I, Publius: A cold, dead hand is stil...

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

There are 74 comments on the Berkshire Eagle story from Apr 5, 2014, titled I, Publius: A cold, dead hand is still dead. In it, Berkshire Eagle reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Berkshire Eagle.

Tray

Nettleton, MS

#28 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.
In order to have ANY honest, rational discussion begins with 'Honest". When you are open to the reasoning and opinion of your opponent and open to their justification of their stance then it will be "honest". When you enter a discussion without willing to look at both sides of an issue then you are not honest and intent on deception.

MY stance: I believe self defense is an inherent right of all people, not just a few who "qualify" or receive "permission".
It is proven all through history that no law stops humans from harming humans (criminal activity) and police can not protect each individual. Thus it is prudent for each of us to examine the best way to defend ourselves and property.
It is proven all through history that having the most advanced weapon of the time is the best defense and deters criminals.
It is proven all through history that an armed society is the best defense and deterrent of oppressive tyrants.
My stance is also no law or regulation is just when it is broad and effects the non criminal in a negative way or somehow assumes guilt before any action.

I am open to your side if you can show how disarming me will benefit me or me being armed endangers you.
I am open to any reasonable alternative to being armed that is as or more effective than the most advanced weapon possible.
I am open to proof that disarming the public does not open them to oppression by a tyrant.
I am open to you having some sight into future unforeseen events where being armed might be prudent.

My opinions are based on my real life experience and actual first hand use of a gun for defense.
I am open to what qualifies you to enter a "reasonable" debate on why my right should be regulated (other than what you saw on TV or read as an opinion by someone else).

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#29 Apr 9, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>In order to have ANY honest, rational discussion begins with 'Honest". When you are open to the reasoning and opinion of your opponent and open to their justification of their stance then it will be "honest". When you enter a discussion without willing to look at both sides of an issue then you are not honest and intent on deception.
MY stance: I believe self defense is an inherent right of all people, not just a few who "qualify" or receive "permission".
It is proven all through history that no law stops humans from harming humans (criminal activity) and police can not protect each individual. Thus it is prudent for each of us to examine the best way to defend ourselves and property.
It is proven all through history that having the most advanced weapon of the time is the best defense and deters criminals.
It is proven all through history that an armed society is the best defense and deterrent of oppressive tyrants.
My stance is also no law or regulation is just when it is broad and effects the non criminal in a negative way or somehow assumes guilt before any action.
I am open to your side if you can show how disarming me will benefit me or me being armed endangers you.
I am open to any reasonable alternative to being armed that is as or more effective than the most advanced weapon possible.
I am open to proof that disarming the public does not open them to oppression by a tyrant.
I am open to you having some sight into future unforeseen events where being armed might be prudent.
My opinions are based on my real life experience and actual first hand use of a gun for defense.
I am open to what qualifies you to enter a "reasonable" debate on why my right should be regulated (other than what you saw on TV or read as an opinion by someone else).
As long as you continue to insist that regulation = elimination and that guns are being confiscated, it's simply impossible to have a rational, honest discussion with you.

Contra principia negantem non est disputandum.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#30 Apr 9, 2014
Tray wrote:
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".
I have never said anything even in the same universe as "disarming the victims" nor have I called anything like that "reasonable."

Until you can be honest about my position, it's impossible to have rational debate with you.

Contra principia negantem non est disputandum.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#31 Apr 9, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>In order to have ANY honest, rational discussion begins with 'Honest". When you are open to the reasoning and opinion of your opponent and open to their justification of their stance then it will be "honest". When you enter a discussion without willing to look at both sides of an issue then you are not honest and intent on deception.
MY stance: I believe self defense is an inherent right of all people, not just a few who "qualify" or receive "permission".
It is proven all through history that no law stops humans from harming humans (criminal activity) and police can not protect each individual. Thus it is prudent for each of us to examine the best way to defend ourselves and property.
It is proven all through history that having the most advanced weapon of the time is the best defense and deters criminals.
It is proven all through history that an armed society is the best defense and deterrent of oppressive tyrants.
My stance is also no law or regulation is just when it is broad and effects the non criminal in a negative way or somehow assumes guilt before any action.
I am open to your side if you can show how disarming me will benefit me or me being armed endangers you.
I am open to any reasonable alternative to being armed that is as or more effective than the most advanced weapon possible.
I am open to proof that disarming the public does not open them to oppression by a tyrant.
I am open to you having some sight into future unforeseen events where being armed might be prudent.
My opinions are based on my real life experience and actual first hand use of a gun for defense.
I am open to what qualifies you to enter a "reasonable" debate on why my right should be regulated (other than what you saw on TV or read as an opinion by someone else).
In order to have ANY honest, rational discussion begins with 'Honest".

