When you can show how my owning a gun or any other inanimate is directly a danger to you then there is no issue or reason for discussion.

If you wish to discuss criminal behavior then make that the issue and make the discussion reasonable without saying somehow disarming the victims is is "reasonable".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Shoot Down the Stupid Second Amendment 3 hr Independent1 10
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 4 hr spocko 12,131
An Individual Right Rekindled 12 hr Marauder 1
National View: Shoot down the stupid Second Ame... 18 hr OId Sailor 1
Ferguson braces for grand jury decision Fri Michael S 16
Magnum Research Introduces Stainless Steel Dese... Dec 24 Here Is One 1
Concealed carry does not make us safer (Nov '09) Dec 23 fae31 6,985
More from around the web