The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 21, 2013, 08:24 PM   #26
Buffalo Wing
Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2009
Location: MO - stationed at Whiteman AFB
Posts: 90
I just can't fathom how one could think allowing trade-offs and compromises on a right would protect it. Sir, I would ask that you go back and read Scalia's words in Heller again. The way he defines common use and explains the basis of the right mean future advancements should be included. If you don't have confidence in the courts, and you need not, then such an argument only explains why we need to continue to fight for our rights through our elected representatives and build and maintain a strong community of gun (phaser/laser/plasma/railgun/etc.) owners in this country.

Rolling over and saying "OK, you can tell me I can only have this one type of rifle because its all I need to protect myself" certainly won't do any better.
Buffalo Wing is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 09:59 PM   #27
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
I have been given "unalienable Rights" by my "Creator".

Notice the period at the end of that sentence.

These rights mean nothing if they can be easily taken away by a tyrannical government.

All of our FREEDOM depends upon ALL of the rights in the Bill of Rights that is why they are there.
The right to defend those rights rests within the 2nd Amendment.

Just because our opponents too stupid and fanatical to understand that we are protecting ALL of our citizens freedom is no reason to doom their innocent children, as well as the rest of us, to being helpless in the face of tyranny.

No compromise, no retreat, these are our Rights people.

RIGHTS are not up for discussion. We can be deprived of them, but they do not go away, they are, as correctly labeled in the Declaration of Independence, given by our Creator.
Will we let ourselves, and all future generations, be deprived of our Rights or not?
It will be up to all of us to decide what keeping these rights are worth.
May I be so bold as to suggest a standard? " our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 01:24 AM   #28
sakeneko
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 644
I agree with Vanya about the unorganized militia. It's an idea that never actually functioned in the past, and I don't see how it could now. Most Americans simply aren't interested in the realities (rather than the fantasies) of being in any sort of military. I freely admit I'm one of those. I'm not suited by temperament, age, or physical abilities to be a soldier. I carry because, if somebody attacks me or somebody I love and I am in fear for my life, I want to be able to defend myself and them. That's all.

And *that* is the right that Heller upheld: not to be in the military (of any sort, in any capacity), but the right to self-defense.
sakeneko is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 01:47 AM   #29
Unspoken
Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2012
Posts: 99
Holy whackamole.
Did I really just read all that?
Somebody please assure me all that was really just an exercise in satire, or irony.
__________________
Proverb for Paranoids: The innocence of the Creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master. -T. Pynchon
Unspoken is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 02:00 AM   #30
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
TommyGunNG, that's a lot of writing for a product that warrants no more response than NO!
gc70 is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 04:19 AM   #31
TommygunNG
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2012
Posts: 6
Vanya, stop with the haikus and say something of substance.

Alabama Shooter: You are incapable of reading things in context. I was talking about the growing situation. On that, the quote from Tennessee Shooter someone posted goes will with what I said, though his definition of "the militia" is off. Actually it's "the militia"--singular--"of the several states" (Article 1, Section 8). Aside from that, he makes several points in his post.

Tom Servo: I am being realistic about the Supreme Court--you know, the one that approved Obamacare.

And to everyone here: If being a patriot and putting country before individual is "statist," then call me a statist. Your individualism is killing the very freedom you treasure above your country.
TommygunNG is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 07:12 AM   #32
flyinpolack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2010
Posts: 152
Quote:
OPTION 1--"STATION IN LIFE": Allowed weapons dependent on station in life (I am NOT an egalitarian). Four-tier (plus one subset) system:

1. "Urban schmuck": Pump shotgun (.410 and/or 12) for home defense, plus pistol-caliber carbine (probably HiPoint-esque) for home as well as homeland (and community) defense.

2. "Rural schmuck": All of the above, plus full-power rifle due to land expanse, threat from four-legged critters, and longer emergency response time.

-- Subset--"Police": Full-size sidearm. (CAVEAT: This is based on the current practice of allowing police to be armed at all.)

3. "Military" (active and veteran): All of the above, plus "assault weapons," as they have the training to use them.