When you are open to the reasoning and opinion of your opponent and open to their justification of their stance then it will be "honest".

When you enter a discussion without willing to look at both sides of an issue then you are not honest and intent on deception.
Tray

Nettleton, MS

#32 Apr 9, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to have ANY honest, rational discussion begins with 'Honest".
When you are open to the reasoning and opinion of your opponent and open to their justification of their stance then it will be "honest".
When you enter a discussion without willing to look at both sides of an issue then you are not honest and intent on deception.
None of your posts addresses my questions of you. I have offered an open mind in response to your regulation or reasonable discussion. You have yet to offer an alternative means of effective self defense or ability for citizens to stand against an oppressive government or other "unforeseen" event.

My stance remains the same but I am willing to hear an alternative. I so far must rely on history and self experience for my stance.
Please explain where you draw your information or personal experience and what regulation you support that would not hinder or leave out a single lawful citizen from exercising their right.
Tray

Nettleton, MS

#33 Apr 9, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never said anything even in the same universe as "disarming the victims" nor have I called anything like that "reasonable."
Until you can be honest about my position, it's impossible to have rational debate with you.
Contra principia negantem non est disputandum.
You could make the claim that citizens could still be armed with rubber bats but in reality that is the same as being disarmed. To limit or regulate the most effective weapons from the hands of citizens against a government with much more modern and effective weapons IS disarming them.

In the 1992 Los Angeles riots, those forced to defend themselves and property would be "disarmed" with limited ammo capacity or unloaded weapons. For California to place those regulations on citizens would equal "disarmed".

I have addressed your claim by showing my concern with "regulation". If you find a reason for them to be unfounded then by all means address them with fact.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#34 Apr 9, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>You could make the claim that citizens could still be armed with rubber bats but in reality that is the same as being disarmed. To limit or regulate the most effective weapons from the hands of citizens against a government with much more modern and effective weapons IS disarming them.
In the 1992 Los Angeles riots, those forced to defend themselves and property would be "disarmed" with limited ammo capacity or unloaded weapons. For California to place those regulations on citizens would equal "disarmed".
I have addressed your claim by showing my concern with "regulation". If you find a reason for them to be unfounded then by all means address them with fact.
You believe you can defend yourself against Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters with the guns you have now?

If your concern is defending yourself from the United States government, then you'd need the same weaponry as the US military has. Do you believe the 2nd Amendment gives you a right to those weapons?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#35 Apr 9, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>None of your posts addresses my questions of you. I have offered an open mind in response to your regulation or reasonable discussion. You have yet to offer an alternative means of effective self defense or ability for citizens to stand against an oppressive government or other "unforeseen" event.
My stance remains the same but I am willing to hear an alternative. I so far must rely on history and self experience for my stance.
Please explain where you draw your information or personal experience and what regulation you support that would not hinder or leave out a single lawful citizen from exercising their right.
I have suggested nothing that would disarm the citizenry or eliminate the 2nd Amendment - and that's the accusation you've made against me. The burden of proof is on you, friend. Where have I said any of those things?

And can we clarify your stance? As far as I can tell you advocate for anyone to have as many of any firearm as they want and unlimited ammunition without any oversight or regulation whatsoever. Is that about right?
Independent

United States

#37 Apr 9, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
You believe you can defend yourself against Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters with the guns you have now?
If your concern is defending yourself from the United States government, then you'd need the same weaponry as the US military has. Do you believe the 2nd Amendment gives you a right to those weapons?
So Dan, to borrow your spamming words.....
"you got nothing. Big surprise."

You dance almost as well as monkey boy.

The US military would not need to be used. If they tried, many of those helicopters and tanks would no doubt find their way to our defense. I would bet that half or more of the military would follow the constitution and not attack their own families but rather join them.

