From Oregon Firearms Federation - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > From Oregon Firearms Federation

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-13-2010, 11:39 PM   #21
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 robocop10mm View Post
We all get emotionally involved in certain topics. There are several veteran LE members who can help put some of these situations into perspective (if you are willing to gain perspective).
I'm not anti-cop,to clarify my personal position:

I'm anti-politicians making cops enforce unConstitutional laws.

I'm also pro-OathKeeper.
I have the utmost respect for cops who stand up for and obey the Constitution.

Cops have a dangerous job.They have to deal with catching the people who do evil things daily.
They are also subjected to ever greater degrees of danger by the 'war on drugs' and the financial empowerment of criminals that the illicit drug trade market has created.This means they must face heavily armed,well financed and organized criminals.
Not an easy job at all.
__________________
"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; 05-13-2010 at 11:43 PM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 05:24 AM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kimber45's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robocop10mm View Post
We all get emotionally involved in certain topics. There are several veteran LE members who can help put some of these situations into perspective (if you are willing to gain perspective).
I'm all ears, thanks.
__________________
Kimber45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 05:39 AM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kimber45's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 261
Default Last post from me on this subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robocop10mm View Post
We all get emotionally involved in certain topics. There are several veteran LE members who can help put some of these situations into perspective (if you are willing to gain perspective).
I believe all laws concerning firearms are unconstitutional, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads; 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Concealed carry permits, gun registration, proof of state citizenry, the law requiring you to be 21 before being able to purchase a firearm are in my not so humble opinion unconstitutional. All these laws 'infringe' on our Rights as guaranteed to us not by the Constitution but by God, the Constitution just affirms these God given rights. If this offends anyone I apologize in advanced, but this is not just my opinion but my belief.
One wee bit of a last word, God bless all those who have taken the Oath 'to defend the Republic against ALL enemies, foreign & DOMESTIC'.
Thank you
__________________
Kimber45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 01:42 PM   #24
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 10,270
Liked 2945 Times on 1534 Posts
Likes Given: 262

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimber45 View Post
I believe all laws concerning firearms are unconstitutional, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads; 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Concealed carry permits, gun registration, proof of state citizenry, the law requiring you to be 21 before being able to purchase a firearm are in my not so humble opinion unconstitutional. All these laws 'infringe' on our Rights as guaranteed to us not by the Constitution but by God, the Constitution just affirms these God given rights. If this offends anyone I apologize in advanced, but this is not just my opinion but my belief.
One wee bit of a last word, God bless all those who have taken the Oath 'to defend the Republic against ALL enemies, foreign & DOMESTIC'.
Thank you
That argument certainly has a great deal of validity. There are a few points that can be disputed. "People"? What is the definition? The definition has morphed quite a bit over the last 221 years since the Constitution was ratified. Originally it was "free, White, over 21 and a property owner" Slavery has since been outlawed so the "free" part is gone. The color barrier is gone. You no longer have to own property. There is still a restriction on aliens (legal and illegal). Are they not "people"? The over 21 part only applies to handguns, you can purchase long guns at 18. Are you of the belief that kindergarteners should be able to purchase and carry handguns? Are they not people? Obviously SOME restrictions are necessary, we are just in disagreement about WHICH restrictions are proper.
We could take (and maybe should take) the approach that everyone can carry concealed handguns w/o a "permit". Oh, except for those convicted Felons. Do we just deal with them when we catch them? Or maybe they too are "people" who's "right" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, until they commit ANOTHER crime with a firearm.
IMHO opinion it is the proper place for the Government to place restrictions on certain liberties when those liberties create other serious problems. We just have a disagreement over the extent of the restrictions.
When arms that were not even imagined by our Founding Fathers become available, we must consider them and appropriateness for ownership. Yes, the Kentucky Long Rifle was the "assault rifle" of its day and perhaps "the people" should be allowed to own M-16's, what about other weapons? .50 caliber machineguns, 20mm Vulcan cannons, Claymore mines, 81mm mortars, Thermonuclear devices...There obviously must be a line somewhere (shouldn't there be? Maybe not). If we can agree there is a line, somewhere, we are just in a disagreement about where the line should be.
I do not necessarily agree the current line is in the correct place, but we have a legisaltive process that allows us to remove "bad" Legislators and replace them. We just have not done a very good job of using that process, IMHO.
I will get off my soap box now and get back to work.
__________________

In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire.
"Robo is right" Fuzzball

robocop10mm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 03:35 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Well said robo

__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 07:39 PM   #26
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TXnorton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Katy,Texas
Posts: 1,376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
Well said robo
Ditto! Thanks Robo!
__________________

TXnorton

TXnorton is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 09:45 PM   #27
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 robocop10mm View Post
I will get off my soap box now and get back to work.
I respectfully disagree in whole and in part.