4. "Elite" (e.g., Donald Trump, or at least his corporations; "private security" firms, etc.): All of the above, plus whatever is suitable.
So if you are a 4-type & you go bankrupt, you will now be a 1-type & have to surrender what YOU think that I don't need?
It's my RIGHT, not my NEED, keep that in mind at all times please.
You're pretty creative, but NO..
__________________
Buy American, or don't bitch when you wind up on the bread line.
www.smokerbuilder.com
flyinpolack is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 07:23 AM   #33
Buffalo Wing
Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2009
Location: MO - stationed at Whiteman AFB
Posts: 90
Tommy, the Founders managed to combine a strong sense of patriotism and a preference for individualism in their codification of our rights. I see no reason why we need to change what they established now.

Losing protection for individual rights will do nothing good for the system of government we have. Our government is supposed to respect its citizens, because its power is based on their authority to govern themselves. To believe otherwise smacks of the type of government our Founders intended to avoid.
Buffalo Wing is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 11:42 AM   #34
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Alabama Shooter: You are incapable of reading things in context. I was talking about the growing situation.
Growing? This is not a question of context.


Quote:
And to everyone here: If being a patriot and putting country before individual is "statist," then call me a statist. Your individualism is killing the very freedom you treasure above your country.
Remember the scene in Revenge of the Sith (Star Wars III) where a young Anikan says; "From my point of view, it is the Jedi who are evil!"?

That is you.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 12:12 PM   #35
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommygunNG
Vanya, stop with the haikus and say something of substance.

Alabama Shooter: You are incapable of reading things in context. I was talking about the growing situation. On that, the quote from Tennessee Shooter someone posted goes will with what I said, though his definition of "the militia" is off. Actually it's "the militia"--singular--"of the several states" (Article 1, Section 8). Aside from that, he makes several points in his post.
'Twas I who posted that. If you read what I quoted from TG carefully, you'll see that his use of "militia" is spot-on: "The unorganized militia spoken about in 10 USC 311 is nothing more than a pool of individuals who may be used to fill the ranks of the organized militia which is the National Guard."

You're right that militia is a singular noun. Apart from that, he does indeed make several points and what they add up to is this: the unorganized militia is a dead letter, an obsolete concept, and has been for a long time, except in the sense that it's the pool of people eligible to be called up for military service.

And if you don't think my reference to the Heller decision has any substance... you haven't been paying attention.

As to the haiku, this is what's technically known as "irony" -- your many words deserve but few in response... But here are some more, anyway. Here's the current U.S. code on the composition of the militia, organized and unorganized:
10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2012 (112-90)

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
From your original, as posted by Uncle Buck:

"2. Right to arms: Preservation of a baseline of private arms suitable to an individual's station in life for the militia purpose of defense of home and homeland.
<snip>
"The theory of the "militia rifle" (aka, "Homeland Defense Rifle") is the intersection of Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15-16 and Amendment 2. The Article allows for "arming" the "militia." Thus, even as an active duty soldier does not have a "right" to carry whatever arm he or she chooses, the "unorganized militia" would be subject to regulation. HOWEVER, the Amendment would preclude such a regulation from effectively DISarming the private individual in militia terms.
<snip>
"[The "official militia rifle"] would be--subject to mandatory periodic reviews of technology--THE Second Amendment-protected weapon.""


If you read both of these, and think about them for a moment, you'll see that your proposal would potentially disarm all women who are not members of the National Guard, as we are not part of the unorganized militia, and so would not be entitled to possess "THE Second Amendment-protected weapon."

Sakeneko and I both think that this is a really, really bad idea.

And it could also disarm all males aged 45 and older; perhaps some of the male members here would like to weigh in on how they'd feel about that.

Last edited by Vanya; January 22, 2013 at 12:43 PM. Reason: clarification.
Vanya is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 01:02 PM   #36
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
If being a patriot and putting country before individual is "statist," then call me a statist. Your individualism is killing the very freedom you treasure above your country.
That statement runs completely counter to the founders' principles, and to the spirit of our republic.

The idea of quantifying rights based on social station would be a disaster if applied across the board. As I said before, it takes us back to 18th century principles, under which Donald Trump would have a greater right to the press, to redress grievances, to be free of unreasonable seizure, or to legal proceedings than a guy working the counter at a diner. We've come to far to go back to that. Don't get huffy if people find that repellent.

