So you have a gun in your truck?

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Another reason to avoid the Communist state of New York. Its as if the 2nd amendment doesn't exist. In the south, we all have guns and there are no problems. Why do so many yankees spend every waking hour trying to control other people?

We've got more than enough folks who abide by a self imposed division between right/left, conservative/liberal - pleeeeze let's don't restart the Civil War.
There's an oxymoron for the records - except you probably call it The War of Northern Aggression. ;)
I'm a Yankee, and I am 1000% behind the right to bear arms.

This country is taking the wrong approach on nearly every issue. God help us.
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
Another reason to avoid the Communist state of New York. Its as if the 2nd amendment doesn't exist. In the south, we all have guns and there are no problems. Why do so many yankees spend every waking hour trying to control other people?

We've got more than enough folks who abide by a self imposed division between right/left, conservative/liberal - pleeeeze let's don't restart the Civil War.
There's an oxymoron for the records - except you probably call it The War of Northern Aggression. ;)
I'm a Yankee, and I am 1000% behind the right to bear arms.

This country is taking the wrong approach on nearly every issue. God help us.



Sister Cheri has spoken and she is reloading as we speak. PS, Im handing her the ammo.:eek:
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
So, if I'm reading it correctly, a free man can do whatever, carry whatever, whenever, he wants just as long as he is not breaking any of the Ten Commandments - right? :confused:
well, you're exaggerating our positions a bit, but here is the thing.

our founding fathers and those that followed them correctly believed that their role was not to create law, but to discover law. as such, they wrote the bill of rights not as the government graciously granting us liberty out of the kindness of their hearts, but as a necessary recognition of pre-existing, universal human rights. so having a firearm on your person is not just an american civil right but the right of all people everywhere, including the chinese, the north koreans, cubans, and even the english. governments that interfere with this human right are oppressive and interfering with the rights of the people.

it's a parallel of the first amendment right of free speech. you wouldn't claim that the right of free speech is only an american right because of the first amendment, would you? or that it exists elsewhere only because of largesse of government? no, it is a human rights to be enjoyed by all people everywhere, and our founding fathers were wise to document it.

the american bill of rights is a charter of negative liberties, declaring our rights to be off limits and beyond the vote of any majority. as such, the second amendment removes from government a say in who may or may not be armed. if you choose not to carry a gun, that's your free choice. if the government tells you you may not, that's tyranny.

as a free man, it is my human right to purchase any small arm and carry it as I please on public property without filling out any form or asking anyone's permission.

to put it to better than I, here's the atlanta declaration by l. neil smith:

http://www.lneilsmith.org/atlanta.html

Here's how it begins:

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon --rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything --any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

"Someday to demonstrate that principle --before I'm lying on my deathbed in a hospital with green plastic tubes up my nose, before arthritis sets in and I have to do it on crutches --I intend to walk the length of Manhattan Island with a handgun openly on my hip, unmolested by any freelance or official parasite. The question is, how do I get there from here?"

It's a good speech, worthy of the read.
 
Last edited:

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
well, you're exaggerating our positions a bit, but here is the thing.

our founding fathers and those that followed them correctly believed that their role was not to create law, but to discover law. as such, they wrote the bill of rights not as the government graciously granting us liberty out of the kindness of their hearts, but as a necessary recognition of pre-existing, universal human rights. so having a firearm on your person is not just an american civil right but the right of all people everywhere, including the chinese, the north koreans, cubans, and even the english. governments that interfere with this human right are oppressive and interfering with the rights of the people.

it's a parallel of the first amendment right of free speech. you wouldn't claim that the right of free speech is only an american right because of the first amendment, would you? or that it exists elsewhere only because of largesse of government? no, it is a human rights to be enjoyed by all people everywhere, and our founding fathers were wise to document it.

the american bill of rights is a charter of negative liberties, declaring our rights to be off limits and beyond the vote of any majority. as such, the second amendment removes from government a say in who may or may not be armed. if you choose not to carry a gun, that's your free choice. if the government tells you you may not, that's tyranny.

as a free man, it is my human right to purchase any small arm and carry it as I please on public property without filling out any form or asking anyone's permission.

to put it to better than I, here's the atlanta declaration by l. neil smith:

The Atlanta Declaration, by L. Neil Smith

Here's how it begins:

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon --rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything --any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

"Someday to demonstrate that principle --before I'm lying on my deathbed in a hospital with green plastic tubes up my nose, before arthritis sets in and I have to do it on crutches --I intend to walk the length of Manhattan Island with a handgun openly on my hip, unmolested by any freelance or official parasite. The question is, how do I get there from here?"

