I've been sent this by another 2nd Amendment Supporter, Frank aka NM_Shooter. Remember him, he gave up spending time browsing the internet for Lent? He didn't give up email contact though. :D
So, even though this link (below) is old, it is still active. Also the newly selected Attorney General is on record of being in favor of implementing certain restrictions on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. So I'm in favor of not missing any opportunity to register what I believe in.
VOTE HERE (http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm)
It can't hurt and all it takes is three mouse clicks, one on the Vote Here link and two clicks once you are there.
I said it was old, Nov '07 to be precise.
As for your interpretation of the Constitution and the bill of Rights, I'm a little confused. Do you mean to say that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are invalid?
I think what DW is saying is that we already had the rights. The constiution simply spells out those rights and that the government can't infringe upon them. A clarification if you will.
Okay DW, your statement "They simply reaffirm rights given to us by God that the government has no authority to infringe upon." if taken literally as I did, indicates God given rights are above anything that man says and therefore man made laws are invalid. That's the way I took your statement. I misinterpreted.
I would hope the Supreme Court's ruling on the D.C. gun ban would have -- somewhat -- laid this to rest.
I think the one thing the Dems realize is that the 2nd ammendment is the 3rd rail for them. They might tinker with some junk -- for show -- but I am doubtful they are going to get very cute.
I have a Curios & Relic license. I don't have any fancy collection at all. I just have some old russian rifles, a CZ 52, and another gun or two for plinking. If you stole them and took them to a pawn shop, they wouldn't be worth a decent car payment.
But in getting the license, I have read applicable laws which are voluminous. And the various laws over the decades are quite confusing. It is riduculous what makes an assault rifle (and there have been various legislation over the decades -- some still in effect). For example, some SKS rifles are "legal" and some are not. It purely depends on when and/or where they were made.
My guess is Congress will just make the current laws more confusing for the honest person -- which will have no impact to someone intent on breaking the law. But it will make some great photo ops for some politicians. "Yes, we can"
Well, this could go under humor ... or this thread.
This is my niece (who had never shot a gun -- but wanted to), my son Joe, and me -- Christmas 2006.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3201099900360283188&ei=AS28SbG8NZKwqwL9_dT9Dg&q=redneck+mosin&hl=en
I do agree that the constitution spells out about limits for the government. I don't believe when they wrote it they thought all rights in there were from god. I don't remember anything in my religious texts about quartering government troops in times of peace. (3rd amendment) There are many other are many other clauses written in to the constitution about form of the government and relation of representation (someone mentioned the change of the senate to direct vote). These are civil rights not divine rights. Also, even in our constitution and most major religious texts, inalienable rights, even to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, may be taken away with due process.
"They simply reaffirm rights given to us by God that the government has no authority to infringe upon."
Also the notion of making what is written in the constitution as "reaffirming rights given to us by god" makes it divine. The document has changed overtime, but it is far from infallible. Counting slaves at 3/5 of a person and that even if they escaped to another state they were to be returned were rights as originally defined by the constitution. These were not god given rights.
Sorry to stray from only the second amendment.
Quote from: DW on March 14, 2009, 03:59:30 PM
With the Northern War of Aggression the central government successfully turned the tables of power to become the dominate force over the States... which in my opinion is unconstitutional.
(http://www.porscheshire.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/s-cheshire-cat-blotter-art.jpg.w300h300.jpg)
Damn Yankees!
(https://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff98/chatham1862/RebelSoldier.jpg)
Quote from: BobHHowell on March 14, 2009, 05:24:19 PM
Well, this could go under humor ... or this thread.
This is my niece (who had never shot a gun -- but wanted to), my son Joe, and me -- Christmas 2006.
By the looks of the ground someone's been having too much fun! ;D ;D ;D
"Do you mean to say that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are invalid? ",
no, just redundant. Stupid humans can't realize how to live civilized, so have to be told...again.
"Counting slaves at 3/5 of a person and that even if they escaped to another state they were to be returned were rights as originally defined by the constitution. These were not god given rights."
Not rights, perhaps, but there is plenty in Torah in regards to slavery.
God never said we had the right to speech, arms, or even freedom, for that matter, we just take it for granted. Our only truly inalienable right, is the freedom of choice. They can keep us from talking, from bearing arms, make us give quarter, but they can't make us choose anything. Our Constitution is great, or at least good, but many times simply amounts to just a load of rubbish when the powers that be get right down to it. My faith is going fast...time for bed, methinks.
arms
Oh, I am sure the founding fathers reference to "arms" was well understood to be limited to broken beer bottles.
d*
Your comment sounds like a troll trying to stir something up.
Just my take on it.
Quote from: BobHHowell on March 15, 2009, 07:11:37 AM
arms
Oh, I am sure the founding fathers reference to "arms" was well understood to be limited to broken beer bottles.
d*
Your comment sounds like a troll trying to stir something up.
Just my take on it.
Not really Bob. Keep and bear arms really refers to ALL weapons. When the Constitution was written, firearms were still inefficient weapons. They were certainly part of a persons protection, but not all. Even while hunting, men carried Hunting swords, which became popular as town weapons because they were smaller and lighter than a full size saber.
When we have developed plasma rifles, they will still be considered arms, and thus protected under the Constitution (In theory).
Despite regulation, there are still very few things we are NOT allowed to own. We just have to pay a damn tax on it.
Just for the record, while we have a LOT of different opinions, trolls are rare here...and Sparks certainly isn't one.
QuoteJust for the record, while we have a LOT of different opinions, trolls are rare here...and Sparks certainly isn't one.
Sorry for the misinterpretation.
But I do want to keep my bear arms.
(http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/9/9b/Right_To_Bear_Arms.jpg)
I can't endorse the broken beer bottles!!! We have recently had some young people here using such behavior after to much booze!!! Totally unacceptable behavior. Bearing arms is for the peace of mind and security of a nation not bozos at the bar!!! Broken beer bottles is such incredibly poor tase and stupid behavior. It is embarassing and I am so ashamed of the youngsters who choose it as a means. PArticularly when one young man is perfectly capeable of taking care of himself,a nd the other was perfectly about the same measure. Goodness boys!!! And as for the young lady, well her "victim" said he had it coming so I wont comment still poor judgement in my opinion and I would hate to see it become an accepted form of resolving disputes.