The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 22, 2019, 04:14 PM   #1
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 121
Gun Rights- Fighting And Winning

My earlier thread that I started about the mass shooting in NZ was closed down because of how people were getting off the topic of the NZ shooting and instead talking about gun rights. Anyway, Im hoping to continue the conversation here with a more appropriately named thread given the subject matter. Some other members of the forum have talked about how the future for gun rights looks very bleak. That can be discussed here as its important to know what we're up against, but we also should discuss strategies for fighting and winning the war on gun rights, no matter how bleak the future might look. So anybody who posted in my previous now closed thread and anybody else who wants to contribute, I welcome and encourage you to post here so we can continue the conversation. And lets stay on topic so this thread doesn't get closed too.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old March 22, 2019, 04:41 PM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,926
There used to be (and perhaps still is) a saying among environmental activists: "Think globally, act locally."

That's the playbook the anti-gun forces seem to be moving toward these days. They haven't been able to ram any serious anti-gun legislation through the U.S. Congress, and they lost at the Supreme Court on Heller and McDonald, so they are now going after new state laws and local ordinances. We need to be aware of this, follow not only what's happening in our respective state legislatures but also what our home towns are up to, and be prepared to do battle when appropriate.

I discovered a few years ago that my home town had a local ordinance that prohibited possession of a loaded firearm on any town-owned property. Since with the exception of a few state roads that run through town all streets are owned by the town, that was a problem. There was no exception for people with a carry permit. In fact, there was no exception for police officers in the course of their duties.

In negotiating with the town to try to fix this, I was unable to get it repealed. With the help of the NRA and our state's grass roots pro-2A group, I was able to get some revisions (which, ironically, are of more benefit to permit holders who don't live in town than they are for me, but that's another story). During the negotiations, the Town Counsel let slip that he had obtained much of the new language he proposed from an attorney in an adjoining county who was working with town government all across the state to adopt gun control ordinances.

Wasn't there someone at the time of the founding of this nation who said something about the price of freedom being eternal vigilance? It's true -- the anti-gunners aren't giving up or going away. They'll just keep coming at us, from a new direction after each time we beat them back. We must remain vigilant.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 22, 2019, 08:25 PM   #3
MoArk Willy
Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2018
Posts: 91
Unfortunately you are correct. And what's sad is that it really has nothing to do with gun rights. Law abiding citizens are the ones who are going to suffer because of the inability or lack of desire to punish criminals. Gun laws only affect the law abiding. And that's not a secret. Every area that has gun crime that is out of control has liberal judges and jurors who refuse to punish the criminals committing the act....so they want to punish the law abiding by restricting their right. Are we supposed to believe they actually think this will work? It's part of a bigger agenda and everyone knows it. Controlling the population and making them more dependent on government is exactly what you do when you attempt to socialize a country.
MoArk Willy is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 09:14 AM   #4
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,132
I'l say it again..this binary choice, us or them, enemies, battle, fighting, zero sum, 'with us or against us'..YES, it appeals to each end of the spectrum on gun rights, each in a different and opposite way BUT there is a large segment in the middle who could potentially add to the debate in a positive way BUT..the 'message' by people like W Lapierre, and others, are not winning the 'hearts and minds' of the middle of 'us' gun owners. The gun rights advocates need a new message, IMHO, that appeals to people left of center, who also own guns. Not every democrat, or anybody that's to the left of the far right, is a gun grabbing demon or 'retard'(demoncrat, libertard, dunceocrat)..does this rhetoric do anything but piss people, who make the laws, off?
'Conservative doesn't always mean.'any gun at any time by anybody anywhere', nor does "liberal' mean 'take 'em all away, screw the 2A...

