From Backwoods Home Magazine: 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights...long read, but worth it

[AsburySkinsFan]

Screw the NRA
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...the-boom---atf

Enforce existing laws my arse! They gutted existing gun laws!

[Popeman38]

Don't forget their various attempts at infringing/making it more difficult with regards to people's right to vote.
Making it more difficult to buy a gun=bad
making it more difficult to cast a ballot=good.

One can counter that it works the other way too:
Making it more difficult to buy a gun=good
making it more difficult to cast a ballot=bad

And let's not confuse gun rights with abortion. There are MANY more Dems who support dun rights than there are Reps who support abortion. A better analogy would be urban vs rural. In a city, a gun is generally viewed as a tool of evil. In the country, a gun is generally viewed as a tool of life. You see TONS of cities clamoring to enact serious gun control measures. You don't see any rural areas doing the same. Hell, Harry Reid is worried about all the gun talk, cause Nevada is whole lot of open country, where a gun is needed to protect property from nature (cows, sheep, pigs from coyotes, moutain lion, bear). This issue is MUCH more complicated than the typical person paints it.

[rictus58]

One can counter that it works the other way too:
Making it more difficult to buy a gun=good
making it more difficult to cast a ballot=bad

And let's not confuse gun rights with abortion. There are MANY more Dems who support dun rights than there are Reps who support abortion. A better analogy would be urban vs rural. In a city, a gun is generally viewed as a tool of evil. In the country, a gun is generally viewed as a tool of life. You see TONS of cities clamoring to enact serious gun control measures. You don't see any rural areas doing the same. Hell, Harry Reid is worried about all the gun talk, cause Nevada is whole lot of open country, where a gun is needed to protect property from nature (cows, sheep, pigs from coyotes, moutain lion, bear). This issue is MUCH more complicated than the typical person paints it.

I agree with you. I'm just pointing out the inane things I see everyday on peoples FB pages. comparing guns to cars. gun violence to abortions. guns to anything else that doesn't make a fair comparison.

[s0crates]

I like the part about the 9th and 10th Amendment and natural rights.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.

The government does not give us our rights. God does.

I usually lean left, but I applaud anybody defending the Bill of Rights, even the NRA.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I agree with you. I'm just pointing out the inane things I see everyday on peoples FB pages. comparings guns to cars. guns violence to abortions. guns to anything else that doesn't make a fair comparison.

Oh don't forget Hitler, the Nazis and the rise of The Third Reich!

---------- Post added January-17th-2013 at 04:26 PM ----------

The government does not give us our rights. God does.

So was God wrong when we had our right to own slaves taken away?
Why didn't God think it was good to give women the right to vote?

[zoony]

Oh don't forget Hitler, the Nazis and the rise of The Third Reich!

---------- Post added January-17th-2013 at 04:26 PM ----------



So was God wrong when we had our right to own slaves taken away?
Why didn't God think it was good to give women the right to vote?

I think what he is saying is that the government does not grant rights, it only takes them away. Which is correct

[s0crates]

So was God wrong when we had our right to own slaves taken away?
Why didn't God think it was good to give women the right to vote?

Given that you consider those objections to my point, I take it that you missed my point entirely.

Women and blacks always had the same God-given human rights as everybody else. The government denied them.

[SkinsWarrior81]

Oh don't forget Hitler, the Nazis and the rise of The Third Reich!

---------- Post added January-17th-2013 at 04:26 PM ----------



So was God wrong when we had our right to own slaves taken away?
Why didn't God think it was good to give women the right to vote?

The idea is that you have "natural rights" and that when those rights are not being served to the public, they are being artificially blocked by the government.. not that you do to have them. It is complicated. Basically, people want the government to block natural rights, but only the natural rights they deem to be unimportant to them or others. Slavery and women being unable to vote, were an aberration of the intent of and philosophy of natural rights being artificially withheld from the populace by government. Some would say you would be able to and obligated to rise against the government in order to be able to confer those rights equally among men.

[rictus58]

Oh don't forget Hitler, the Nazis and the rise of The Third Reich!

ugh. Those really make me sick. And it's offensive to..well...damn near everyone who lives on this planet.

