Query for the not-so-keen on guns...

[Evilroddy]

I cut out your post so I could meet the limit but I wanted to notify you I was responding to your post to Goshin

Does your collective rights view created by the actual facts surrounding the creation of the bill of rights and the concept of natural law, or is it a position you take based on what you think you can get away with in order to support your views that existed prior to your examination of the second? The point is-if you start from the beginning-of what the founders believed and what they intended, you cannot honestly claim a collective right

TurtleDude:

My position on the collective right interpretation is based on the history, legislation and writings of the late 18th Century in America as the apply solely to the Second Ammendment. There is a large body of jurisprudence from both pre revolutionary colonial law and English/British common law for a right to bear arms for self defence but that is not what the Second Ammendment was about. It was about protecting well regulated state militias as a countervailing force to creeping Federalism.

I do not agree that there is natural law unless one is referring to the discovered rules by which the universe works (rules which are in constant flux). Law is a function of human will. All law here is human law, not natural law. The law is the will to protect but also to restrict the behaviours of those which choose or are by circumstance born into a particular society. In my opinion all law is man-made and none is natural. Just try to explain the right to life to a hungry mountain lion closing in on you. The lion accepts no such law, nor do the vultures and the worms who are looking on with great expectations. All law is man-made from the Code of Kassite Babylon (Hammurabi) to the US Constitution to the Laws of Space. No laws are immutable or God-given. Law is a human construct and one of the best things our species has ever invented, only surpassed by the grander and more important Rule of Law, which guides the crafting and exercise of the law in many places of our modern world.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[TurtleDude]

TurtleDude:

My position on the collective right interpretation is based on the history, legislation and writings of the late 18th Century in America as the apply solely to the Second Ammendment. There is a large body of jurisprudence from both pre revolutionary colonial law and English/British common law for a right to bear arms for self defence but that is not what the Second Ammendment was about. It was about protecting well regulated state militias as a countervailing force to creeping Federalism.

I do not agree that there is natural law unless one is referring to the discovered rules by which the universe works (rules which are in constant flux). Law is a function of human will. All law here is human law, not natural law. The law is the will to protect but also to restrict the behaviours of those which choose or are by circumstance born into a particular society. In my opinion all law is man-made and none is natural. Just try to explain the right to life to a hungry mountain lion closing in on you. The lion accepts no such law, nor do the vultures and the worms who are looking on with great expectations. All law is man-made from the Code of Kassite Babylon (Hammurabi) to the US Constitution to the Laws of Space. No laws are immutable or God-given. Law is a human construct and one of the best things our species has ever invented, only surpassed by the grander and more important Rule of Law, which guides the crafting and exercise of the law in many places of our modern world.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

every legal scholar who wrote during the time of our country's creation-especially St George Tucker and the next generation (such as Justice Story) all saw the second amendment as recognizing the natural right of self defense. This is consistent with Article One, Section 8 that clearly did not endow the new government with any gun control powers

 

[Evilroddy]

every legal scholar who wrote during the time of our country's creation-especially St George Tucker and the next generation (such as Justice Story) all saw the second amendment as recognizing the natural right of self defense. This is consistent with Article One, Section 8 that clearly did not endow the new government with any gun control powers

TurtleDude:

Then explain section one of the second Militia Act of 1792 which was passed by many of the same men who crafted the Second Amendment. This act which puts onerous duties and responsibilities on all American men between the ages of 18 and 45, who are to be automatically conscripted into well regulated state militias, and to have themselves and their kit including their firearms presented regularly for inspection and recording.

https://deadguyquotes.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/militia-act-of-1792.pdf

History bites, somewhat like mountain lions.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[TurtleDude]

TurtleDude:

Then explain section one of the second Militia Act of 1792 which was passed by many of the same men who crafted the Second Amendment. This act which puts onerous duties and responsibilities on all American men between the ages of 18 and 45, who are to be automatically conscripted into well regulated state militias, and to have themselves and their kit including their firearms presented regularly for inspection and recording.

https://deadguyquotes.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/militia-act-of-1792.pdf

History bites, somewhat like mountain lions.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

that's easy-those in federal service are under certain control and telling people they must have something is very different than telling them they cannot have something.

 

[Evilroddy]

Militias were not in Federal Service in 1792 despite the claims of the first Militia Act of 1792. That would be settled later. However this passage does establish that all American men between 18 and 45 were in the state militias and thus needed to be able to own and bear firearms to man those militias. Thus the wording of the Second Ammendment's opening phrase make sense and is of paramount importance to protect the need to stop a grasping Federal Government from starving the militias of properly armed men by infringing upon such men's rights to own and bear arms. When placed in its historical context the Second Smmendments full text makes perfect sense as a collective right to protect the viability of state militias.

