You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If Obama is elected we will lose our right to own and bear Arms…
- Thread starter Dearhunter61
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If you asked for permission to do something that you already had a right to do you did, like it or not.
I'll probably regret asking this, but how do you figure I relinquished my right? Can that right be turned on and off like a water spigot? If so, by whom?
No. thats my point.
A right cant be taken away. It can be surrendered or violated.
You surrendered your right by asking permission. It then , as far as the govenment is considered, began to be thought of as a priviledge. NOW the right to bear arms has been violated by the govenment imprisoning anyone who doesnt ask permision.
RIGHTS are exercised without pre-condition.
as such our rights are being violated.
If you want to peacfully gather to protest...
get a permit.
If you want to bear arms...
get a permit.
ect ect ect.
A right cant be taken away. It can be surrendered or violated.
You surrendered your right by asking permission. It then , as far as the govenment is considered, began to be thought of as a priviledge. NOW the right to bear arms has been violated by the govenment imprisoning anyone who doesnt ask permision.
RIGHTS are exercised without pre-condition.
as such our rights are being violated.
If you want to peacfully gather to protest...
get a permit.
If you want to bear arms...
get a permit.
ect ect ect.
Stagger Lee
New member
You never had an absolute "right" to carry a pistol concealed on your person. The government is and always has been empowered to restrict individual rights in the name of the common good and that was what the founding fathers intended.
I know that it's easy to think in bumper-sticker slogans and act as if you're somehow the only one who "gets it" while the rest of us are stupid, but at the end of the day, you're still wrong.
I know that it's easy to think in bumper-sticker slogans and act as if you're somehow the only one who "gets it" while the rest of us are stupid, but at the end of the day, you're still wrong.
For several decades, govenment entities and law enforcement agencies have recognized that privileges are more easily controlled and regulated than rights. Furthermore, if they are the dispenser of a privilege, their powers and influence are enhanced.
Consequently, these public and private entities have spent several decades describing and referring to bearing arms as a "privilege." Through repetition, usage and public policy, what was not necessarily so, has more or less become accepted fact.
Im sorry that you dont get that.
It probably has alot to do with fear of punishment if you dont follow the govenments line.
So, if your state decides to do away with concealed carry will you stop?
what common good is preserved by limiting peoples carring of arms? you sure have that hook deep friend.
Consequently, these public and private entities have spent several decades describing and referring to bearing arms as a "privilege." Through repetition, usage and public policy, what was not necessarily so, has more or less become accepted fact.
Im sorry that you dont get that.
It probably has alot to do with fear of punishment if you dont follow the govenments line.
So, if your state decides to do away with concealed carry will you stop?
what common good is preserved by limiting peoples carring of arms? you sure have that hook deep friend.
A right cant be taken away. It can be surrendered or violated.
So, do I have the "right" in my state of WA to carry a fully automatic rifle with me when I go grocery shopping?
Stagger, i'm not gonna get in a pissin match with you.
I refuse to argue with proponent of Felon Disenfranchisement, which you obviously are.
So your grasp as to what is a right and what is not is sevely hindered from the outset.
As far as someone who feels the need or desire to tote an AK to the grocery store. great argument. I dont know enough about your state laws to comment. I guess it would depend upon your local DA's interprtation of United States v. Miller.
I refuse to argue with proponent of Felon Disenfranchisement, which you obviously are.
So your grasp as to what is a right and what is not is sevely hindered from the outset.
As far as someone who feels the need or desire to tote an AK to the grocery store. great argument. I dont know enough about your state laws to comment. I guess it would depend upon your local DA's interprtation of United States v. Miller.
Dearhunter61
New member
toybox99615
Perhaps I am showing my colors as have you....But I believe that abortion is simply murder. I understand you have a different view and as the law of the land states today it is ok to murder a child this way. This is a fundemental belief so you and I would be wasting one anothers time trying to change the others opinion on this. I understand and have compassion for rape/incest victims but would say that today in this country there is a remedy in place for this already if the person violated goes to the hospital quick enough that could avoid this...and before you try to make the argument that what if due to incest the person could not get there...well how could they then get there to abort and not there to address it sooner? Also as far as the health of the mother...everything I have seen and read has indicated that except in the most servere cases of which based again on info I have read the mother can be protected as well as the baby. The only real reason today to abort a baby is for the convienence of the mother. This to me is morally reprehesible. Kill a baby for the convienence of the mother....? There is no argument you can make to justify this to me. The mother can ALWAYS give the child up for adoption. If the democratic party wants to adopt the stance of only in the case of the health of the mother, meaning to have the baby risks the death of the mother, then why don't they present this....? It is always about the womens rights to her body...but what about the rights of the father? I know that if the mother goes through with the pregnancy and has the child they sure want to make sure the father pays the bills...To me this is a contradiction....But I digress bottom line this is immorral. Nuff said.