The Constitution has never 'morphed'.Its written in plain English that anyone who reads and speaks English at a grade school level can understand.
The Constitution IS NOT a 'living document subject to modern interpretation'; it does not 'morph' with the 'modern times';it is the Supreme Law of this land AS WRITTEN and UNLESS AMENDED.

As there has been no amending of the Second Amendment since the ratification of the Constitution,all 'infringement' -'regulation','legislation','prohibition'- is illegitimate and illegal.
The only REAL limit on the rights enumerated are when a person abuses the rights of others.Not when nanny state says so.Not when some pompous politician decides its time for more 'control'.

Our rights are only limited by the rights of others.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson

When the Constitution was written,there was never any provision in it denoting '"free, White, over 21 and a property owner".The meaning of 'people' was the American People.Has been and always will be.What was in the Constitution then,is in the Constitution now.Excepting a few amendments,that is.
Unfortunately,when the Constitution was ratified,slaves were not considered 'American people'.The history of slavery and emancipation is a demonstration of our struggle as a people to live up to our ideals as a nation;ideals which are most eloquently described in The Declaration of Independence,where Thomas Jefferson wrote that -

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

As to property ownership or age being a requirement of natural rights-thats just not true.Founders like Samuel Adams were very poor-yet his rights were fully acknowledged by the Constitution and his peers-the other Founding Fathers.
Many men fought and died carrying arms in the Revolution who were well under the age of 18,and who owned no property.
Yet they were men.With rights.Rights they would rather die defending then surrender to a tyrant.

First,in determining the meaning of our Constitution one must understand the history of our nation at the time it was written.Said the Father of the Constitution-

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison

Then,in determining a more appropriate application of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to individual liberty,one must first understand what the definition of 'inalienable' or 'unalienable' is.

Inalienable - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Basically,it means inseparable.

Government can not permanently separate a person from their inalienable,natural rights.
The very attributes of natural rights is that even if government were to attempt to 'regulate' and even 'prohibit' and remove a person of those rights permanently,they are still there.Were born with them.

For example-the right to bear arms.

Even with all the government regulation in the world-people still have guns.Look at Mexico.

Look at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of the Holocaust-

Even when an evil government (the Nazis) strips its people of the right to arms and then systematically attempts to murder them-they still find a way to arm themselves if they are desperate enough and their hearts are strong.
This is because the right to keep and bear arms is in fact a recognition of the natural,inalienable right to self defense.Our Second Amendment is a recognition and an enumeration of a natural right,an expounded natural state of being that recognizes the natural right of self defense and the proclivities of humans to use tools -arms- to facilitate it.

Government can no more deny the natural right of self defense,'regulate' it or 'prohibit' it,then they can change the color of the grass.

This is why government is told that it may not 'infringe' on the right to keep and bear arms.
This means that IT IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT "the proper place for the Government to place restrictions on certain liberties when those liberties create other serious problems."

It is the proper role of government to deal with violations of one persons rights by another-NOT regulate rights that 'create problems'.
Government,by acting to 'preempt' a 'problem' and 'keep us safe',is acting outside of the color of its charter and Constitutional law-government is supposed to be limited,not a baby sitting nanny that endangers the liberties of all over the actions of a few.
By acting this way,government itself becomes a bigger problem than the issues at hand,by circumventing liberty and usurping power where none is granted,it grows to encompass all aspects of our lives to 'protect us' and because it 'knows whats best for us'-until the only liberty we have is to choose which government mandated health insurance premium to pay.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...."
Benjamin Franklin

The specific 'problems' mentioned in making government obey its charter are children buying weapons,convicts owning weapons,and people owning serious artillery.These are actually all arguments used by 'gun control' advocates against the unfettered liberty of the natural right to bear arms in ones self defense.

First,it is the proper role of the parent to deal with their children.Not government.If the parent fails in that role and someone is hurt by that child,then the parent is liable.Its that simple.

No one will ever be able to justify to me the restrictions and possible evils of 'gun control' to keep 'dangerous people' from owning guns.First of all,because it doesnt work-someone contemplating murder or robbing a bank could care less about 'gun charges',second,because laws like this do more to create a situation where government has control of an inalienable right to the point where you literally must beg permission to excersize it-setting a precedent of creating government regulated privileges out of natural rights.