I am pointing to the expressed federal right to inspect and record which is synonymous with gun registration and certification. Not the seizure of firearms consistent with a militiaman's role in the militia. The right to inspect and record the details of firearm ownership/possession is clear in the second Militia Act and is the historical basis for a modern-day federal registration and certification system.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

PS I'm going to bed now, so I won't be responding until tomorrow. Have a good night.

 

[aociswundumho]

First the perspective of the anti-unfettered gun rights point of view. Those who own or possess guns can be very responsible or very irresponsible with most falling in the middle.

That is simply not true. The US has some 400 to 500 million firearms spread among some 60 to 80 million gun owners. In 2019, about 10,000 homicides were committed with firearms. 10,000 divided by 60 million is the percentage of gun owners who used their guns to kill another person in 2019, and that number is really, really, really, really, small. Most gun owners "do not fall in the middle". Only a tiny, tiny fraction of gun owners use their guns to kill.

Unfortunately it is often hard to figure out who is responsible and who is not, after just casual interaction. Therefore non-gun-owners reasonably fear the worst of anyone possessing a gun in a public space unless they know them well and know them to be responsible. Thus the carrying of either concealed or openly carried weapons in public spaces alarms folk, creating a climate of fear.

But it's important to note that given the statistics regarding guns, their fear is completely irrational. I don't believe I have an obligation to respect the irrational fears of other people. I might do it, depending on the circumstances, but overall, if you're acting irrationally, that's your problem.

My position is that the Second Amendment was originally written as a collective right to assure that the Federal Government could not infringe upon citizens' gun ownership rights as a back door to disarming state militias.

The only way a group of people can have the right to do something is if each individual member of the group has the right to do it himself.

There is no scenario where a group of people gain additional "rights" merely by forming a group. Gang rape is morally wrong, because rape is morally wrong, not the other way around.

 

[TurtleDude]

Militias were not in Federal Service in 1792 despite the claims of the first Militia Act of 1792. That would be settled later. However this passage does establish that all American men between 18 and 45 were in the state militias and thus needed to be able to own and bear firearms to man those militias. Thus the Second Ammendments first clause and the need to stop a grasping Federal Government from starving the militias of armed men by infringing upon such men's rights to own and bear arms. When placed in its historical context the Second Smmendments full text makes perfect sense as a collective right to protect the viability of state militias.

I am pointing to the expressed federal right to inspect and record which is synonymous with gun registration and certification. Not the seizure of firearms consistent with a militiaman's role in the militia. The right to inspect and record the details of firearm ownership/possession is clear in the second Militia Act and is the historical basis for a modern-day federal registration and certification system.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

PS I'm going to bed now, so I won't be responding until tomorrow. Have a good night.

that's false-none of the registration schemes even hint at being there to allow the state to make sure conscripts are armed when the call up is given. and they only required you to have a suitable weapon. Other weapons were not registered etc. The early registration system was to make sure the right people had guns, the current schemes claim they are there to prevent the wrong people from owning guns.

 

[skeptic llc]

Great thread and topic, thanks Goshin. I'm not the people you are talking about so I can't respond right on point. I have had similar experiences to you, not re guns but re things like locking up at night -- it makes me feel more safe, but exes have felt less safe because locking up reminded them it can be a scary world (sorry if I can't find a more charitable way to state their position, I just don't get it). Guns are more complicated IMO because there is a good chance that a gun in "friendly" hands will nonetheless itself cause harm, but I suspect the thinking is the same.

 

[skeptic llc]

For every George Zimmerman out there with half a brain and a concealed carry permit, there are 10,000 others like me you will never read about.

Well put.

 

[dave8383]

Your posts suggest that your real hostility is to those of us who attack the democrat party for its anti gun views.

Blah blah blah. Improve your shtick and get a man's gun for selfdefense.

 

[Evilroddy]

AOC...ho:

That is simply not true. The US has some 400 to 500 million firearms spread among some 60 to 80 million gun owners. In 2019, about 10,000 homicides were committed with firearms. 10,000 divided by 60 million is the percentage of gun owners who used their guns to kill another person in 2019, and that number is really, really, really, really, small. Most gun owners "do not fall in the middle". Only a tiny, tiny fraction of gun owners use their guns to kill.

I did not say the middle killed people, I said the middle were less responsible than the most responsible.

But it's important to note that given the statistics regarding guns, their fear is completely irrational. I don't believe I have an obligation to respect the irrational fears of other people. I might do it, depending on the circumstances, but overall, if you're acting irrationally, that's your problem.

I already conceded that much of the fear is irrational but that does not make it any less real.

The only way a group of people can have the right to do something is if each individual member of the group has the right to do it himself.

There is no scenario where a group of people gain additional "rights" merely by forming a group. Gang rape is morally wrong, because rape is morally wrong, not the other way around.