Quote:
I am being realistic about the Supreme Court--you know, the one that approved Obamacare.
I never mentioned the Supreme Court, or the Affordable Care Act, which is the actual name of the bill. Let's actually strive to use proper names for things here.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 01:21 PM   #37
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
No, you are wrong. this is not negotiable.

I'll explain why, they are not trying to negotiate a settlement. They are pushing to take another step in taking all the guns except for those they wish to allow to have guns. You need to understand some thing that many people do not know or have given little thought too.

Here is one, the US State Department is for all realistic purposes entirely left wing and liberal minded. Think about what this means. The people who orchestrate our Nation's dealings with all other countries are all "those people".

They see us as uneducated and "backwater" people. They would call us "Crackers" if they allowed name calling. These same people oversee many military dealings with foreign nations as well. They drive out anyone in the State Department that isn't on their "path for a better world".

They are the same kind of people who want to talk about the "white man" took this country from the Indians, (Native Americans). They will load your back with 200 or more years of history told the way they want it told and use it to break you down to make their new world.

The only defense we have is the Constitution. Do not negotiate with it. Do not allow them to make small laws which they will use to bend and weaken it until the Constitution and our Liberties are little more then a decorative cover used to hide the bald fact that we are no longer free men.

We do NOT have to negotiate, they want us to think so, they want us to admit it, believe it, and do it. But their will be no end to the negotiations until "We the People" are just more of those people.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 06:23 PM   #38
TommygunNG
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2012
Posts: 6
My point was not to address the legal in any great detail, but rather to address the philosophy behind our national heritage's right to arms. I aimed to start a discussion of possible compromises which would preserve suitable firepower in the hands of private citizens in this current political climate. By looking at the limited capability of common citizens in the context of modern warfare (I agree with Tennessee Gentleman on that point, and he did a good job exposing ignorance in the original post), I came up with two approaches which would deal with opposition while enabling the regular people to be part of the solution to our national problems. You see, I put higher values just a little bit higher than your precious personal image of freedom and your "rights". It always seemed stupid to me to insist on some benefit which I knew would ultimately lead to the loss of that benefit.

Unfortunately, this site has proven to be full of self-focused, self-defeating individualists who would rather see it all be taken than put their their country first, make sacrifices, and keep what they can. It is that attitude, regardless of ones thoughts on my ideas, that costs us in the political realm, and which might ultimately cost us our national sovereignty and personal freedom. It makes me proud to be a statist, and hence one of the few patriotic Americans here.

Regarding Heller: My concerns in 2008 stand, as by separating the constitutional militia function from the right to arms, the Supreme Court is--intentionally or not--setting up clearance for sweeping "assault weapons" bans. Arguing a right to pistols is easy. Shotguns--easy. Carbines--maybe. Even "hunting rifles" can be justified. However, tt is quite a stretch to argue you have a "right" to an AR or such, unless it is that such arms allow you to contribute to the national security apparatus. Eliminating the militia function precludes arguing that, and makes the "unusual and dangerous" label look attractive for at least some of the targeted arms. Many of them exceed reasonable demands in the area of self-defense, and hobbies and fun might not be enough when people see school shootings happening practically everyday. You see, judges are human. They feel people's pain. They feel pressure. And if they can use their jurisprudence to get around having to invalidate laws most people seem to want, there's no guarantee they won't.

(Just as an aside, the Circuit court in Cases v U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) actually alluded to this same anti-hobby in fending off a Second Amendment challenge to NFA in 1942, saying the defendant was "transporting and using the firearm (a submachine gun) and ammunition purely and simply on a frolic of his own and without any thought or intention of contributing to the efficiency of the well regulated militia that the Second Amendment was designed to foster as necessary to the security of a free state." I'm not discussing the legal precedent value, but rather noting the attitude difference between courts then and now, and people then and now.)