It's a good speech, worthy of the read.



Thank you - I will read that :)

What I still do not understand though .....

If it is a "Right", as mentioned above, to have a gun on your person, then how come a State can say 'you can't in this State' ? :confused:

Surely it is or it isn't - it can't be something inbetween :confused:
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
well, you're exaggerating our positions a bit, but here is the thing.

our founding fathers and those that followed them correctly believed that their role was not to create law, but to discover law. as such, they wrote the bill of rights not as the government graciously granting us liberty out of the kindness of their hearts, but as a necessary recognition of pre-existing, universal human rights. so having a firearm on your person is not just an american civil right but the right of all people everywhere, including the chinese, the north koreans, cubans, and even the english. governments that interfere with this human right are oppressive and interfering with the rights of the people.

it's a parallel of the first amendment right of free speech. you wouldn't claim that the right of free speech is only an american right because of the first amendment, would you? or that it exists elsewhere only because of largesse of government? no, it is a human rights to be enjoyed by all people everywhere, and our founding fathers were wise to document it.

the american bill of rights is a charter of negative liberties, declaring our rights to be off limits and beyond the vote of any majority. as such, the second amendment removes from government a say in who may or may not be armed. if you choose not to carry a gun, that's your free choice. if the government tells you you may not, that's tyranny.

as a free man, it is my human right to purchase any small arm and carry it as I please on public property without filling out any form or asking anyone's permission.

to put it to better than I, here's the atlanta declaration by l. neil smith:

The Atlanta Declaration, by L. Neil Smith

Here's how it begins:

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon --rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything --any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

"Someday to demonstrate that principle --before I'm lying on my deathbed in a hospital with green plastic tubes up my nose, before arthritis sets in and I have to do it on crutches --I intend to walk the length of Manhattan Island with a handgun openly on my hip, unmolested by any freelance or official parasite. The question is, how do I get there from here?"

It's a good speech, worthy of the read.

If the folks of London were allowed to have guns, would the riots have lasted this long.?
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
If the folks of London were allowed to have guns, would the riots have lasted this long.?



The "riots" only lasted the 3 nights.

As for arming citizens, lets not go there ..... ppl were shot and it wasn't the police that did the shooting.

What a frightening thought though, whether it be here or there ..... allowing anyone and everyone to have a gun and, then attending some mass protest or other, it turns nasty - doesn't bear thinking about :(
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I don't see why a 13 or 14 yr old can't exercise their right to buy a gun...I don't see anywhere where age is pointed at...When the Bill was written a lad of that age was considered a man for intents and purposes.... By having an age requirement isn't that an "Infringement"?
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
I don't see why a 13 or 14 yr old can't exercise their right to buy a gun...I don't see anywhere where age is pointed at...When the Bill was written a lad of that age was considered a man for intents and purposes.... By having an age requirement isn't that an "Infringement"?



Do you think a lad of 13 or 14 yr is the same today as back then?
What age does infringement start? Adult? Birth? :confused:
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Do you think a lad of 13 or 14 yr is the same today as back then?
What age does infringement start? Adult? Birth? :confused:

I haven't a clue....I see today we baby our children...as compared to the past...I am not a firm supporter of right to bare arms....and the reason it was created was a knee jerk reaction to a situation to quell a rebellion that was completely logical...if the British had never tried to disarm the rebels..we wouldn't even be discussing this...
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Thank you - I will read that :)

What I still do not understand though .....

If it is a "Right", as mentioned above, to have a gun on your person, then how come a State can say 'you can't in this State' ? :confused:

Surely it is or it isn't - it can't be something inbetween :confused:


I'm using voice transcription for much of this, so it won't look pretty.

