Here is how I would do it if I was a power hungry evil government stooge - Page 4
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

Here is how I would do it if I was a power hungry evil government stooge


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-20-2010, 12:18 AM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jpyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sewell,NJ
Posts: 4,844
Liked 781 Times on 452 Posts
Likes Given: 499

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
By 'Heller II' do you mean McDonald v. City of Chicago?

I believe that hasnt been ruled on yet,theres nothing on the website put up by SAF-

ChicagoGunCase.com

?
No, Heller II was another case filed by Dick Heller against DC arguing that the restrictions put in place after Heller were still beyond reason.

Heller II - Another case filed by Dick Heller - NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5645
__________________
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Last edited by Jpyle; 05-20-2010 at 12:22 AM.
Jpyle is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 12:39 AM   #32
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kimber45's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGIB View Post
I'll add one more comment. Yes, people can make up their own minds about whether to be in compliance with the law. All I ask is not to whine when they are thrown in jail - actions have consequences so cowboy up if you choose to be a rebel.

I sometimes feel that many rabid 2A supporters actually want organized civil disobedience - I for one have not lost faith that we can still fix this mess without resorting to shooting my neighbors...
If a law is unjust, unconstitutional and ignored by both the states and the federal government you propose to do what?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson

I don't know about anybody else but I'd stand with the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and I don't see very many men of that caliber on this site.
Believe what you want but all laws restricting firearm ownership, including registration, are unconstitutional and illegal.
Kimber45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 12:48 AM   #33
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Thanks for the clarification.

The Heller ruling was an excersize in Orwellian double speak in the extreme.

We have here a 'newly confirmed' individual right,but that right -which has language in its wording to the effect that it "shall not be infringed",is now "like the first amendment freedom of speech" somehow "subject to reasonable regulation".
Last time I looked,the first amendment said that "Congress shall make no law..... abridging the freedom of speech".

"Shall not be infringed"

"Shall make no law abridging"

"Subject to reasonable regulation by government"????

Last time I checked our rights WERE limited-but only by the rights of other people.

For example-slander and libel violate the rights of others,hence are not protected under the First.
Hanging out of the window of a moving car and ambushing people with machine gun fire clearly violate the rights of others,hence are not protected by the Second.

And we shouldn't have needed the SCOTUS to 'reaffirm' our individual right to arms in the first place-only reason it had to happen is because of those clever statist lawyers who used to espouse that the Second was a 'collective' right,despite that little part about it being 'the right of the people' and all that inconvenient history proving it to be an individual right,they now think -thanks to Heller- the Second is in itself a permission to regulate our inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

As to the similarities between the First and Second amendments and their use as a parable by the Court-I wonder if the topic ever came up that there is no special federal agency to oversee of the First amendment,yet that outrageous burden on the Second -that and about 20,000 laws,licensing,taxation and regulation- is reality.
Further,by the Courts convoluted argument that the Second is 'subject to reasonable regulation' and its failure to actually define that 'regulation',would it be acceptable to the court that the federal government now begin to regulate the First in the same manner?

When will it be "reasonable" to tax 'certain' speech?Regulate it?Police it to the point we have SWAT teams enforcing 'speech codes'?

Heller was not the win it should have been........
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 05-20-2010 at 01:08 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 12:48 AM   #34
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
'Gun control',when viewed in context of its 'accomplishments',can be said to be two things-a dismal failure at controlling violent crime,or a glowing success at reducing an inalienable right to a government administered privilege
There is very little gun control in this country compared to most places (except Somalia, maybe), so it's hard to argue that it's a failure. In Europe, where there is actual gun control, there are very, very few gun homicides compared to the US (which is off the charts).

I think it's pretty self-evident that clamping down on the supply of guns in the country is a good way to prevent gun-related violence. If no guns are available, people can't shoot each other. Will a few still succeed in getting guns? Yes, but the overall numbers will be drastically reduced. As I said, look at most European countries.

That doesn't mean I support more gun control in the US, however. Taking all the guns out of circulation would be one way to limit gun violence, but there are other ways, ways which don't deprive law-abiding people of means for defending themselves.

It's like the 'war' on drugs. Instead of treatment programs and education, the government is locking up millions of people for doing something that does no harm to others. You want to talk dismal failures? There's one right there.

To control gun violence you have to look at the causes. Poverty, lack of education, lack of employment, lack of hope. It's very similar to drug abuse. 'Controlling' drugs hasn't worked -- legalizing them, taxing them, regulating them, and spending that money on anti-drug education would be a hundred times more effective. Same thing with gun-violence. Look at who's doing the killing, find out why, and fix that problem. No need to take away the guns.
luke1249 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 01:17 AM   #35
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
And we shouldn't have needed the SCOTUS to 'reaffirm' our individual right to arms in the first place-only reason it had to happen is because of those clever statist lawyers who now think the Second is in itself a permission to regulate our inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
The problem is with the ambiguous wording of the Second Amendment. It's got the words "well-regulated" in it, so it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict that people are going to interpret the language as involving regulation one way or another.

It's a broken amendment. It's an amendment for chrissakes. It wasn't even in the Constitution to begin with.

So if anyone is really serious about the right to bear arms, they should grow a pair and suggest abolishing the Second Amendment altogether and instituting a 28th Amendment, that would simply state the following.
  • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It would make everything a hell of a lot easier. I've never met anyone with the cojones to propose that, though. (Except me, of course. ) The left certainly wouldn't want that, because they want the guns only to be in the hands of people in uniforms, and the right wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole because of their infantile obsession with the myth of the "Founding Fathers" and the "Constitution" and the flag, and all the other adored regalia and accoutrements of blind nationalism. They're all so beholden to some made-up past that they're blinded to the reality of what it was (white slave-owning men who didn't want to pay their taxes). They're generally the same people who pretend the government doesn't have SWAT teams and helicopters when they indulge their fantasy that owning a couple of guns is going to allow them to "fight tyranny!" They're as deluded as the pot-smoking hippies who think that good vibes and a high-fiber diet ought to be enough to make everyone get along.
luke1249 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 01:28 AM   #36
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
There is very little gun control in this country compared to most places (except Somalia, maybe), so it's hard to argue that it's a failure. In Europe, where there is actual gun control, there are very, very few gun homicides compared to the US (which is off the charts).
'Gun homicides'?
So its the guns that are killing people?
Not people with murderous intent?
So in Australia and England,because there are such strict gun laws preventing those evil guns from hurting people- people arent still dying of homicide?
I beg to differ........



Quote:
I think it's pretty self-evident that clamping down on the supply of guns in the country is a good way to prevent gun-related violence. If no guns are available, people can't shoot each other. Will a few still succeed in getting guns? Yes, but the overall numbers will be drastically reduced. As I said, look at most European countries.
I think its pretty self evident your living in denial.
We have had anti-drug laws in the US for decades.
That hasnt cut back much at all on the availability of drugs or the number of drug users.
Prohibiting a free people from excersizing their free will within the limits of the rights of others will only spawn an illicit market.

Then only criminals and government employees will have guns.

Whoopie.Utopia.

Quote:
That doesn't mean I support more gun control in the US, however. Taking all the guns out of circulation would be one way to limit gun violence, but there are other ways, ways which don't deprive law-abiding people of means for defending themselves.
'Law abiding' people,as defined by government, arent the 'people' mentioned in the Second Amendment as having an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
You dont support 'more gun control'?
Yet you believe that taking 'guns out of circulation' would 'limit gun violence'.

What exactly is 'gun violence'?

Isnt that just another way of blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a perpetrator?

Wouldnt 'violence' be a more appropriate focus to 'reduce'-as in 'all violence'?

Do you think that armed people who are capable of defending themselves might be a better way to deter crime than 'reducing the guns in circulation'-because then maybe my 75 year old grandmother may choose to own a gun that could equalize the force imposed on her if she were attacked by strong young people?

Whats your position on the GCA68?

Are you aware that that law was directly adopted from Wiemar/Nazi Germany?

But its definitions of who is a 'lawful' owner of a firearm is something you would support,given your belief that 'law abiding' people should be the only ones who have the 'right' to bear arms in self defense,huh?

Are you aware that there are those in government who wish to expand that list to include names on the secret terrorist watch lists?

Do you know if your name is on that list?

Quote:
It's like the 'war' on drugs. Instead of treatment programs and education, the government is locking up millions of people for doing something that does no harm to others. You want to talk dismal failures? There's one right there.
No.
Its not like the War on Drugs.
Unless you are talking about the reality of the illicit trade market,as I mentioned above.

Quote:
To control gun violence you have to look at the causes. Poverty, lack of education, lack of employment, lack of hope. It's very similar to drug abuse. 'Controlling' drugs hasn't worked -- legalizing them, taxing them, regulating them, and spending that money on anti-drug education would be a hundred times more effective. Same thing with gun-violence. Look at who's doing the killing, find out why, and fix that problem. No need to take away the guns.
Once again we come to 'gun violence'.

The increase of violence in our society is the result of a lack of a moral compass,which is the result of decades of progressive socialist liberal crap that takes the burden of responsibility of ones actions and places it somewhere else.

Like inanimate objects.

Like guns.

As is 'gun violence'.
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 05-20-2010 at 01:48 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 01:46 AM   #37
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
The problem is with the ambiguous wording of the Second Amendment. It's got the words "well-regulated" in it, so it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict that people are going to interpret the language as involving regulation one way or another.

It's a broken amendment. It's an amendment for chrissakes. It wasn't even in the Constitution to begin with.

So if anyone is really serious about the right to bear arms, they should grow a pair and suggest abolishing the Second Amendment altogether and instituting a 28th Amendment, that would simply state the following.
  • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It would make everything a hell of a lot easier. I've never met anyone with the cojones to propose that, though. (
Thats because your wrong.
The Second Amendment is clearly an individual right,and if its 'ambiguous' to you,thats because you dont understand it.

The pre-amble states that "A well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state..."
This is a recognition of a grounded fact-that a milita does in fact provide a measure of security,and introduces the individual right to keep and bear arms based on the understanding that free people keeping and bearing arms is the best way to achieve security for ones self,ones family, and the nation.
There is nothing 'ambiguous' about it.
That is,if you understand the English language at the time and what a 'pre-amble' is.

Neither does the 'well regulated' part give government the authority to 'well regulate' the individual right to keep and bear arms.Thats a far reach that I dont think a liberal Justice on the SCOTUS would even dare......

The Second is one of several enumerated INALIENABLE rights that government must abide by,with the main intent of the Second being that the power of the use of force would always be with the People.The right is said to be 'inalienable' because it is a right -the right of self defense,defense of ones family,and defense of the country- that no government can grant or take away.

We,The People,have the inalienable right to defend ourselves,our family,our homes and our nation.This is a natural right predating and preceding any form of government.

Yes,it is an Amendment.Its one of the 10 Founding Amendments that form the fabric of inalienable liberties that this country is founded upon.

Its only 'broken' because people refuse to obey it.
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 05-20-2010 at 01:54 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 01:47 AM   #38
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
'What exactly is 'gun violence'?
If you don't think there's something unique about firearms that makes them an especially potent form of perpetrating violence on someone, then why are you even interested in them? Go play with knives.

If you do recognize that there's something different about guns (i.e, lethality) (reality check: I can't believe I'm on a gun forum explaining to someone why guns are unique weapons ... wow), then you'll realize why "gun violence" is a useful category.

Also, don't try to scare me with "Nazi Germany" or whatever. I'm not scared by labels. I can condemn the Nazis for their retarded eugenics and praise their architecture. Their gun laws were crappy because they were crappy, not because they were "Nazi gun laws" oooh scary, I want my mommy ...
luke1249 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 02:02 AM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
If you don't think there's something unique about firearms that makes them an especially potent form of perpetrating violence on someone, then why are you even interested in them? Go play with knives.

If you do recognize that there's something different about guns (i.e, lethality) (reality check: I can't believe I'm on a gun forum explaining to someone why guns are unique weapons ... wow), then you'll realize why "gun violence" is a useful category.

Also, don't try to scare me with "Nazi Germany" or whatever. I'm not scared by labels. I can condemn the Nazis for their retarded eugenics and praise their architecture. Their gun laws were crappy because they were crappy, not because they were "Nazi gun laws" oooh scary, I want my mommy ...
Historical fact-the Nazis and many other forms of government,including the Soviet Union,Red Chinese,and Khmer Rouge first used gun control laws to disarm their citizenry,placing them entirely at the mercy of what was to come next.
If that doesn't scare you,or if you think that Nazi 'gun control' laws are as laudable as architecture-you need to seek professional help.

As to the 'gun violence' and what 'makes guns uniquely exemplary at perpetrating violence' I once again beg to differ.

Guns are tools.

They are not pre-disposed to acts of violence,any more than they are pre-disposed to jumping off the table,loading themselves,and killing random people of their own accord.

If you want to talk knife lethality-you might have come to the right place.

As a Krav Maga student of 2 years with a brown belt in kickboxing,I can tell you just how 'uniquely dangerous' a knife can be in the wrong hands.....

But I digress.

'Gun crime' and 'gun violence' are two terms that dont add up.

Guns arent capable of committing any act of any sort without human use.
They are inanimate objects and the very term 'gun violence' is a red herring used by those who wish to terrorize their fellow citizens into buying into 'gun control' hype.
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 02:03 AM   #40
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
Thats because your wrong.
The Second Amendment is clearly an individual right,and if its 'ambiguous' to you,thats because you dont understand it.
The Constitution is an imperfect document. You can stubbornly insist that it's perfect all you want, but not even the Founding Fathers thought so. That's why they added the Bill of Rights.

But why change the Second Amendment when we've had so much success with it so far, right?
luke1249 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Who's Hungry? Shihan The Club House 3 03-09-2010 04:11 PM
Hungry Glock? mdw104 Glock Forum 6 12-07-2008 05:16 PM



Newest Threads