I suggested a line of thinking which would keep firepower in private hands, so I'm a "statist." Odd, but oh well. In any case, yes, as I said before, I am indeed a statist. I actually believe in authority and my country. I put that above myself and my little hobbies. I believe in values and principles, and am morally consistent enough to suggest implementing them as possible by force of law. Libertarians, while sometimes loyal, are by definition NOT patriots, as they put the individual (in reality, themselves) before their country. I know I will never convince you of how destructive your attitudes are. It's just too nice to be selfish. But at least by you being selfish, you will have no one to blame but yourselves when it all comes crashing down.

If the Founding Fathers could be resurrected today, they would look at you all and not only not lead another revolution, but also tell you all you deserve tyranny. You gave up principles of uprightness, community, and righteousness in the name of the precious "freedom" which is being used right now to choke your freedom. (It's kinda like what the Muslims in the UK said: "We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy".) Freedom is only good when it is the freedom to what is right, not what is wrong and not the freedom to frolic and play at hobbies. The more we can limit freedom to right choices, the stronger our country is, and thus the stronger our real freedom is. At one time, non-government forces in society could do the restraining. But those days are gone. People have indeed changed, bringing to my John Adams' line, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Oh, and just an aside for whatever mental case said I was disarming women, etc.: The purpose is the militia, but the right is to "the people". My ideas in no way disarm women or anyone else (save cuckoo clocks and criminals). Quite the opposite, all can contribute in some way. As I said, it was an expression of philosophy and vision more than a legal analysis.

One last point before I bid this libertarian cesspool farewell: If major gun bans and confiscations do occur, the firepower scheme I laid out will look very good to you. But it will be too late.
TommygunNG is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 06:54 PM   #39
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,158
No.
1) I'm not interested in creating a caste system.
2) I'm not interested in creating a system by which the federal government can so easily identify every firearm owner, along with exactly which firearms each such person should be allowed to own.
3) I'm not interested in pretending that the fight for gun rights is a compromise.

It's not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. It's the right of the people.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 06:58 PM   #40
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
My point was not to address the legal in any great detail, but rather to address the philosophy behind our national heritage's right to arms. I aimed to start a discussion of possible compromises which would preserve suitable firepower in the hands of private citizens in this current political climate. By looking at the limited capability of common citizens in the context of modern warfare (I agree with Tennessee Gentleman on that point, and he did a good job exposing ignorance in the original post), I came up with two approaches which would deal with opposition while enabling the regular people to be part of the solution to our national problems. You see, I put higher values just a little bit higher than your precious personal image of freedom and your "rights". It always seemed stupid to me to insist on some benefit which I knew would ultimately lead to the loss of that benefit.

Unfortunately, this site has proven to be full of self-focused, self-defeating individualists who would rather see it all be taken than put their their country first, make sacrifices, and keep what they can. It is that attitude, regardless of ones thoughts on my ideas, that costs us in the political realm, and which might ultimately cost us our national sovereignty and personal freedom. It makes me proud to be a statist, and hence one of the few patriotic Americans here.

Regarding Heller: My concerns in 2008 stand, as by separating the constitutional militia function from the right to arms, the Supreme Court is--intentionally or not--setting up clearance for sweeping "assault weapons" bans. Arguing a right to pistols is easy. Shotguns--easy. Carbines--maybe. Even "hunting rifles" can be justified. However, tt is quite a stretch to argue you have a "right" to an AR or such, unless it is that such arms allow you to contribute to the national security apparatus. Eliminating the militia function precludes arguing that, and makes the "unusual and dangerous" label look attractive for at least some of the targeted arms. Many of them exceed reasonable demands in the area of self-defense, and hobbies and fun might not be enough when people see school shootings happening practically everyday. You see, judges are human. They feel people's pain. They feel pressure. And if they can use their jurisprudence to get around having to invalidate laws most people seem to want, there's no guarantee they won't.

I suggested a line of thinking which would keep firepower in private hands, so I'm a "statist." Odd, but oh well. In any case, yes, as I said before, I am indeed a statist. I actually believe in authority and my country. I put that above myself and my little hobbies. I believe in values and principles, and am morally consistent enough to suggest implementing them as possible by force of law. Libertarians, while sometimes loyal, are by definition NOT patriots, as they put the individual (in reality, themselves) before their country. I know I will never convince you of how destructive your attitudes are. It's just too nice to be selfish. But at least by you being selfish, you will have no one to blame but yourselves when it all comes crashing down.

If the Founding Fathers could be resurrected today, they would look at you all and not only not lead another revolution, but also tell you all you deserve tyranny. You gave up principles of uprightness, community, and righteousness in the name of the precious "freedom" which is being used right now to choke your freedom. (It's kinda like what the Muslims in the UK said: "We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy".) Freedom is only good when it is the freedom to what is right, not what is wrong and not the freedom to frolic and play at hobbies. The more we can limit freedom to right choices, the stronger our country is, and thus the stronger our real freedom is. At one time, non-government forces in society could do the restraining. But those days are gone. People have indeed changed, bringing to my John Adams' line, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

One last point before I bid this libertarian cesspool farewell: If major gun bans and confiscations do occur, the firepower scheme I laid out will look very good to you. But it will be too late.
Well bye.

But before you go running off I don't find it overly amusing that you wish to take the path towards the high ground on Patriotism. I have served my country more than twenty years in the US Military through several wars on the ground. I don't doubt that you believe yourself committed but your questioning the resolve of others because they disagree with your POV is really, really misguided. You really should rethink that.

These "higher values" that you keep referring to are not an end to themselves. My commitment to my country extends to the social compact and legal contract that the government made with me to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of the President; unto death if needed. I am not sure where your level of commitment lies but if it is anything less than that you really have no room to point fingers. If it is that high than you should understand why you are wrong.

If the government starts torching the Constitution then I will be forced to execute the primary clause of defending it. I don't think we are anywhere near that nor do I think we will get there in my life time but often times the government needs a little help to stay on the right path.

I defend the Constitution not to assert the rulership of whoever is currently running things but to preserve the liberties and freedoms that most people in this country cherish.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 07:09 PM   #41
Buffalo Wing
Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2009
Location: MO - stationed at Whiteman AFB
Posts: 90
Tommy, I'm right there with Alabama Shooter. I didn't join the military out of some notion that my own desires or "activities" are more important than the future of our nation.

I think your ideas are so different from everything I have learned about the Founders and their intentions for the country they formed that you can't even begin to understand where I am arguing from.

I'm less surprised, however, to see a blanket condemnation of libertarians in your post, so I'll add that I've never considered myself a libertarian, and have a very healthy respect for authority. By no means does that provide any reason why I should also begin to feel that basic human rights are a negotiable topic.

Two departing thoughts for you:
1. Coercing people to do good does not make the end act they will perform good.
2. I, too, took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I take it very seriously.
Buffalo Wing is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 08:12 PM   #42
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,990
Right of women to bear arms?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommygunNG
Right to arms: Preservation of a baseline of private arms suitable to an individual's station in life for the militia purpose of defense of home and homeland.
<snip>
The theory of the "militia rifle" (aka, "Homeland Defense Rifle") is the intersection of Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15-16 and Amendment 2. The Article allows for "arming" the "militia." Thus, even as an active duty soldier does not have a "right" to carry whatever arm he or she chooses, the "unorganized militia" would be subject to regulation. HOWEVER, the Amendment would preclude such a regulation from effectively DISarming the private individual in militia terms.
<snip>
"[The "official militia rifle"] would be--subject to mandatory periodic reviews of technology--THE Second Amendment-protected weapon.""
What you're saying here quite specifically is that, in your scheme, the only weapons protected by the Second Amendment would be those to be used for militia purposes; hence, those owned by members of the unorganized militia.

With me so far? I'm just paraphrasing your own statements.

There are two ways this could work:

First, these weapons (the only ones protected by the Second Amendment) would be available only to persons who currently make up the unorganized militia. As women who are not members of the National Guard are excluded from the legal definition of the unorganized militia, along with men aged 45 and over, these two classes would no longer have any rights under the Second Amendment. Their ability to arm themselves would no longer be a right, but a privilege.

Second: the only way around this would be to expand the unorganized militia to include women (old, young, and in between) and older men. But the only modern purpose of the unorganized militia is to define a pool of citizens who may be called up for military service; this is explicit in the statute I quoted above, 10 USC Sec. 311.