The State(s) are not the arbiter of rights. rights did not begin with the state, nor are they dependent on the state for their continued existence. when a state tramples on your rights, it doesn't mean the right goes away, just that someone is oppressing you, much the same as if a mugger steals your wallet. that the mugger took your wallet doesn't eliminate your right to it. this is explained in more detail, with corroborating historical evidence, at this page, the link to which was posted in an earlier message:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html

now as to why and how a state can deny our rights, the short answer is, they can't. But just as a mugger can't take your wallet, yet muggers take wallets every day, the same is true for the State and our rights.

when a mugger runs off with your purse, what do you do? chances are, you call a cop i.e. the government. but the situation gets trickier if the mugger is a cop. your chances for successful and legitimate adjudication of your legal matter don't look promising under this scenario.

unfortunately, that's the situation in which we find ourselves. when the government does us wrong, to whom do we turn? our case will be heard by a government judge. kind of awkward, huh? only recently, in washington dc and chicago, have we had any success in getting the government to admit their errors in gun laws. we still have a long way to go.

here is another way to look at it. in much of american history, the government said that 1 man could own another based on their skin colors. did that mean that slaves didn't have the right to be free, or did they have rights that were being trampled?
 
Last edited:

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
I haven't a clue....I see today we baby our children...as compared to the past...I am not a firm supporter of right to bare arms....and the reason it was created was a knee jerk reaction to a situation to quell a rebellion that was completely logical...if the British had never tried to disarm the rebels..we wouldn't even be discussing this...
our rights were not created. our rights are inherent in ourselves and predate government.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Sue,

I think a point is being missed - the constitution is not there to grant us any rights, it is there to limit the rights of the government - federal and state.

The way it works is this our rights came from God and we give it to the states and then they give it to the federal government. This thought was formed by others who our founding father's look to for answers and many of them felt that God has the only right to grant any and all rights - not man.

I don't think children were included in this, there is a limitation on voting rights and there is an emancipation of children before the age of 21. 18 doesn't make one an adult at that time, 21 did.

The city/state can limit some things, they can't limit all things because at that level the city/state represents the people. Having said that, the feds actually have little right to do things or have groups like the FBI or DHS for that matter. There has been a question in the past few months if the feds can actually legislate laws that directly affect a state or people with the idea that their laws are and always trump states laws - the 10th amendment plays a role here.

On top of all that, the first and second amendments are supported directly by the tenth, that is the states get their rights from us, and they give those rights to the feds, not the other way around. The problem right now is the states are not represented in congress, our system was setup to have the senate represent the states, not the people and that changed with the 17th amendment - which is far worst than the 16th.
 

ts675

Seasoned Expediter
The "riots" only lasted the 3 nights.

As for arming citizens, lets not go there ..... ppl were shot and it wasn't the police that did the shooting.

I want to make sure I understand what you just said here. They outlawed guns for citizens in London, and now only outlaws have guns? That was a point I made a few pages back. How many of those that were shot by thugs there would have been ok if they were able to defend themselves? I guess we'll never know.



Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
I just got here this morning, so i'll thank Amonger foranwering Sues questions on the Ten commandments so well...and greg for explaining how the Constitutions is suppose to work and esplaining the States rights...

OVM as for a 13-14 y/o being able to buu a gun..well i bought my own 22 bolt action higgins rife at 11 from the corner hardware store with my own money...i then took it to school the next day to show it off in class....we the people have allowed the libs to take control of our lifes to the point that they have restricted soo many of our rights that we can no longer live as the free people we once were...
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
The "riots" only lasted the 3 nights.

As for arming citizens, lets not go there ..... ppl were shot and it wasn't the police that did the shooting.

I want to make sure I understand what you just said here. They outlawed guns for citizens in London, and now only outlaws have guns? That was a point I made a few pages back. How many of those that were shot by thugs there would have been ok if they were able to defend themselves? I guess we'll never know.



Posted with my Droid EO Forum App



It was a gang retaliation masked into the rioting, bad guys killing bad guys .... but thats not the point I was making.

IF ... all of those usually placid citizens were armed - Goodness only knows what carnage there would have been.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
we the people have allowed the libs to take control of our lifes to the point that they have restricted soo many of our rights that we can no longer live as the free people we once were...

I'm still trying to figure out what all the conservatives were doing when they passed the 1968 firearms law in congress?

Did they run away from congress so not to vote?

Liberal and conservative alike are at fault for these infringements, not one of these ideologies are immune from the fact that they all want to control the people for their "cause".

We have been free since 1865.
 
Top