Wyoming Bill Would Nullify Obama Gun Control, Jail Feds

[piezoe]

Quote from Lucrum:

At the time it was written we had just won only a few years earlier, by force of arms, our freedom from just such a tyranny. Even if not specifically mentioned, what makes you think it's not at least implied?



"In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller U.S. (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home..."

Thank you Lucrum. Obviously, I wasn't aware of that case. That is a critical case because it disconnects the need to raise a militia from firearm ownership/ However, let us never lose sight of the fact that the Court has on extremely rare occasions reversed itself. I wish, in retrospect of course, that the court had thrown the case out, ruling that the second amendment did not pertain.

On your first point , I think you are on quite shaky ground.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from PiggyBank:

The problem for your argument kabong and piezoe is that gun ownership is a fundamental right.. as basic as your right to give your opinion without fear of consequence. It is that simple.

And the idea that the right itself is to prevent tyranny certainly has basis in the words and writings of the Founders themselves. There is nothing archaic or 'dubious' about it.

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”

- Thomas Paine

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

- Patrick Henry

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tench Coxe

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

- Thomas Jefferson

Piggy, Doesn't Jefferson have it right when he writes "... instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed?" I think that is best. But let us recognize that the probable meaning in the 18th century may be abhorrent today, in the 21st century.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from piezoe:

Piggy, Doesn't Jefferson have it right when he writes "... instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed?" I think that is best. But let us recognize that the probable meaning in the 18th century may be abhorrent today, in the 21st century.

I think...you're on shaky ground, here.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from piezoe:

Thank you Lucrum. Obviously, I wasn't aware of that case. That is a critical case because it disconnects the need to raise a militia from firearm ownership/ However, let us never lose sight of the fact that the Court has on extremely rare occasions reversed itself. I wish, in retrospect of course, that the court had thrown the case out, ruling that the second amendment did not pertain.

I don't always agree with the supreme court either, but they are the arbiter of what the constitution does and does not say.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Lucrum:

I don't always agree with the supreme court either, but they are the arbiter of what the constitution does and does not say.

But separating the need to raise a militia from the right to own and use firearms, doesn't that throw the issue back to what arms are allowed by the second amendment? And can that be legislated outside of the Constitution?

OK. Let me try to explain my thinking. If you don't separate it, then the door is wide open to anything a militia might need in the way of arms.

But apparently the Court did separate the need to raise a militia from the question of the right to "bear" arms. If you separate the issue like that, then don't you open the question of "what arms?", since they are no longer the arms that a militia would need, but just "arms' in general? Then it seems to me you are back to allowing legislation to decide what arms are legal, and what are not. That seems to be where we are today.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from piezoe:

Piggy, Doesn't Jefferson have it right when he writes "... instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed?" I think that is best. But let us recognize that the probable meaning in the 18th century may be abhorrent today, in the 21st century.

It may be considered abhorrent by some, but then we didn't live in their day.. nor make the sacrifices that they did in order to establish this nation in the first place. Tyranny is not impossible here (actually it is happening and has been for some time). What if the govt decides to restrict freedom of speech.. would you be ok with that as well? The Right to Bear Arms has a purpose and I like to think of that purpose as the insurance policy for all the rest.

Also, not to be a dick, but isn't your statement here.. that people now might consider the 2nd abhorrent, an 'invented' argument. you can obviously see that in terms of the 2nd there is nothing probable about it, we have a fundamental right to own guns and it is by design.

I personally wouldn't mind if we had some sort of mandatory training/service for all grown men, as reservists or citizen-soldiers. I'm not sure if that is legally possible for the State or Federal govts but I think it would strengthen the nation, and I think a system like the Swiss have (or had) resembles much more closely what our Founders had in mind. Also, it would create a common bond between all citizens, which doesn't exist anymore.

 

[piezoe]

I'm going to bed Piggy. Let me think about that, and get back to you.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from piezoe:

But separating the need to raise a militia from the right to own and use firearms, doesn't that throw the issue back to what arms are allowed by the second amendment?

Only if one is "stuck" in your line of thinking, I don't see how it does.

And can that be legislated outside of the Constitution?

I don't think so, but the supreme courts does.

 

[L-Kabong]

Gun ownership may be a fundamental right, but it is an archaic right which has receded in importance over time.

Other principles rank higher in the constitution than gun ownership, such as the public welfare. You could scarcely argue that the Constitution allows one to bear a nuclear arm. Limits on what arms one may bear are reasonable and defensible. The Congress could outlaw semi automatics, and should do so, and the Supreme Court would uphold it.

So as the 2nd Amendment stands now, Lucrum can have all his assault rifles but he can't take them into NYC without getting arrested or shot. And that is why he and his ilk complain about 22,000 gun regulations. They want to carry their guns anywhere they go and they don't want communities to have any say in the matter.

Quoting the concerns of Paine, Jefferson, etc just reflects their concerns. Their currency has to be judged in a contemporary light. Blind worship at the altar of the Founding Fathers - individuals who lived 250 years ago - is frankly stupid. They were a remarkable group BUT they had the foresight to recognize societies and nations change over time and that they must have the ability to structure their laws and governments as they see fit.

Jefferson also owned slaves. Whoops. Bad point. Most of you would like to re-instate slavery.

I'd like to abolish the 2nd amendment and leave the issue entirely to the states. Owning a gun may have been deemed necessary for 18th century revolutionaries, but it is hardly a necessity today.

It's high time to rid ourselves of military grade weapons in the hands of citizens. I hope Obama and the Congress passes very stringent gun control laws. And I hope you guys march on Washington with your assault rifles locked and loaded. To borrow the sentiment of Jefferson, "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" would be a good thing. In this case, let it be the tyrannical grip the NRA, and its rancid followers. It's time to deal death to the death dealers.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from L-Kabong:

Gun ownership may be a fundamental right, but it is an archaic right which has receded in importance over time.

Pure opinion.

Other principles rank higher in the constitution than gun ownership, such as the public welfare. You could scarcely argue that the Constitution allows one to bear a nuclear arm. Limits on what arms one may bear are reasonable and defensible. The Congress could outlaw semi automatics, and should do so, and the Supreme Court would uphold it.

More opinion, there is evidence on the Founders views about the public welfare. In fact, Madison has a quote that goes something like "I can't place my finger on that article of the Constitution in which the government has the right to spend the public's money on objects of benevolence." And he also points out that the 'public welfare' is defined in the Constitution.

What weapons we can own is obviously debatable but is it not reasonable that we should be able to own whatever civil servants are able to?

So as the 2nd Amendment stands now, Lucrum can have all his assault rifles but he can't take them into NYC without getting arrested or shot. And that is why he and his ilk complain about 22,000 gun regulations. They want to carry their guns anywhere they go and they don't want communities to have any say in the matter.

Quoting the concerns of Paine, Jefferson, etc just reflects their concerns. Their currency has to be judged in a contemporary light. Blind worship at the altar of the Founding Fathers - individuals who lived 250 years ago - is frankly stupid. They were a remarkable group BUT they had the foresight to recognize societies and nations change over time and that they must have the ability to structure their laws and governments as they see fit.

.. and they provided a proper way to do so along with a restrictive framework to operate in, the feds just don't give a shit, and neither do people like you. I'm not blindly in awe of the Founders, but they did establish THIS nation so their thoughts on the fundamental laws and rights are as relevant now as they were then.

Jefferson also owned slaves. Whoops. Bad point. Most of you would like to re-instate slavery.

He also freed them when he died, obviously he was aware of his hypocrisy. They didn't provide any protection for slavery and some of them worked against it. The overwhelming majority of people don't want to reinstate slavery and you know it.

I'd like to abolish the 2nd amendment and leave the issue entirely to the states. Owning a gun may have been deemed necessary for 18th century revolutionaries, but it is hardly a necessity today.

It's high time to rid ourselves of military grade weapons in the hands of citizens. I hope Obama and the Congress passes very stringent gun control laws. And I hope you guys march on Washington with your assault rifles locked and loaded. To borrow the sentiment of Jefferson, "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" would be a good thing. In this case, let it be the tyrannical grip the NRA, and its rancid followers. It's time to deal death to the death dealers.

Now you're just unhinged. You're wishing violence on innocent people because you are scared they might do something bad with their guns. You do realize it isn't just ordinary citizens that can do bad things, governments can as well. In history, is there anything that has caused more death and destruction than government.. I don't think it's even close. Trusting only our fed govt with weaponry is a sure path to oppression, to believe otherwise - is frankly stupid.

And most civilians don't own military grade weapons. The gun used in Newtown, was a CIVILIAN version of a military weapon.