Is it really sensible, or practical, to include (for example) your grandparents in this pool? I don't think so, and I don't think those in charge of the military would, either.

So you'd deny the right to bear arms in self-defense to the very people who need it the most: those least able to defend themselves if they are unarmed.

Quote:
Oh, and just an aside for whatever mental case said I was disarming women, etc.: The purpose is the militia, but the right is to "the people". My ideas in no way disarm women or anyone else (save cuckoo clocks and criminals). Quite the opposite, all can contribute in some way.
This is just waffling. You can't have it both ways. You're proposing specific changes to the laws governing who can own weapons under the Second Amendment, based on "militia purposes." If you want to do that, you need to acknowledge the current laws and their implications, and explain how the changes you want would either mesh with those laws, or alter them.

Quote:
As I said, it was an expression of philosophy and vision more than a legal analysis.
This is a cop-out, pure and simple. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the supreme philosophy.

[Insert haiku here.]

Last edited by Vanya; January 22, 2013 at 09:01 PM. Reason: added link.
Vanya is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 08:41 PM   #43
Justice06RR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
(On a related point, regarding pro-gun critics of the NRA: I love these people who are criticizing the NRA specifically for inaction, when the NRA is the only reason they have any right to arms at all. Those people are uneducated and unfamiliar with the reality of our political system...
I did not read the long first post, but I had to comment on the above.

The NRA is not the end-all-be-all of Pro2a movement. the above statement is actually almost offending; it says we have rights only because of what the NRA is doing?

I don't think so. 2A is a God-given right protected by the Constitution, not granted or protected by the NRA. They have a good cause, but there are other organizations and other means to show your support for 2A.
Justice06RR is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 09:50 PM   #44
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Unfortunately, this site has proven to be full of self-focused, self-defeating individualists who would rather see it all be taken than put their their country first, make sacrifices, and keep what they can.
So, individualism is self-defeating?

Quote:
Freedom is only good when it is the freedom to what is right, not what is wrong and not the freedom to frolic and play at hobbies.
Then it isn't freedom at all. If only certain people can exercise a right, and only in proscribed ways, it is not a right. It is a privilege. Those are two very different things.

Quote:
The more we can limit freedom to right choices, the stronger our country is, and thus the stronger our real freedom is.
The 1st Amendment protects our right to redress grievances with the government, free of reprisal. An unfortunate side-effect is that it also protects various types of speech we may find reprehensible or offensive.

You have both, or you have neither.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 23, 2013, 07:23 AM   #45
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,565
Thanks guys!*

I knew the men and women of TFL would respond with intelligent, well thought out replies.









* Guys being gender non-specific as used in this situation.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old January 23, 2013, 06:27 PM   #46
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
And to everyone here: If being a patriot and putting country before individual is "statist," then call me a statist.
OK. You Statist!

I think the country you are putting before the rights of the individual is a very different one than the one I volunteered to wear a uniform for......



Quote:
Your individualism is killing the very freedom you treasure above your country.
I would not serve such a country, nor live in it. If this country becomes that country you dream of, then I probably will not.

ETA: "Libertarian cesspool"?

We are not all frolicking in the pool- go look up BlueTrain- you guys would sure hit it off!
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 23, 2013, 07:32 PM   #47
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Jimbob, I'd actually wear that badge of being part of a "Libertarian Cesspool" with honor and pride.

To me it means TFL and myself are more of the type of Liberal that our Founders were!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 23, 2013, 09:17 PM   #48
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,990
I vote we exercise our "freedom to frolic:" give it a good cleaning out, install some plumbing, and turn it into a Libertarian Hot Tub... That would be fun.
Vanya is offline  
Old January 23, 2013, 10:12 PM   #49
sakeneko
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 644
Any sort of hot tub sounds good at this point.
sakeneko is offline  
Old January 23, 2013, 10:15 PM   #50
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,476
I swore to uphold and defend our rights to hottubs, and wings, and girls....oh, wait, college flashback...

I always chuckle when some of my more liberal Fraternity Brothers, all two of them, are dismayed when I spout of "libertarian nonsense" and list my views as "Constitutionalist".

I mean, shouldn't be suprising, that is the Document I swore to uphold and defend.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15655 seconds with 9 queries