The gov doesn't need to be so blatant as to use the military. They have armed so many govt agencies and police departments with special weaponry that that is where they would no doubt draw their forces from. Then it could be considered to be nothing more than a police action.

Defense against the possibility of a rogue government is but one reason (concern) to keep the populace armed.
Self Defense is the biggest reason (concern).

Tray raises some excellent points, too bad you refuse to have that honest discussion with him.

It is my belief that America is being dis-armed, one infringement at a time.
I have to wonder which side you would stand on if it ever did come to an all out war with the government.

:^`P
Tray

Oxford, MS

#38 Apr 10, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe you can defend yourself against Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters with the guns you have now?
If your concern is defending yourself from the United States government, then you'd need the same weaponry as the US military has. Do you believe the 2nd Amendment gives you a right to those weapons?
I believe it is a right of any society to have the ability to reign in their government in the event that government becomes more harm than good.

Again just what is your stance?
Tray

Oxford, MS

#39 Apr 10, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I have suggested nothing that would disarm the citizenry or eliminate the 2nd Amendment - and that's the accusation you've made against me. The burden of proof is on you, friend. Where have I said any of those things?
And can we clarify your stance? As far as I can tell you advocate for anyone to have as many of any firearm as they want and unlimited ammunition without any oversight or regulation whatsoever. Is that about right?
My stance is when the government limits citizens to substandard weapons then yes they are disarmed.

What does it matter how many weapons I own? I can only use one at a time so in effect one is the same as one hundred.

Why do I need regulation? I am a law abiding citizen with no intent to go on any killing spree or other danger to society as a whole.

Who would be in charge of oversight? What would qualify them to know my needs or wants? How would one person be more qualified to judge what is best for another? How would you prevent corruption or abuse of the power to regulate or have oversight? Do you believe regulation and oversight really has a line to stop at? I have year after year heard the same promise of "just one more little regulation and no more".

Again! Just what is your stance and your answers to an "Honest" discussion?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#40 Apr 10, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>I believe it is a right of any society to have the ability to reign in their government in the event that government becomes more harm than good.
Again just what is your stance?
I agree completely. I just believe that the democratic process is the way that we do that, not armed insurrection.

We live in the strongest democracy in the history of our planet with a robust legal system, yet your mind goes directly to armed insurrection instead of our strong democratic process. Why is that?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#41 Apr 10, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>My stance is when the government limits citizens to substandard weapons then yes they are disarmed.
I disagree completely and absolutely. That's an extremist position.
Tray wrote:
What does it matter how many weapons I own? I can only use one at a time so in effect one is the same as one hundred.
So why not just one?
Tray wrote:
Why do I need regulation? I am a law abiding citizen with no intent to go on any killing spree or other danger to society as a whole.
I don't have any reason you do need regulation. But the fact of the matter is that many people who do go on killing sprees were also law abiding citizens who were no danger to society ... right up to the point that they went on the killing spree. There's no way to identify those people in advance, so gun safety regulations (like all laws) must apply to everyone.
Tray wrote:
Who would be in charge of oversight? What would qualify them to know my needs or wants? How would one person be more qualified to judge what is best for another? How would you prevent corruption or abuse of the power to regulate or have oversight? Do you believe regulation and oversight really has a line to stop at? I have year after year heard the same promise of "just one more little regulation and no more".
Again! Just what is your stance and your answers to an "Honest" discussion?
Who is in charge of legal oversight on anything? How are they qualified to judge violations? How do we currently prevent corruption and abuse of power?

We have a strong, robust legal system in this country. We have a strong system of training and education for those who enforce it. Whenever there are abuses, they are rooted out and punished. It's all part of our strong democratic process. It has worked for over 200 years and there's not a reason in the world to think that it is or would be any different for laws related to gun manufacture, sale, and ownership.