No, freedom of the press applies only to those persons associated with reportage and journalism. One must belong to that group in order to enjoy that facet of the First Ammendment. The right applies to the group and is therefore a collective right. Religious freedoms only apply to those who are religious and belong to religious groups. Voting rights only apply to those who qualify and are registered, a group. These are all collective rights.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

that's false-none of the registration schemes even hint at being there to allow the state to make sure conscripts are armed when the call up is given. and they only required you to have a suitable weapon. Other weapons were not registered etc. The early registration system was to make sure the right people had guns, the current schemes claim they are there to prevent the wrong people from owning guns.

TurtleDude:

Read section I of the second Militia Act of 1792 which I linked to above. It is very clear and runs contrary to what you said in your post. The primary source is clear.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[TurtleDude]

TurtleDude:

Read section I of the second Militia Act of 1792 which I linked to above. It is very clear and runs contrary to what you said in your post. The primary source is clear.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

has nothing to do with congress being able to infringe on private citizens having a right to keep and bear arms. You again confuse the difference between potential militia members having needed arms vs congress banning people from keeping and bearing other arms. BTW NO gun control law has ever tried to use that statute as justification. Your argument has zero merit

 

[TurtleDude]

Blah blah blah. Improve your shtick and get a man's gun for selfdefense.

View attachment 67299408

why engage in stupid trolling? because that is what this is

 

[apdst]

I don't live in a society where I need a deadly weapon with me at all times. I have, Vietnam, but not anymore. I'm sorry you think you do.

And you have the right to make that decision for yourself. Others of us are excercising out right to decide differently, for ourselves.

 

[dave8383]

why engage in stupid trolling? because that is what this is

Because this kind of thread is so repetitive and the only reason for it is to go over the same boring ground over and over again. Carry your gun all you want nobody cares.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because this kind of thread is so repetitive and the only reason for it is to go over the same boring ground over and over again. Carry your gun all you want nobody cares.

but people do care-at least half the lefties on this board are opposed to people carrying guns and I bet at least a third want to ban some guns

 

[dave8383]

but people do care-at least half the lefties on this board are opposed to people carrying guns and I bet at least a third want to ban some guns

Look, my feeling is this. If a CC permit is available then people have a right to acquire one if they pass muster. It's that simple.

 

[rickc]

Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry licenses have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida's right-to-carry law started in 1988. ... Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.

Gun Facts | Insight on Concealed Carry of Guns

Research on concealed carry of firearms in relationship to crime and self-defense. Includes data on violent crimes, interaction with police, permit revocation rates, mass public shootings, and more.

www.gunfacts.info

.

 

[zsu2357]

I dragged the 2x4's across the floor and scuffed the wood.....I never heard the end of it from Lady Bum.

Little problem with a screen door once. Wife said take it off the hinges, I said "don't worry I got it". Yep sure did. Busted the bottom glass right out.

 

[Bum]

Little problem with a screen door once. Wife said take it off the hinges, I said "don't worry I got it". Yep sure did. Busted the bottom glass right out.

I did the same with her Jeep.....loading it for a move:

Lady Bum: It wont all fit.
Bum: Sure it will.
Lady Bum: No, it wont.
Bum: "Slams Jeep door and shatters the Jeep Window"
Lady Bum:
Bum:

 

[zsu2357]

="dave8383, post: 1072801186, member: 33147"]
Look, my feeling is this. If a CC permit is available then people have a right to acquire one

Fair enough, but how about shall be and not if, might, maybe?

if they pass muster. It's that simple.

Pass muster could mean a lot of things and given who's suggesting this I'll err on a lot of things.

 

[zsu2357]

I did the same with her Jeep.....loading it for a move:

Lady Bum: It wont all fit.
Bum: Sure it will.
Lady Bum: No, it wont.
Bum: "Slams Jeep door and shatters the Jeep Window"
Lady Bum:
Bum:

Don't you just hate that? And then all I told you so's as they jump up and down peeing themselves.

 

[Chillfolks]

I did the same with her Jeep.....loading it for a move:

Lady Bum: It wont all fit.
Bum: Sure it will.
Lady Bum: No, it wont.
Bum: "Slams Jeep door and shatters the Jeep Window"
Lady Bum:
Bum:

I lost the bikini top on lady chills jeep one year headed home from the beach. Needless to say I wasn't allowed to drive that car agian.

 

[rickc]

Personally I want the opportunity to defend myself. But much more than that I want to be able to defend my loved ones. I never want to stand by helplessly while some scum hurts a member of my family. I think it is completely unacceptable for a man not to defend his family.

I understand if you don't have experience with gun how you could be scared of them. Really it is just another simple tool. I grew up with them. Shot all kinds of guns all my life. I am prepared!