As far as "School Prayer" most Christians I know are actually opposed to this...why? Because the religious training of their children should be done at home not at school and they do not want their very impressionable children to have someone else's beliefs put upon their children before they are old enough to understand what is being told to them. BUT I do not see anything wrong with having a moment of silence...as to what one does with this time is up to each.
And as far as what is in books I also think the only area we are really talking about is school. And this goes to children being exposed to stuff that is totally inappropriate for them based on our beliefs. So if once they are adults although we as parents are concerned with what our children do etc...WE, at least ME does not try to control them and most of the parents I know that share my beliefs feel the same way.
It is true there are a few fanatics out there that want to legislate religion...BUT they are in the minority.
One of the BIGGEST misunderstandings in our constitution is about state and religion. It is not about seperating religion from our every day lives and therefore our government etc....it was written in our Constitution to prevent a Religious State! Like England had with the Church of England. It was never intended to keep religion out of our daily activities. If you are truly religious this is something that is impossible to do. But again it does not have to be at your neighbors expense and I certainly do not try to put upon my neighbors my beliefs. Will I share them? sure but only if the neighbor is interested in hearing.
Perhaps the biggest issue we have here is communication or the effective comunication of our beliefs? Perhaps not....
Perhaps I am showing my colors as have you....But I believe that abortion is simply murder. I understand you have a different view and as the law of the land states today it is ok to murder a child this way. This is a fundemental belief so you and I would be wasting one anothers time trying to change the others opinion on this. I understand and have compassion for rape/incest victims but would say that today in this country there is a remedy in place for this already if the person violated goes to the hospital quick enough that could avoid this...and before you try to make the argument that what if due to incest the person could not get there...well how could they then get there to abort and not there to address it sooner? Also as far as the health of the mother...everything I have seen and read has indicated that except in the most servere cases of which based again on info I have read the mother can be protected as well as the baby. The only real reason today to abort a baby is for the convienence of the mother. This to me is morally reprehesible. Kill a baby for the convienence of the mother....? There is no argument you can make to justify this to me. The mother can ALWAYS give the child up for adoption. If the democratic party wants to adopt the stance of only in the case of the health of the mother, meaning to have the baby risks the death of the mother, then why don't they present this....? It is always about the womens rights to her body...but what about the rights of the father? I know that if the mother goes through with the pregnancy and has the child they sure want to make sure the father pays the bills...To me this is a contradiction....But I digress bottom line this is immorral. Nuff said.
As far as "School Prayer" most Christians I know are actually opposed to this...why? Because the religious training of their children should be done at home not at school and they do not want their very impressionable children to have someone else's beliefs put upon their children before they are old enough to understand what is being told to them. BUT I do not see anything wrong with having a moment of silence...as to what one does with this time is up to each.
And as far as what is in books I also think the only area we are really talking about is school. And this goes to children being exposed to stuff that is totally inappropriate for them based on our beliefs. So if once they are adults although we as parents are concerned with what our children do etc...WE, at least ME does not try to control them and most of the parents I know that share my beliefs feel the same way.
It is true there are a few fanatics out there that want to legislate religion...BUT they are in the minority.
One of the BIGGEST misunderstandings in our constitution is about state and religion. It is not about seperating religion from our every day lives and therefore our government etc....it was written in our Constitution to prevent a Religious State! Like England had with the Church of England. It was never intended to keep religion out of our daily activities. If you are truly religious this is something that is impossible to do. But again it does not have to be at your neighbors expense and I certainly do not try to put upon my neighbors my beliefs. Will I share them? sure but only if the neighbor is interested in hearing.
Perhaps the biggest issue we have here is communication or the effective comunication of our beliefs? Perhaps not....
As far as someone who feels the need or desire to tote an AK to the grocery store. great argument. I dont know enough about your state laws to comment.
It shouldn't matter, according to you. Isn't it my "right" to carry that fully automatic weapon no matter where I live?
And it ends with the regulation of the community towards your exercising it. Just like yelling "FIRE".
So, if I don't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre because government says it is illegal to do so, have I "relinquished" my right to further free speech?
I can always yell "FIRE" when there is one.
Ring' is correct.
Am I a different "citizen" in CA? Should that "community" be able to regulate me like they would zone an adult bookstore?
Heller anyone?
Ring' is correct.
Is it the "community" or the town or the city or the county or the state or the region or the nation that makes the call? I can carry my gun in Kennesaw, GA but can't have it in Hollywood, CA?A right cant be taken away. It can be surrendered or violated.
You surrendered your right by asking permission. It then , as far as the govenment is considered, began to be thought of as a priviledge. NOW the right to bear arms has been violated by the govenment imprisoning anyone who doesnt ask permision.
Am I a different "citizen" in CA? Should that "community" be able to regulate me like they would zone an adult bookstore?
Heller anyone?
Dearhunter61
New member
Rights vs Privileges
I think I understand boths points of view but as far back as I can remember the only way you pack iron and do so concealed was if you were traveling across multiple counties, at least here in Texas, or if you were carrying money to the bank etc. I do not ever remember it being ok to carry a concealed weapon otherwise...perhaps someone that knows more about this than I can weigh in?
I think I understand boths points of view but as far back as I can remember the only way you pack iron and do so concealed was if you were traveling across multiple counties, at least here in Texas, or if you were carrying money to the bank etc. I do not ever remember it being ok to carry a concealed weapon otherwise...perhaps someone that knows more about this than I can weigh in?
Everyone has the right to carry without the precondition to ask for a govenments permission.
That doesnt mean you wont have to pay the govenments penalty if caught.
the problem is that people think they will be judged according to the legal position of thier carry if they ever use lethal force.
To me if i have to use lethal force, i dont care if I end up w/ a CCW charge.
That doesnt mean you wont have to pay the govenments penalty if caught.
the problem is that people think they will be judged according to the legal position of thier carry if they ever use lethal force.
To me if i have to use lethal force, i dont care if I end up w/ a CCW charge.
Dearhunter61
New member
Ringworm
I think you have made your point but with all honesty I am not sure it makes much sense to people to "have the right to carry" which "the governement can not take away" yet when if you do carry and you get "caught" by the police will end up with you in the hokey pokey. Maybe I am missing something here but does this make much sense to anyone?
I think you have made your point but with all honesty I am not sure it makes much sense to people to "have the right to carry" which "the governement can not take away" yet when if you do carry and you get "caught" by the police will end up with you in the hokey pokey. Maybe I am missing something here but does this make much sense to anyone?
Dearhunter61
New member
Ringworm
I do not think people fear being judged this way as much as they fear being prosecuted this way...
I do not think people fear being judged this way as much as they fear being prosecuted this way...
Dearhunter61
New member
Here is the article linked above...interesting reading...
Which supports what I said in the initial thread....
In the LJW article entitled, "Obama Explains Gun Stance"
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/sep/06/obama_explains_gun_stance/
the apologists for Barack Hussein Obama attempt to whitewash his previously stated positions on gun control in the USA.
Barack Hussein Obama has clearly defined his anti-gun stance on more than one occasion and has repeatedly pronounced his efforts to restrict the ability of the ordinary citizen to protect him/her self through the use of firearms.
Barack Hussein Obama has publicly proclaimed his opposition to the carrying of concealed weapons by law abiding citizens.
Barack Hussein Obama has said that he would restrict the sales of firearms in inner city areas, thus removing responsibility from the inner-city perpetrators of firearms crimes and placing it on law abiding firearms dealers and other law abiding private citizens.
Barack Hussein Obama has said that he wants to ban all semi-automatic rifles and handguns, as well is re-implement the flawed so-called "Assault Weapons" ban, telling us that such weapons are involved in a "disproportionate number of crimes", when even by the government's own statistics, such a statement is entirely false!
In typical Pseudo-liberal/Neo-socialist fashion, Barack Hussein Obama seeks to perpetuate the myth, no; the lie, that inner-city violence is precipitated by the firearm, rather than by the immoral, heartless and criminal thugs who add to the statistics!
Barack Hussein Obama on gun cnontrol (With citations!):
On concealed weapons:
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_560181.html
Of course, he offers no evidence to support this absurd claim!
On the "Assault Weapons" ban:
"35. Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of..
...b. assault weapons?
Yes.
c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?
I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html
This position despite the facts!
The TRUTH of the "Assault Weapons" myth:
"According to a 1997 compilation of statistics from the years 1980-1994, from 48 metropolitan police departments, "assault weapons" were used, nationwide, in only 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and only 0.25% of all violent crime, BEFORE the enactment of any state or national "assault weapons" ban. (Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns,” 1997)"
"A study done by the Department of Justice in 2006 (two years after the expiration of the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban) found no instances of police officers being killed with "assault weapons" that year. (U.S. Department of Justice, "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers", August 2006)
According to the Miami Herald (January 14, 2008), only 1.4% of police officers fatally shot in the line of duty in 2007 were shot with “assault weapons.”
