New Rant on Old Topic - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > New Rant on Old Topic

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-27-2012, 05:46 PM   #11
fmj
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fmj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne,IN
Posts: 3,454
Liked 753 Times on 437 Posts
Likes Given: 306

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjd3282 View Post
I don't go to those states. Problem solved. I live in Ohio if I go west I drive around Illinois. Won't go to New York or kommiefornia or pretty much most of the north eastern sea board. They want to violate my rights then they don't get any of my money. There is only a few of these totally ridiculous places so it isn't that tough to avoid them.
OH STILL SUCKS!! You guys can carry all you want over here in the FREE state of IN. But I am damned if i carry concealed in OH.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
Guess again.

Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


This is what bugs me about the my way or the highway crowd concerning the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment did give us the right to keep and bear arms, but since it doesn't specifically address how we do it, it is left up to the states.

Florida allows me to carry concealed providing I pay a fee and meet the requirements. Florida does not allow me to open carry under most circumstances. I am very grateful for what I have, and I don't feel my rights have been infringed under the Bill of Rights. I bear arms on a daily basis. Who cares if I have to do it under the guidelines the people approved?
First off...the 2nd amendment is VERY clear! If you are having trouble understanding the 2nd...mayhaps some remedial english would be in order. The first deals with 5 rights whereas the 2nd deals with one specific right...RKBR!

Secondly, you all must look to each states constitutions in this matter. Then balance that with the Fed. BOR. I know MI and IN have specific wording in their state constitutions addressing the 2nd amendment and the RKBR!
__________________
"Those that would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjammin Franklin

The 1911: Turning useless trash into good fertilizer for over 100 years!!
fmj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 04:53 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 3,041
Liked 2698 Times on 1217 Posts
Likes Given: 2596

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fmj View Post
OH STILL SUCKS!! You guys can carry all you want over here in the FREE state of IN. But I am damned if i carry concealed in OH.

Sucks to be you. You can still carry open if you go to Ohio.
__________________
rjd3282 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 02:29 PM   #13
I used to play keyboards, but now...
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Balota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glenpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 3,259
Liked 2247 Times on 1362 Posts
Likes Given: 2416

Default

Oh dang. I have to wait till November before OK open carry applies.

Oh and by the way, I never said it was my way or the highway. I didn't write 2A so it isn't "my way". It was written before there were highways (in the modern sense) so it isn't the "highway" either. It's the American way.

When I travel from Oklahoma to another state (say Missouri, for example) I am still in America. My right to keep and bear arms isn't mine because I'm a resident of Oklahoma. It's mine because I'm an American. I shouldn't have to worry (as I would in Missouri) which county my car breaks down in.

__________________

Balota
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Practice does NOT make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Check out 5th FTF Shoot & Hoot.http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f138/5th-ftf-shotgun-shoot-hoot-vanzant-mo-apr-11-12-2015-a-109479/

Balota is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 03:04 PM   #14
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1768 Times on 989 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
First off...the 2nd amendment is VERY clear! If you are having trouble understanding the 2nd...mayhaps some remedial english would be in order. The first deals with 5 rights whereas the 2nd deals with one specific right...RKBR!
The 2nd amendment is nowhere near specific on types of arms you are allowed to bear. That has been the basis of legal argument for decades. Heck, it wasn't until two or three decades ago that the decision was finally made on what constitutes the militia that is allowed to bear arms. Maybe I'm not the one that needs help with remedial reading. You seem to be reading things that aren't written.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 03:39 PM   #15
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1768 Times on 989 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
2A says the feds won't infringe on our rights to own arms (and by that, I take it to mean any and all arms) but 10A allows the states to do their own thing, including with regard to arms.
That's exactly the point I am trying to make, but you did a better job of summing it up.

Quote:
(and by that, I take it to mean any and all arms)
Unfortunately the founding fathers didn't have the ability of foresight. For that reason many years of billable hours have been racked up trying to figure out what should be approved and what shouldn't. Fortunately cooler heads have prevailed and concealable flamethrowers and LAWs rockets have not become commonplace.

They did give most civilians what they need to maintain an equality or slight advantage over what we are most likely to be defending ourselves against, and for that I am grateful. Imagine what could be happening in the name of national security. We've already lost a good deal of our 4th amendment protections. The 2nd amendment would be a piece of cake.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 05:47 PM   #16
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
Unfortunately the founding fathers didn't have the ability of foresight. For that reason many years of billable hours have been racked up trying to figure out what should be approved and what shouldn't. Fortunately cooler heads have prevailed and concealable flamethrowers and LAWs rockets have not become commonplace.

They did give most civilians what they need to maintain an equality or slight advantage over what we are most likely to be defending ourselves against, and for that I am grateful. Imagine what could be happening in the name of national security. We've already lost a good deal of our 4th amendment protections. The 2nd amendment would be a piece of cake.
The purpose of 2A was to ensure the military might of the nation rested with the people, not the government. Ergo, ALL arms were to be in the control of the people; whatever you wanted, you could have if you could afford it. And many people did own arms well beyond rifles and pistols.