But you dodged my question - do you believe that anyone should have complete access to any weapon and as much ammo as they want without any oversight or regulation?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#42 Apr 10, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
So Dan, to borrow your spamming words.....
"you got nothing. Big surprise."
You dance almost as well as monkey boy.
The US military would not need to be used. If they tried, many of those helicopters and tanks would no doubt find their way to our defense. I would bet that half or more of the military would follow the constitution and not attack their own families but rather join them.
The gov doesn't need to be so blatant as to use the military. They have armed so many govt agencies and police departments with special weaponry that that is where they would no doubt draw their forces from. Then it could be considered to be nothing more than a police action.
Defense against the possibility of a rogue government is but one reason (concern) to keep the populace armed.
Self Defense is the biggest reason (concern).
Tray raises some excellent points, too bad you refuse to have that honest discussion with him.
It is my belief that America is being dis-armed, one infringement at a time.
I have to wonder which side you would stand on if it ever did come to an all out war with the government.
:^`P
Wow, you've given this a lot of thought.

But suppose it doesn't play out according to the scenario you imagine. There's no reason to believe it would. That's just the fantasy dystopia you fantasize about, and it's not even remotely a reflection of 21st Century American reality.

Whenever you've pre-decided to abandon our effective and strong democratic process in favor of armed insurrection, you've crossed a line from reasonable, patriotic citizen to dangerous extremist.
Independent

United States

#43 Apr 10, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
But suppose it doesn't play out according to the scenario you imagine. There's no reason to believe it would. That's just the fantasy dystopia you fantasize about, and it's not even remotely a reflection of 21st Century American reality.
Whenever you've pre-decided to abandon our effective and strong democratic process in favor of armed insurrection, you've crossed a line from reasonable, patriotic citizen to dangerous extremist.
Yes Dan, I do give it thought. Unlike many with their knee jerk reactions.
I have not pre-decided to abandon anything, least of all the vote.
I fantasize about nothing, I prepare for worse case scenarios to the best of my abilities.
I have fire extinguishers in my home too, does that mean, to you, I fantasize about burning my house to the ground? My preparedness is more for self protection than thoughts of a rogue government. And the rogue government scenario was one of the biggest reasons for the 2nd Amendment to be written and added to "THE LAW OF THE LAND"
But yet you mock people for being prepared.

I do not have any thoughts of mounting or joining an insurrection. As you seem to believe.
My point has always been "If the gov goes rogue" then I will stand against them.
It is also not fantasy that many soldiers would join the people, bringing their weaponry with them.
It is not I that is crossing or will be crossing any lines, Dan

The fantasies are all in your head, Dan.
You fantasize about gun owners rising up against our government. Which is evidenced by your accusations of such.
When we are only being prepared for a day the government might rise up against us.
A government that you place "blind faith" in.

I live in the real world, Dan
Not a dystopia or utopia, I do not live in fear of the world around me, nor bliss believing it to be all peaches and cream.

:^`P

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#44 Apr 10, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Dan, I do give it thought. Unlike many with their knee jerk reactions.
I have not pre-decided to abandon anything, least of all the vote.
I fantasize about nothing, I prepare for worse case scenarios to the best of my abilities.
I have fire extinguishers in my home too, does that mean, to you, I fantasize about burning my house to the ground? My preparedness is more for self protection than thoughts of a rogue government. And the rogue government scenario was one of the biggest reasons for the 2nd Amendment to be written and added to "THE LAW OF THE LAND"
But yet you mock people for being prepared.
I do not have any thoughts of mounting or joining an insurrection. As you seem to believe.
My point has always been "If the gov goes rogue" then I will stand against them.
It is also not fantasy that many soldiers would join the people, bringing their weaponry with them.
It is not I that is crossing or will be crossing any lines, Dan
The fantasies are all in your head, Dan.
You fantasize about gun owners rising up against our government. Which is evidenced by your accusations of such.
When we are only being prepared for a day the government might rise up against us.
A government that you place "blind faith" in.
I live in the real world, Dan
Not a dystopia or utopia, I do not live in fear of the world around me, nor bliss believing it to be all peaches and cream.
:^`P
You do not live in the real world. You live in a paranoid, fearful fantasy.

I do not put blind faith in the government. But I have confidence in the US Constitution and the rule of law.

We all have fire extinguishers because house fires happen every day. But people in the real world do not arm themselves and make plans for the government "rising up against us." That is an irrational fear and there is nothing in our history to indicate there is any possibility that would happen. Our democratic and legal processes are strong enough to correct for any government over-reach - always has been; always will be.