Most of these "high-powered" guns labeled as "assault weapons" actually fire significantly smaller, less powerful rounds (bullets) than most hunting rifles."
And what about the frog and the scorpion?
Remember the tale wrongly attributed to Aesop?
"The story is about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown as well. The frog then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming the two of them. When asked why, the scorpion explains, "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."
Barack Hussein Obama has not changed his thoughts on gun control; he is merely disguising them to garner support.
Although not a Christian, I do like to borrow the occasional quote or bit of wisdom from the seminal document of that religion and today I'm going to remind you about the leopard and his spots:
Jeremiah 13:23 (King James Version):
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? "
Barack Hussein Obama has not changed but he wants desperately for you to believe that he has!
Which supports what I said in the initial thread....
In the LJW article entitled, "Obama Explains Gun Stance"
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/sep/06/obama_explains_gun_stance/
the apologists for Barack Hussein Obama attempt to whitewash his previously stated positions on gun control in the USA.
Barack Hussein Obama has clearly defined his anti-gun stance on more than one occasion and has repeatedly pronounced his efforts to restrict the ability of the ordinary citizen to protect him/her self through the use of firearms.
Barack Hussein Obama has publicly proclaimed his opposition to the carrying of concealed weapons by law abiding citizens.
Barack Hussein Obama has said that he would restrict the sales of firearms in inner city areas, thus removing responsibility from the inner-city perpetrators of firearms crimes and placing it on law abiding firearms dealers and other law abiding private citizens.
Barack Hussein Obama has said that he wants to ban all semi-automatic rifles and handguns, as well is re-implement the flawed so-called "Assault Weapons" ban, telling us that such weapons are involved in a "disproportionate number of crimes", when even by the government's own statistics, such a statement is entirely false!
In typical Pseudo-liberal/Neo-socialist fashion, Barack Hussein Obama seeks to perpetuate the myth, no; the lie, that inner-city violence is precipitated by the firearm, rather than by the immoral, heartless and criminal thugs who add to the statistics!
Barack Hussein Obama on gun cnontrol (With citations!):
On concealed weapons:
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_560181.html
Of course, he offers no evidence to support this absurd claim!
On the "Assault Weapons" ban:
"35. Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of..
...b. assault weapons?
Yes.
c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?
I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html
This position despite the facts!
The TRUTH of the "Assault Weapons" myth:
"According to a 1997 compilation of statistics from the years 1980-1994, from 48 metropolitan police departments, "assault weapons" were used, nationwide, in only 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and only 0.25% of all violent crime, BEFORE the enactment of any state or national "assault weapons" ban. (Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns,” 1997)"
"A study done by the Department of Justice in 2006 (two years after the expiration of the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban) found no instances of police officers being killed with "assault weapons" that year. (U.S. Department of Justice, "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers", August 2006)
According to the Miami Herald (January 14, 2008), only 1.4% of police officers fatally shot in the line of duty in 2007 were shot with “assault weapons.”
Most of these "high-powered" guns labeled as "assault weapons" actually fire significantly smaller, less powerful rounds (bullets) than most hunting rifles."
And what about the frog and the scorpion?
Remember the tale wrongly attributed to Aesop?
"The story is about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown as well. The frog then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming the two of them. When asked why, the scorpion explains, "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."
Barack Hussein Obama has not changed his thoughts on gun control; he is merely disguising them to garner support.
Although not a Christian, I do like to borrow the occasional quote or bit of wisdom from the seminal document of that religion and today I'm going to remind you about the leopard and his spots:
Jeremiah 13:23 (King James Version):
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? "
Barack Hussein Obama has not changed but he wants desperately for you to believe that he has!
would anyone argue that the right to assemble is not a right?
ANYONE?
would anyone say that when the founding fathers said "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." that they NEVER foresaw that govenrmnet would require people to get a permit first?
These are NOW and always have been RIGHTS! they are being violated. That doesnt change the FACT that they are still rights.
I dont care if some of you grasp it or not. NO ONE is required to obey an unconstitutional law.
ANYONE?
would anyone say that when the founding fathers said "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." that they NEVER foresaw that govenrmnet would require people to get a permit first?
These are NOW and always have been RIGHTS! they are being violated. That doesnt change the FACT that they are still rights.
I dont care if some of you grasp it or not. NO ONE is required to obey an unconstitutional law.
Dearhunter61
New member
Ringworm...I still do not disagree with anything you are saying...but I have one question for you...other than pointing this out here WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT! You are obviously passionate about this so perhaps it is something you can start working with the locals and on up to change? Or do you not think that is what you should do?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.