You're right that the courts have argued that because 2A is vague in regard to what "arms" means and they've said that some arms but not others meets the 2A obligation. But anyone with an ounce of honest reason in their head understands that precisely because it didn't get specific that it wasn't intended to be specific: people may own any arms. The framers chose their words extremely carefully.
__________________
bkt is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 09:56 PM   #17
I used to play keyboards, but now...
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Balota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glenpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 3,259
Liked 2247 Times on 1362 Posts
Likes Given: 2416

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
The purpose of 2A was to ensure the military might of the nation rested with the people, not the government. Ergo, ALL arms were to be in the control of the people; whatever you wanted, you could have if you could afford it. And many people did own arms well beyond rifles and pistols.

You're right that the courts have argued that because 2A is vague in regard to what "arms" means and they've said that some arms but not others meets the 2A obligation. But anyone with an ounce of honest reason in their head understands that precisely because it didn't get specific that it wasn't intended to be specific: people may own any arms. The framers chose their words extremely carefully.
Very well said. Only lawyers think it takes a lot of words to be specific. And they only think that because it gives them more words to reinterpret later into loopholes.

The purpose of 2A is to ensure "the security of a free state". Does anyone really believe that smooth-bore muskets and cutlasses would be sufficient to that purpose today? Then why would anyone try to interpret it that way? To meet the clearly declared purpose, the people would need the right to keep and bear the most effective modern arms.

In the modern era, concealed carry handguns are provably effective at deterring violent crime. Such crime is, by any reasonable standard, a threat to the security of a free state. Thus, 2A can be understood in a simple direct way to protect concealed carry.

This is only hard to understand if you just want to argue (for whatever reason).
__________________

Balota
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Practice does NOT make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Check out 5th FTF Shoot & Hoot.http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f138/5th-ftf-shotgun-shoot-hoot-vanzant-mo-apr-11-12-2015-a-109479/

Balota is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 10:05 PM   #18
I used to play keyboards, but now...
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Balota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glenpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 3,259
Liked 2247 Times on 1362 Posts
Likes Given: 2416

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
The 2nd amendment is nowhere near specific on types of arms you are allowed to bear. That has been the basis of legal argument for decades. Heck, it wasn't until two or three decades ago that the decision was finally made on what constitutes the militia that is allowed to bear arms. Maybe I'm not the one that needs help with remedial reading. You seem to be reading things that aren't written.
The basis of legal argument for decades has been the desire on the part of the anti-gun lobby to create confusion. 2A is not specific precisely because it wanted to be forward-looking and allow ANY arms.

Militia is and has always been intended to describe the function of the general population that was used during the Revolutionary War. It wasn't until two or three decades ago that the anti-gun lobby started using their (deliberate) lack of understanding as the basis for their empty arguments.

Maybe you are the one that needs help with remedial reading. Actually we're the ones who are NOT reading things that are written ... we aren't reading anti-gun propaganda as though it was the BoR.
__________________

Balota
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Practice does NOT make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Check out 5th FTF Shoot & Hoot.http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f138/5th-ftf-shotgun-shoot-hoot-vanzant-mo-apr-11-12-2015-a-109479/

Balota is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 10:23 PM   #19
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

I think maybe what Doc is saying is that because 2A can be interpreted as vague, that it opens the door to limitations. It's vague on purpose, and it's NOT to limit the arms people may own; it's vague to allow for people to own arms not invented at the time 2A was written.

But because others have deliberately misinterpreted the vague nature of 2A as a loophole to establish limits - "Your honor, do you really think the Founders thought it wise to let just anyone own a nuclear weapon?" - that the subjective idea of "reasonable" crept into the argument. What arms are "reasonable" for people to own? What "reasonable" limits can be put on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms? Once subjective interpretation is on the table, all bets are off. The only thing you can count on is that our rights will be trimmed big-time.

The fact is, all the armaments the federal government controls - nukes, carrier groups, fighters, missiles, etc. - could be and arguably should be tended securely and efficiently by the people in the context of militias.

What the Framers intended is certainly not what has come to pass.

__________________
bkt is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 11:53 PM   #20
fmj
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fmj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne,IN
Posts: 3,454
Liked 753 Times on 437 Posts
Likes Given: 306

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
I think maybe what Doc is saying is that because 2A can be interpreted as vague, that it opens the door to limitations. It's vague on purpose, and it's NOT to limit the arms people may own; it's vague to allow for people to own arms not invented at the time 2A was written.

But because others have deliberately misinterpreted the vague nature of 2A as a loophole to establish limits - "Your honor, do you really think the Founders thought it wise to let just anyone own a nuclear weapon?" - that the subjective idea of "reasonable" crept into the argument. What arms are "reasonable" for people to own? What "reasonable" limits can be put on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms? Once subjective interpretation is on the table, all bets are off. The only thing you can count on is that our rights will be trimmed big-time.

The fact is, all the armaments the federal government controls - nukes, carrier groups, fighters, missiles, etc. - could be and arguably should be tended securely and efficiently by the people in the context of militias.

What the Framers intended is certainly not what has come to pass.
To add to this.... if i may..i am not nearly as learned or skilled with words as Sir BKT

If one were to delve into the founders writings, one would find that the founders were against the idea of a standing army.

Hence the need for militia AND the UNLIMITED RKBA...bringing us back to the point BKT is making. I believe.
__________________
"Those that would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjammin Franklin

The 1911: Turning useless trash into good fertilizer for over 100 years!!
fmj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Research Topic Help bolt_action14 Legal and Activism 6 02-15-2012 10:38 PM
I have no idea where to put this topic. Hlander General Rifle Discussion 3 02-04-2012 05:51 AM
Off Topic but funny Kelly J Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 01-11-2010 09:02 AM