Yes, I mock you. I mock you because you live in a fearful, paranoid fantasy world and attack those of us in the reality-based universe as if WE are the irrational ones.

Since: Jan 08

Grants Pass, OR

#45 Apr 10, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Who passed these so called regulations as you call them?

Are they not forbidden to do such?

Who is bastardizing the commerce clause?

Who decided that the BoR's were Only applied to Federal?

Why do we need the so called incorporation doctrine?

We may be a Nation of Laws, however a lot of these Laws are nothing but a way to enforce their will upon the citizens. I bet that you probably believe in the living document ideas that are running around.

Anytime a law is passed in which restricts liberty and is against any part of the Constitution, we are slowly loosing our rights and liberties. There is a difference between regulation to make honest citizens retain their liberties and regulation to make things difficult or impossible on honest citizens in the name of so called safety. Also anytime officials of any type violate liberties of citizens, it is an attack on all our liberties.

Again I gave a couple of examples and you claim they are not any type of liberty loss, then you make some pretty naive statements and assumptions. I did say it is a long and difficult discussion, despite what you may think.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#46 Apr 10, 2014
talon7351 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who passed these so called regulations as you call them?
Are they not forbidden to do such?
Who is bastardizing the commerce clause?
Who decided that the BoR's were Only applied to Federal?
Why do we need the so called incorporation doctrine?
We may be a Nation of Laws, however a lot of these Laws are nothing but a way to enforce their will upon the citizens. I bet that you probably believe in the living document ideas that are running around.
Anytime a law is passed in which restricts liberty and is against any part of the Constitution, we are slowly loosing our rights and liberties. There is a difference between regulation to make honest citizens retain their liberties and regulation to make things difficult or impossible on honest citizens in the name of so called safety. Also anytime officials of any type violate liberties of citizens, it is an attack on all our liberties.
Again I gave a couple of examples and you claim they are not any type of liberty loss, then you make some pretty naive statements and assumptions. I did say it is a long and difficult discussion, despite what you may think.
The US Congress passed those laws under their Constitutional authority to do so. And they have been upheld by the US Supreme Court.

They are not forbidden to do so. In fact, they are specifically empowered to do so by the US Constitution.

Nobody is bastardizing the Commerce Clause. The US Supreme Court has upheld that fact.

Laws are the way the citizens enforce their wills upon themselves. We live in a democratic republic where our lawmakers are elected to do the citizens' will. When they fail to do so, our democratic process provides the remedy. It has always worked that way and there is no rational reason to believe it will not continue to do so in the future.

Government exists to serve the people. Government regulation exists to serve the people. Just because you can't do anything you want any time you want without any regulation doesn't mean you are being denied liberty. Because liberty is for ALL, not just you.
Independent

United States

#49 Apr 10, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
You do not live in the real world. You live in a paranoid, fearful fantasy.....
.....Yes, I mock you. I mock you because you live in a fearful, paranoid fantasy world and attack those of us in the reality-based universe as if WE are the irrational ones.
Nothing but B.S., Dan
You once again fantasize about who and what you believe me to be.
Then throw those unfounded accusations in for a personal attack to try to push some point that is non-existent.
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
But people in the real world do not arm themselves and make plans for the government "rising up against us."
More people "in the real world" than you, obviously, care to admit do exactly that.

:^`P

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50 Apr 10, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing but B.S., Dan
You once again fantasize about who and what you believe me to be.
Then throw those unfounded accusations in for a personal attack to try to push some point that is non-existent.
<quoted text>
More people "in the real world" than you, obviously, care to admit do exactly that.
:^`P
I know there are many, many paranoid gun nuts out there. Just another reason for better gun safety regulations - you nutters are a genuine threat to freedom and liberty in this great nation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Should they teach this in schools? Aug 14 okimar 3
News FPC Vows Legal Action on Approved California As... Aug 4 jimwildrickjr 1
News WVa AG: Manchin Should Resign Dem Leadership Role Aug 4 JohnInLa 3
News The NRA And The Worst Ad You May Ever See Jul 31 Red Crosse 185
History of the .233 Remington Jul 31 SummerBB8 1
News Heidi Harris: CCW's On The Rise Jul 29 Get Out 2
News Country singer Scotty McCreery cited for Jul 25 Been There Done That 4
More from around the web