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
Thomas Paine

As to people who simply cannot be in a free society without doing egregious harm to innocent people and violating their rights-
Those dangerous people belong behind bars,or otherwise PERMANANTLY removed from society so that they may not pose a threat.
But heres a paradox-
While removed from society,their rights still exist.BUT.They are separated from their ability to excersize their rights,and if someone is so dangerous as they cant ever be out in public-say like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy-then they must be permanently -LAWFULLY via individual due process- kept under lock and key.Or executed.
I actually prefer they be executed.Less burden on the taxpayer.Less chance some scumbag politician will let them out because of some misguided altruistic belief in 'rehabilitation'.
They commit heinous 'mala en se' crimes depriving people of their rights,they forfeit their own rights.Including the right to life.

Letting dangerous people out on the streets and telling them its unlawful for them to keep or bear arms will not prevent them from hurting more people,and no matter how many times a slimy politician justifies 'gun control' with the criminal element as their example for its necessity;no matter how many laws they write in their misguided attempt to 'save the children',they will not stop a determined evil doer from doing evil unless they remove that person from society.Period.

When someone does something evil-violates the rights of another person,and government is called on to deal with them-they must deal with the person on an individual basis,not write blanket laws that attempt 'regulation' or 'control' over wide swaths of the natural rights of the people of this nation.

Our Constitution was written by a people who had just fought off the will and total control of tyrants,it was written to form a limited government under law,a Republic,that within its jurisdiction recognized the natural,inalienable rights and liberties that is inherent in all mankind,and formed a government restricted under law to defend those liberties.

The very machinations and manipulations of government to usurp authority to enact 'gun control' are such that they prove it is Constitutionally illegitimate.Government is not there to pre-empt crime by legislating natural rights into government administrated privileges.NO WHERE in the Constitution is granted the government the authority to regulate arms.Not in the Commerce Clause,and certainly not in the meaning or intent of the Second Amendment.Quite the opposite in fact.
And only via the clever manipulations of statist lawyers has that 'power' been 'granted'-in other words,criminals have committed treason by usurping for themselves power that they do not lawfully have,essentially.

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.
__________________
"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; 05-15-2010 at 12:31 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 09:46 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

All 'gun control' is illegal.
People in this nation can own anything they want and as long as they dont violate the rights of another person,it should be a non-issue.Who cares if someone has a Vulcan cannon or even an anti tank gun as long as they dont use it to violate the rights of other people.That sort of stuff USED to be mail order items.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others."
Thomas Jefferson

Another aspect of self defense recognized all too well by our Founders was the right to defend ones community from tyrannical government.
The militia part of the Second Amendment specifies that the people have the right to form militias;with their privately held arms.
The Second Amendment actually establishes property protections for private persons -Citizens(we are NOT 'civilians')- are within their right to own military grade weapons.

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
George Washington

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themsleves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington

And no matter how much some might argue the 'necessity' of 'gun control' or 'regulation'-it has never done anything to stop truly dangerous people from breaking the law.

All it does is place a burden on the liberties of the American People.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson

In fact,thats what this thread is all about.
This is what happens when we allow government to go outside of its lawful limitations.The perversions never end.
And the fact that they are constantly talking about attempting to bring our Second Amendment under the authority of the 'justice department' to the degree that the SECRET watch lists will be enough to remove your ability to excersize your right to keep and bear arms as far as the 'law' is concerned-this should speak VOLUMES as to exactly the dangers of 'gun control' and allowing our politicians to legislate against the Second in any way or for any reason.
Once again:
“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
Thomas Paine

'Gun control' is evil,and is a noted tool of miserable tyrants.

The danger of any government monopoly of control over arms is that there would be a monopoly on the use of force excersized by government on the citizens-much like what happened in both the Holocaust and the Holodomor-where the Nazis and the Soviets established such a monopoly on the use of force for the purpose of total control,and then proceeded to indulge in the murder of millions of helpless,unarmed people.

Thats called Democide,and its directly linked to 'gun control' in historical incident after incident of government murdering people by the hundreds of millions in the last century alone.

"I will not go quietly into that dark night....."

MOLON LABE.
__________________
"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; 05-15-2010 at 01:00 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 10:08 PM   #29
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,155
Liked 5734 Times on 3360 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Question

Doesn't the fact that the Constitution has been amended several times to adapt to changing times justify some people refering to it as a "living document"? I thought that was the whole point of having amendments to it & having a judicial branch of the government to interpret it and the laws based on it.

__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.


Last edited by orangello; 05-14-2010 at 10:10 PM.
orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 10:16 PM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kimber45's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 261
Default

Originally it was "free, White, over 21 and a property owner" Slavery has since been outlawed so the "free" part is gone. When this was written it referred to men as being servants and freeman and had nothing to do with African-Americans or slavery. At that time men were born into servitude, unless born of wealth, and as a servant you had to work for a land owner before he released you, it was at this time you became a FREEMAN. Only a Freeman was able to own property, everyone else just kept on working.
__________________
Kimber45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes