crickets...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Who exactly is empowered to decide that certain clauses of the Constitution have reached an expiration date and get thrown in the dumpster?

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed. The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test. Should wealthy people be able to buy a nuke?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please shut up

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

please shut up

If you can show me that what I said is wrong, I will admit you are right and I was wrong, and then I will shut up.

It's embarrassing to me when people on my side act like these rights are either perfectly absolute, or they don't exist at all. Let the liberals wallow in that kind of extremism, we are supposed to be the home of common sense.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If you can show me that what I said is wrong, I will admit you are right and I was wrong, and then I will shut up.

your entire "statement of fact(s)" is based on something that you stumbled across in a google search that you think supports whatever point you are attempting to make...and so you keep repeating it no matter how many times it's pointed out that you are in error....it's very odd behavior....I'm confident that you've never actually read anything that Jefferson and Madison said and wrote regarding the Constitution, Bill of Rights, nature of rights, States rights, freedom, liberty, role of government...hint ....hint...it's voluminous...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

your entire "statement of fact(s)" is based on something that you stumbled across in a google search that you think supports whatever point you are attempting to make...and so you keep repeating it no matter how many times it's pointed out that you are in error....it's very odd behavior....I'm confident that you've never actually read anything that Jefferson and Madison said and wrote regarding the Constitution, Bill of Rights, nature of rights, States rights, freedom, liberty, role of government...hint ....hint...it's voluminous...

No, see, you keep saying again and again that I am in error. That doesn't make it so. Some of the founding fathers were fine with banning guns on campus. I therefore conclude that they never intended the second amendment be absolute. Along the same lines, I have freedom of speech, but I cannot threaten someone or yell "fire", which is (I think) further evidence that limitations on the bill of rights, are not necessarily unconstitutional. I think I make a compelling case. Telling me to shut up, isn't refuting what I am saying. That's what liberals do when they have no cards to play.

[Got Stripers]

Like I said before I have no problem with guns, yes I have issues as I'm sure many do, of illegal handguns getting into the wrong hands; but not legal sale of guns to anyone who can qualify. I'm glad there was a Texan with a handgun ready to stop that nut job from doing more damage then he already had. Same goes for rifles, shotguns and anything else needed to pursue your passion for hunting and shooting.

If we take the argument that you should be able to arm yourself in order to form a militia to defend or defeat a tyrannical government, I think the list needs to include far more than your over the gun counter AR rifle. First the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population might be really good stuff for that next science fiction movie, but that's all it is fiction. Again, if you feel that scenario is actually possible in today's society, I think you have been wearing that foil hat far too long. But lets assume for a minute that it actually a possibility, what percentage of the civilian population are armed and then you have to ask; what percentage of those people will take up arms against the military? Then taking this bizarre scenario further, we have X number of willing civilian militia armed with guns, rifles, shotguns and a smaller percentage with AR style assault rifles, all going against 4 branches of the military; all controlled of course by some mythical leader with unreal power to control and persuade the leaders of the military this is what needs to happen to form the new world order.

WOW, I can't wait for the book and then the movie, I think it's going to be a dynamic read and exciting movie

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Again, if you feel that scenario is actually possible in today's society, I think you have been wearing that foil hat far too long.

I wonder how many times this has been supposed through human history

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I'm glad there was a Texan with a handgun ready to stop that nut job from doing more damage then he already had.

I going to guess you got that from one of the left leaning media channels like CNN or MSNBC etc.
As already corrected by detbuch, it was an AR-15 rifle.
Thank God he did not have a handgun or he may have wound up dead also.


Stop wasting energy with wanting reactionary gun laws about this and that since we already have too many already, start working towards those term limits. I am all ears if anyone has and solutions. It will take too long to get enough Libertarians elected so something needs to happen soon.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

what percentage of the civilian population are armed

Numbers of gun owners range from 65 to 80 million. With an adult population of 250,000,000 that gives us a crude percentage of 26% - 32%.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

and then you have to ask; what percentage of those people will take up arms against the military?

Before the 1775 Revolution it was said that 3% were committed to oust the British. I think it would be higher today and possibly much higher, depending on the actions of government.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Then taking this bizarre scenario further, we have X number of willing civilian militia armed with guns, rifles, shotguns and a smaller percentage with AR style assault rifles, all going against 4 branches of the military; all controlled of course by some mythical leader with unreal power to control and persuade the leaders of the military this is what needs to happen to form the new world order.

Yeah, that's the idea. It hasn't changed at all from 1788 when Madison laid out the principle in the Federalist 46. Madison recognized that the biggest standing army that could be supported amounted to just 1% of the nation's population (3 million people at the time = 30,000 troops).

Madison said that if those troops "entirely at the devotion of the federal government" ever acted against the liberties of the citizen, those troops would be "opposed" by 500,000 armed citizens -- a ratio of 17 citizens "with arms in their hands" opposing each soldier.

Today the ratio's are pretty much in alignment . . . 320 million total population, just under 3 million active duty and reserve "standing army" and say 75 million citizens with arms in their hands. That gives us a ratio of 25 armed citizens vs each soldier in modern times.

IMNSHO, all the 2nd Amendment was intended to do was preserve this beneficial numerical superiority of armed citizens vs "standing army" and to ensure that they had useful weapons if the ugly scenario ever materialized . . . And it is clear that by how Madison framed the scenario, that AR's and other military style guns are indisputably protected arms.

Just for info's sake, here's Madison's exposition (paragraph breaks added):

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands . . . It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . .

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

James Madison, Federalist 46

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed. The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test. Should wealthy people be able to buy a nuke?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The founders, including Madison and Jefferson who were reputed to be at the meeting which banned guns from their campus, considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights. Common sense had nothing to do with it.

As far as nukes would have gone, the Founders would not have given wealthy people, or any other class of people or individuals, the right to destroy the property of others in times of peace. In times of war, all bets were probably off.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The founders, including Madison and Jefferson who were reputed to be at the meeting which banned guns from their campus, considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights. Common sense had nothing to do with it.

As far as nukes would have gone, the Founders would not have given wealthy people, or any other class of people or individuals, the right to destroy the property of others in times of peace. In times of war, all bets were probably off.

"considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights"

Fine, let the states do it, I agree with you there 100%. My point was, if states impose limits, that's not necessarily trampling upon anyone's constitutional rights.

"Common sense had nothing to do with it."

Common sense is why they thought the campus ban was a good idea.

We also need to make sure any proposed laws, don't make it impossible for people like the hero who lived across the street from the church, to legally obtain firearms. What we don't want, is a scenario where bad guys have guns and good guys don't. That citizen possibly saved a lot of lives.

In my humble opinion, we'd be better off if bump stocks and high capacity magazines, had never been made available to the public. Now that they are out there, I don't know how you ever get that horse back into the barn. But I wish we could do it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights"

Fine, let the states do it, I agree with you there 100%. My point was, if states impose limits, that's not necessarily trampling upon anyone's constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court seems to have imposed limits on how far the states can impose limits.

"Common sense had nothing to do with it."

Common sense is why they thought the campus ban was a good idea.

I was referring to the Founders writing of the Bill of Rights. Common sense wasn't what drove them to include that Bill. It was the uncommon foresight to protect the people from tyranny.

We also need to make sure any proposed laws, don't make it impossible for people like the hero who lived across the street from the church, to legally obtain firearms.

He used an AR 15 "assault weapon." It takes comparable firepower to fight back against those who have such firepower. Think "reason for the 2A . . . oh and its not about hunting or sport shooting."

What we don't want, is a scenario where bad guys have guns and good guys don't. That citizen possibly saved a lot of lives.

In my humble opinion, we'd be better off if bump stocks and high capacity magazines, had never been made available to the public. Now that they are out there, I don't know how you ever get that horse back into the barn. But I wish we could do it.

One way to do it is to totally control society and all those who people it. Huxley showed a way to do that in his Brave New World.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

One way to do it is to totally control society and all those who people it. Huxley showed a way to do that in his Brave New World.

"One way to do it is to totally control society and all those who people it. "

Yes that's one way. It's also a silly caricature of what people like me are actually saying. I'm pretty sure I'm not in favor of totalitarianism. Again, it's not necessarily one extreme or the other, and you rarely resort to such tactics. Banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines, seriously seems Orwellian to you? Not to me.

"The Supreme Court seems to have imposed limits on how far the states can impose limits."

Absolutely. And I want people in the mold of Scalia, deciding what limits are OK, and what is going too far. All I'm talking about, are the tools that make mass murder easier. It's sad to me that we (as a nation) can't come close to an agreement on that.