There is a YUGE middle ground and like elections, those 'unaffiliated moderates' sway the election and hence the laws.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 10:21 AM   #5
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,926
USNRet93 ... What message do you think we should be conveying to gun owners who don't understand or respect the Second Amendment? Who think it's okay to ban or even confiscate handguns and "military style" semi-automatic rifles as long as their hunting rifles and shotguns aren't affected?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 10:32 AM   #6
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRet93
'Conservative doesn't always mean.'any gun at any time by anybody anywhere', nor does "liberal' mean 'take 'em all away, screw the 2A...
I'd like to start with congratulations. You've repudiated a position I've never seen written or uttered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRet93
There is a YUGE middle ground and like elections, those 'unaffiliated moderates' sway the election and hence the laws.
Except when they don't. SSM, abortion, 1st Am. rights leading up to elections and 2d Am. rights in the wake of Newtown aren't swayed by unaffiliated moderates, but die hards on those issues. Invertebrate appeals to the "unaffiliated moderate" position lack the principled structure to serve as a basis for a die hard position.

Observe the demeanor of Alan Dershowitz in his explanations of the OJ trial or the value of the rights of criminal defendants to political conservatives. He persuades not because he meekly splits the difference with his audience, but because he set forth his position with force and principle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRet93
the 'message' by people like W Lapierre, and others, are not winning the 'hearts and minds' of the middle of 'us' gun owners. The gun rights advocates need a new message, IMHO, that appeals to people left of center, who also own guns.
That sentiment gets a lot of space here. There are American political movements within which the prevailing sentiment rejects the limits on government contained in the 2d Am. and the idea of constitutionally limited government more generally. It's an interesting vision of the NRA that admonishes its president for not making vestigial gun rights advocates still within those political movements feel better about themselves. Of course, that admonition might be unnecessary if those movements weren't generally hostile to limited government and the right described in the 2d Am.

Why aren't self-professed gun rights advocate convincing their left of center peers of the importance of an individual right to keep and bear? Maybe those left of center peers know something about their movement that the gun advocates don't.
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 10:33 AM   #7
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,318
I maintain that the right of self-defense-and the means to do it with-must become one of these "Human Rights" that some people are always quacking about.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 11:20 AM   #8
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 750
I always like to compare the 2A to other rights in the BoR. For example, if it's OK to infringe upon 2A rights if it might impact public safety, then wouldn't it likewise be OK to infringe on the rights guaranteed by the 4th and 5th Amendments for the same reason? Because we could certainly save lives if we just let the police conduct searches without warrants for anyone they find suspicious, right? And wouldn't we be safer if we didn't allow known criminals to hire defense attorneys and forced them to testify at their own trials?

I never get a good response to that argument, it exposes the hypocrisy and also the danger of setting a precedent whereby rights can be infringed upon if it can be claimed to be for public safety..
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 02:05 PM   #9
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSHR
I maintain that the right of self-defense-and the means to do it with-must become one of these "Human Rights" that some people are always quacking about.
In theory it already is. In theory.

The Second Amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment merely recognizes and purports to guarantee a right that the Founders recognized as already existing. In fact, none of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were created or granted by the BOR -- they are all rights that the Founders recognized as preexisting rights. The Bill of Rights was written not to grant those rights, but [supposedly] to ensure that our government could not take away those rights.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 03:33 PM   #10
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 121
Quote:
The Second Amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment merely recognizes and purports to guarantee a right that the Founders recognized as already existing. In fact, none of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were created or granted by the BOR -- they are all rights that the Founders recognized as preexisting rights. The Bill of Rights was written not to grant those rights, but [supposedly] to ensure that our government could not take away those rights.
And that means none of the amendments in the BOR can be amended, including the 2A.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 07:46 PM   #11
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotonGuy
And that means none of the amendments in the BOR can be amended, including the 2A.
Incorrect. The BOR is a part of the Constitution, and the Constitution itself spells out exactly how it can be amended. And it has been amended, numerous times. Amendment is the same process as repeal. Don't forget, prohibition was a constitutional amendment. And prohibition (the 18th amendment) was repealed by a subsequent amendment (the 21st, IIRC).
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 08:06 PM   #12
pTac
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2019
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
Incorrect. The BOR is a part of the Constitution, and the Constitution itself spells out exactly how it can be amended. And it has been amended, numerous times. Amendment is the same process as repeal. Don't forget, prohibition was a constitutional amendment. And prohibition (the 18th amendment) was repealed by a subsequent amendment (the 21st, IIRC).


The BOR, or the first 10 amendments, was intended, as I understand it, by the founding fathers to be rights guaranteed to all citizens in our republic as absolutes that couldn’t be taken away even by popular vote. I think the govt has lost sight of that somehow over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pTac is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 09:52 PM   #13
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,352
Quote:
The BOR, or the first 10 amendments, was intended, as I understand it, by the founding fathers to be rights guaranteed to all citizens in our republic as absolutes that couldn’t be taken away even by popular vote.
A common, but slightly incorrect understanding.


Read the Bill of Rights. It is a list of things the Government shall not do. It grants no rights. As already pointed out, our right (whether you consider them God given, or "Natural rights") exist because we do. They are not dependent on any permission from the government, or any piece of paper.

The BOR is a list of CHECKS on the power of government, in regard to certain ENUMERATED rights, and is open ended, specifically stating that not all our rights are listed in it.

Congress shall make no law...
Shall not be infringed...
No person shall...
Warrants shall not be issued...
and so on, each and every one is NOT a statement of our rights, it is a statement of what Government may not do, in regard to those rights.

Just because we constantly refer to our "Constitutional Rights" in casual conversation does not mean that the our rights come from, or are granted by the Constitution.

Ages ago, they used to teach that, in school. Not many people actually listened, but they did teach it..
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old March 23, 2019, 11:35 PM   #14
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 121
Quote:
Incorrect. The BOR is a part of the Constitution, and the Constitution itself spells out exactly how it can be amended. And it has been amended, numerous times. Amendment is the same process as repeal. Don't forget, prohibition was a constitutional amendment. And prohibition (the 18th amendment) was repealed by a subsequent amendment (the 21st, IIRC).
You're right about the constitution being amended multiple times and you're right about prohibition being repealed but keep in mind none of the times the Constitution was amended, including the time prohibition was repealed, was the Bill Of Rights affected. The BOR which makes up only the first ten amendments is not supposed to be amended or repealed and that's what sets it apart from the rest of the Constitution. Since the BOR is only the first ten amendments, the amendment on Prohibition was obviously not part of the BOR as it was the 18th amendment. So yes the Constitution can be amended, except for the BOR.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 11:37 PM   #15
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 121
Quote:
A common, but slightly incorrect understanding.


Read the Bill of Rights. It is a list of things the Government shall not do. It grants no rights. As already pointed out, our right (whether you consider them God given, or "Natural rights") exist because we do. They are not dependent on any permission from the government, or any piece of paper.

The BOR is a list of CHECKS on the power of government, in regard to certain ENUMERATED rights, and is open ended, specifically stating that not all our rights are listed in it.

Congress shall make no law...
Shall not be infringed...
No person shall...
Warrants shall not be issued...
and so on, each and every one is NOT a statement of our rights, it is a statement of what Government may not do, in regard to those rights.

Just because we constantly refer to our "Constitutional Rights" in casual conversation does not mean that the our rights come from, or are granted by the Constitution.

Ages ago, they used to teach that, in school. Not many people actually listened, but they did teach it..
Exactly, so instead of calling it the "Bill Of Rights" it would be more accurate to call it the "Bill Of Restrictions," restrictions on the government.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old March 23, 2019, 11:39 PM   #16
Brownstone322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2017
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 221
Gun Rights- Fighting And Winning

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
A common, but slightly incorrect understanding.

Read the Bill of Rights. It is a list of things the Government shall not do.
Correct. The term 'Bill of Rights" (and "Constitutional rights" in general) are actually misnomers. These refer to limitations on the power of government, which explains why they apply only to government.

If you come over to my house, you don’t have a right to anything, not unless there are statutory laws that say you do.

Last edited by Brownstone322; March 24, 2019 at 12:44 PM.
Brownstone322 is offline  
Old March 24, 2019, 02:10 AM   #17
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotonGuy
You're right about the constitution being amended multiple times and you're right about prohibition being repealed but keep in mind none of the times the Constitution was amended, including the time prohibition was repealed, was the Bill Of Rights affected. The BOR which makes up only the first ten amendments is not supposed to be amended or repealed and that's what sets it apart from the rest of the Constitution. Since the BOR is only the first ten amendments, the amendment on Prohibition was obviously not part of the BOR as it was the 18th amendment. So yes the Constitution can be amended, except for the BOR.
Where does it say, in the Constitution, in any of the amendments to the Constitution, or in any other federal law that the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) cannot be amended -- or even repealed?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 24, 2019, 11:30 AM   #18
pTac
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2019
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
A common, but slightly incorrect understanding.





Read the Bill of Rights. It is a list of things the Government shall not do. It grants no rights. As already pointed out, our right (whether you consider them God given, or "Natural rights") exist because we do. They are not dependent on any permission from the government, or any piece of paper.



The BOR is a list of CHECKS on the power of government, in regard to certain ENUMERATED rights, and is open ended, specifically stating that not all our rights are listed in it.



Congress shall make no law...

Shall not be infringed...

No person shall...

Warrants shall not be issued...

and so on, each and every one is NOT a statement of our rights, it is a statement of what Government may not do, in regard to those rights.



Just because we constantly refer to our "Constitutional Rights" in casual conversation does not mean that the our rights come from, or are granted by the Constitution.



Ages ago, they used to teach that, in school. Not many people actually listened, but they did teach it..


I stand corrected in my choice of wording lol and you did a much better job of more accurately stating it. The founding fathers meant the BOR to be a list of absolutes in our republic that the government was required to abide by. It’s a bit of a history lesson for some but if you research the writings of the time, specifically Thomas Jefferson, you’ll see I think that the BOR was written with the intent that it could never be removed even upon popular vote, thus the reason we are a republic and not a democracy. I believe that’s why they used specific wording such as you mentioned above, “govt shall not” instead of should not unless popular vote says otherwise. Just my 2¢


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pTac is offline  
Old March 24, 2019, 11:44 AM   #19
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 6,460
I keep hearing the call for "reach across the aisle" and "Compromise" etc.

To which I will apply the term "progressive"

If we start with the enumerated Right,that says "Shall Not Be Infringed"

We have the whole of the Right,or 100%. You nor I "own" this Right.Its a legacy to my Grandchildren and their children. We are just temporary stewards.

By what authority do you,or I,or any politician "Compromise" or "Meet in the Middle" to make the 100% of a Right Granted by the Creator into 90% of the right Granted to my Grandchildren by the Creator?

And that's where the "progressive"comes in. The long,slow process. The boiling of the frog.

You ask me to give up 3% of my Grand childs Right. The politican feels pressure anf caves. Now its 97%.and the ratchet clicks.It only goes one way. JFK is shot. another "reasonable" progressive 20% .Now there is 77% of the right. High cap magazines."Nobody needs 10 bullets to shoot a dee-yuh.

Well,I call BS.The oath of office is to uphold and defend the WHOLE 100% Constitution,against ALL enemies,foreign or DOMESTIC.

And among DOMESTIC ENEMIES is any SCOTUS justice so narcissistic they believe their robe gives them the power to corrupt that Constitution.

The same applies to lawmakers.

So,USN,did you have the intellectual honesyt and integrity to call out the President and followers who used the term "Teabagger"?

Another example of how "tolerance" civility" and "progress" are only "correct" when they move in the progressive direction.

NO! Hell NO! Not one more click.Not one more inch.

How in the heck did some concept from the French Revolution get corrupted into "Right" and "Left" in American Politics??

The CENTER is the Constitution. Efforts to corrupt the Constitution are not Right or Left,they are WRONG!!

And its our duty to say NO!
HiBC is offline  
Old March 24, 2019, 12:09 PM   #20
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,359
There was a pro-gun-rights protest in Oregon’s capital yesterday and 7000 were in attendance. Kinda surprising. Maybe I’m wrong and people are going to stand up for their natural rights.
rickyrick is offline  
Old March 24, 2019, 01:00 PM   #21
Brownstone322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2017
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotonGuy View Post
The BOR which makes up only the first ten amendments is not supposed to be amended or repealed and that's what sets it apart from the rest of the Constitution. Since the BOR is only the first ten amendments, the amendment on Prohibition was obviously not part of the BOR as it was the 18th amendment. So yes the Constitution can be amended, except for the BOR.
This is simply made up. The Bill of Rights didn't even exist until four years after the Constitution was ratified, and the impetus then was that this newfangled idea of federalism may have created a tyrannical monster seated in New York or Philadelphia that was out of touch with the very states that gave it life, especially those in the rural south. (Sound familiar?)

Just because the first 10 amendments (originally proposed as 12) were ratified as a block in no way suggests that they're indelible. The first seven articles were ratified as a block as well; so what?

In fact, for years Republicans pushed the "Flag Desecration Act," which was drafted specifically to relax the First Amendment and expand the power of government. It never passed Congress, but there's no legal reason it could not have.
__________________
"To live outside the law, you must be honest." -- Bob Dylan
Brownstone322 is offline  
Old March 24, 2019, 01:23 PM   #22
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,926
At the time of the founding of the nation, there was quite a discussion over how much or how little power the federal government should wield. Most of you have probably heard of (and some of you may have read) The Federalist Papers. These were a series of articles written by three prominent statesmen of the time (using pseudonyms) in favor of a strong federal government. There was also a corresponding series of articles, written by other prominent citizens, known as The Anti-Federalist Papers.

In the end, the federalists won, but the Constitution was approved subject to the proviso that it would be amended ASAP to stipulate limits on the power and authority of the central, federal government. And that's what resulted in the Bill of Rights. As Brownston322 noted, there were twelve amendments proposed in the original Bill of Rights. However, only ten of those twelve were ultimately ratified by the states.

It may have been the hope and intention of the Founders that the Bill of Rights would never be amended or repealed, but they didn't write that into the Constitution.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 24, 2019, 01:53 PM   #23
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,352
Our Constitution provides two ways it can be changed. The Amendment process, or a new Constitutional Convention.

The Amendment process is spelled out, and ANY part of the Constitution could be changed via an Amendment, IF that amendment was passed and ratified under the existing process. Even the first 10 amendments COULD be changed by later amendments IF the approved process is met.

The history of Prohibition and its repeal teaches us that the system does work, and even a horribly bad idea that becomes law can be repealed.

There have been a few people who have called for a new Constitutional Convention, in order to avoid the cumbersome Amendment process and "fix" what they see as wrong via a new convention, resulting in a new Constitution.

The Constitution does provide for a new convention, BUT, if it happens, then EVERY part of the Constitution is up for grabs. EVERY PART.

AND, the sitting Congress gets to decide the representation at the convention.

Think about that, for a bit.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old March 24, 2019, 04:21 PM   #24
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,051
Quote:
The Constitution does provide for a new convention, BUT, if it happens, then EVERY part of the Constitution is up for grabs. EVERY PART.
False and misinformed. A Convention of States IAW Article V of the US Constitution is very specific in its instructions.

A convention is limited in scope to the issues the State's have passed requesting the convention for the purposes of constructing the language of the proposed amendment.

The amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...s_Constitution

You are confusing the ONE Constitutional Convention which drafted our Constitution ratified by the States with the necessary State adopting it on 12 June 1788 with the thirteen plus Convention of States we have had in our history.

AFAIK, there is no legal way to replace the entire Constitution of the United States.

Last edited by davidsog; March 24, 2019 at 04:34 PM.
davidsog is offline  
Old March 24, 2019, 04:51 PM   #25
pTac
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2019
Posts: 10
This is a great conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pTac is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 03:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12307 seconds with 8 queries