[Destino]

I appreciate any article that reminds us all that rights do not come from the bill of rights. I feel like the idea of natural rights has really fallen these days where rights are viewed more like the contents of SWAG bag reserved for the VIP segment of the American citizenry. You have to be an American citizen for some, though we allow some non-citizens a few, and you must not be a felon (though we continue to expand the definition of felony). The right itself is no longer terribly “righty” anymore. It’s more of a guideline that is followed when the government really doesn’t want to ignore it badly enough. This is a trend that doesn’t help anyone no matter where you fall on this particular issue and it’s a damn shame.

Having said that I think that the gun rights issue has a very easy middle ground that is lost in the screaming match the extremes love to get into. The NRA wants more guns and has decided that guns are essentially safety devices. Listening to them you would think that a gun should sit next to fire extinguishers (though not behind glass, because that would slow down a would-be hero). The opposite side seems at times (most) to be entirely ignorant when it comes to the guns they want to restrict. Hearing them prattle on about “semi-automatics” at times makes me groan when it becomes apparent that they don’t really know what it is. The same happens when people are pressed to define assault weapons often times. If you aren’t familiar with guns, you aren’t qualified to decide which are good and which are bad.

Everyone talks down to everyone in this debate. This thread for instance features the ignorant do gooder chatting with the “real American” that apparently learned detailed history from a wise old cow. That kind of **** isn’t going to bring people to the table and aid a sober dialogue.

I think the controls need to target the ammo capacity and training. I think people eager to do bad things with fire arms will still find a way to do so but there is no reason to make it insanely easy via a hundred round mag. Those seem designed entirely to do two things, allows the operator to go crazy at a shooting range for fun and/or engage a large group of targets without having to reload. Those IMO should be on the table to be entirely banned. The question then becomes what capacity is acceptable.

Training IMO serves a similar purpose to concealed weapons permits. People seeking to do bad things tend not to want to register their names and information. You think lunatics want to spend a great deal of time with trainers that can fail them for showing signs of instability? Evil people that are patient and outwardly normal are never going to be easily stopped, Al Qaeda has shown us this, but forcing contact between people seeking to legally own and use firearms with authorities will add a significant road block for many.

I’d tie training and licensing to the ability to purchase firearms and ammunition. I would not however record what firearms are purchased by license holders. Only that an up to date license is required to purchase.

This is not a perfect plan and I don’t pretend to have all the answers but I think it’s an example of a middle ground that can be discussed. This is not a right v left debate. I’m all for gun rights and I’m a democrat (some of you are no doubt shocked, I know). I think you’ll find that there are many among democrats that are pro-gun rights.

Please excuse typos, I have a new born and have to type FAST! haha

[Popeman38]

The interesting thing about the Militia Act of 1972 is that it included regulations on the types of guns and ammunition that every citizen between 18 and 45 was supposed to own.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

So if the Federal government could require all citizens to own certain types of guns and a certain amount of ammunition, and to require them to report regularly, can it really be unconstitutional for the Federal government to require registration of guns, to limit the size of cartridges, or to regulate the types of guns that are sold?

Well, I would argue the militia of 1972 and the militia of 1792 were vastly different.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think what he is saying is that the government does not grant rights, it only takes them away. Which is correct

So who gets to figure out which rights God gave us and which rights God gave us that need to be taken away?

[s0crates]

So who gets to figure out which rights God gave us and which rights God gave us that need to be taken away?

I think that was the point of creating the Bill of Rights in the first place, to ensure that nobody would take away certain of our God-given rights.

We can lose the God talk if it helps. It is just short hand. We can just as easily talk about natural rights or human rights. The idea is that humans are free to speak, assemble, live, work, pursue happiness, protect themselves, own property, etc.

The only time somebody's rights should be impinged is when they infringe on somebody else's.

This is political philosophy and civics 101 stuff here. I'm somewhat concerned that this needs explaining at all.

[Destino]

So who gets to figure out which rights God gave us and which rights God gave us that need to be taken away?

No one. The government isn't supposed to even consider revoking those rights and they are expressly prohibited from doing so. That hasn't stopped them from doing so. Consider search and seizure these days...

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is political philosophy and civics 101 stuff here. I'm somewhat concerned that this needs explaining at all.

It doesn't I'm just providing pushback against invoking the divine in legislative matters, I know there are some variants of Christianity that present the Constitution as sacred writ...I do not.