"He used an AR 15 "assault weapon." It takes comparable firepower to fight back against those who have such firepower."

We need to prevent them from having such easy access to that firepower, to begin with. That's one of the points of this.

In this case, it looks like we have a sufficient law in place, but the idiots in the Air Force didn't enforce it the way they were supposed to. From what I understand, the assault that got him discharged (he assaulted a baby and his wife) should have precluded him from getting any kind of firearm. We dropped the ball, and paid a massive price.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In this case, it looks like we have a sufficient law in place, but the idiots in the Air Force didn't enforce it the way they were supposed to. From what I understand, the assault that got him discharged (he assaulted a baby and his wife) should have precluded him from getting any kind of firearm. We dropped the ball, and paid a massive price.

so we should legislate more opportunities to drop the ball?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

so we should legislate more opportunities to drop the ball?

See, you're doing it again, you are making the argument that unless a law is perfect, it serves no purpose. I think that argument is flawed.

OJ got away with murder, because the system failed in spectacular fashion. So because such laws are not fool-proof, we should do away with laws making it illegal to stab people to death?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And I want people in the mold of Scalia, deciding what limits are OK, and what is going too far.

Scalia isn't the greatest RKBA / 2ndA authority. Heller should have been 3 pages long, simply relying on SCOTUS precedent and sparing us the useless and dangerous textual analysis. You keep harping on the fact that the RKBA isn't absolute but you forget that, as Scalia did say correctly, "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table".

Just because we agree the right isn't absolute does not mean that I must agree that all gun control propositions are "on the table".

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

All I'm talking about, are the tools that make mass murder easier. It's sad to me that we (as a nation) can't come close to an agreement on that.

And we never will when gun control supporters refuse to consider what can legally be done when making their demands of what they want to be done.

Why should gun rights people even acknowledge such foolishness, let alone engage in a "conversation" about ideas that are baldly unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We need to prevent them from having such easy access to that firepower, to begin with. That's one of the points of this.

And as we have seen, there were laws and regulations in force that would have frustrated his legal acquisition of guns but the people entrusted and charged with making the laws work didn't do their jobs . . . And your answer is to give these incompetent jackasses more power?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed.

The founders / framers believed to their very core that the federal government only possessed the very limited and specifically delegated powers that the people granted to it via the Constitution. Our rights were considered the "great residuum" of everything NOT conferred to government.

There is no fluid, undefined power to restrain rights, even for the lofty goal of "public safety". Our rights are, "exceptions of powers not granted", interests that were held out from the view / influence / control of government, they are not within the grasp of government.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test.

The standard of "constitutionality" is not that the restriction is deemed to violate some interpretation of what a right is . . . What makes a law unconstitutional is that it was enacted by the legislature operating outside the powers granted to it.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Should wealthy people be able to buy a nuke?

Again, the Constitution is a charter of conferred powers. Those interests that "We the People" have surrendered control over we can not claim as a right. The power to acquire, maintain and deploy the weapons of indiscriminate warfare was conferred to the federal government through the warmaking clauses. Neither the people or the states can claim any power / right to those weapons.

There is no claimable right to own NBC WMDs or fighter jets or missiles -- for at least as long as the people consent to be governed.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If you can show me that what I said is wrong, I will admit you are right and I was wrong, and then I will shut up.

You have had the constitutional principle and the law explained to you multiple times and you persist making this profoundly erroneous point. I have no doubt you will continue on this path.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Fine, let the states do it, I agree with you there 100%. My point was, if states impose limits, that's not necessarily trampling upon anyone's constitutional rights.

Of course it is.

We already experimented with the idea of states having unfettered powers to write gun control laws and in 1868 an Amendment was added to the Constitution, it said:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

14th Amendment

Until 2010, the 2nd Amendment was not held to be incorporated under the 14th Amendment. In 2010 the right to arms was held to be a fundamental right and enforceable upon the states.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We also need to make sure any proposed laws, don't make it impossible for people like the hero who lived across the street from the church, to legally obtain firearms.

Well, the fact is he responded and shot the murderer with a modern AR platform rifle with an extended magazine, so I'm not sure how you reconcile the above statement with your past statements with the facts of this incident . . . I'll just say my opinion is that they are irreconcilable.