So what in the phrase, "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you. You seem to be happy with the prospect of dumping our written Constitution and relying upon the good will of the Justices on SCOTUS. No thank you. A dictatorship of the Judiciary is still a dictatorship. If you read much of what the Founders wrote (which I assume is zero since you apparently don't think they were all that special) you would know that this facade of the 2nd Amendment having to do only with self protection is BS. Our Founders felt it was important that the people should be able to compete with troops that might be used to enslave us. They weren't big on the idea of a standing army anyway. They wanted us to have the ability to throw off our government if it became destructive of our rights and liberties. So if that is the case, do you really think they intended to limit us to muzzleloaders?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns - FoxNews.com
- Thread starter right winger
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
So what in the phrase, "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you. You seem to be happy with the prospect of dumping our written Constitution and relying upon the good will of the Justices on SCOTUS. No thank you. A dictatorship of the Judiciary is still a dictatorship. If you read much of what the Founders wrote (which I assume is zero since you apparently don't think they were all that special) you would know that this facade of the 2nd Amendment having to do only with self protection is BS. Our Founders felt it was important that the people should be able to compete with troops that might be used to enslave us. They weren't big on the idea of a standing army anyway. They wanted us to have the ability to throw off our government if it became destructive of our rights and liberties. So if that is the case, do you really think they intended to limit us to muzzleloaders?
Well, in the first place, a general term like "libtard", not applied to any specific person has so far been acceptable. I say "so far" because I have little doubt that now, someone will come along and attempt to test the limit of that and see what new rule they can cause to be created and applied to the rest of INGO's members.
As for the rest, the 2A was written specifically and for a reason. The Founders and the Framers had just fought a war against the best-trained army the world had yet seen and won, yet they were distrustful of standing armies in peacetime. They would never have countenanced restrictions on what the People were "allowed" to possess while giving a free hand to the central government. Recall that the cannon (analogous to field artillery pieces) and the ships (compare to such things as battleships, fighter aircraft, and/or tanks)were privately owned by individuals; the government had not had time to begin making such things nor had they begun extorting money from the people to pay for it. Try to own the modern-day counterparts to those items today, in the same condition as the cannon and ships were at the time: Fully armed.
The $200 tax on firearm suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, "destructive devices", and automatic firearms was initially set at that number in 1934 and has not changed since then. Keep in mind that in 1934, $200 was an exorbitant sum of money, set high to price those items far out of the reach of ordinary citizens. It's said that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and this is proof of it. Further, IIRC, suppressors were originally not part of the NFA; rather they were added in in exchange, to keep handguns accessible to the people.
Keep in mind the real reason for the 2A: It was enacted and ratified as a last-resort "reset button" for the government. How does it make sense to have the peoples' last resort, their "doomsday provision" neutered and continually weakened by the very entity it is designed to protect against? I'm sure the lion would love to have some provision for hobbling the antelope, but it just ain't so.
No, the 27 words of the 2A do not say that the people may have everything the gov't has. Those 27 words say that the right shall not be infringed. Not "a little bit", not "just for this", not "well, because";
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The intent was that that and every other right of the people would be placed beyond the reach of the central government to affect in the slightest. In light of the 10A and the fact that the 2A does not specify the Congress as the agent of infringement, it seems to me that that was a power that was categorically and specifically forbidden to not only the federal government but also to that of each of the several states.
There is no justification at all, none whatsoever, for criminalizing the mere possession of an object.
Mr. Breyer has been to school. He is an educated man. He's been appointed and confirmed to the highest Court in the land and indeed, the only one specifically mentioned in the Constitution. I don't dispute his intelligence. His morals, his ethics, and his dedication to the principles and the document he swore on a bible to uphold, however, seem to have been found to be lacking... or perhaps absent is a better word.
I respect his position. I find the apparent values of the man occupying that position contemptible.
Blessings,
Bill
Actually most of the Weapons owned by the Individuals of that time frame were Military Grade Weapons...
I listened to what the guy was saying as long as I could stand it yesterday. I started yelling at the television and had to just quit.
This so-called judge has jumped the line between intellectual dishonesty and outright lying. I couldn't believe it when he tried to claim that at the time of the writing of the Consitution it was not to be considered an individual right. He even did the old canard about that if you like target shooting, you can just go somewhere where it's legal as if the 2nd Amendment was about recreational shooting. One would believe that a US Supreme Court Justice would at least be a little slicker, but he's like a poster child for the Brady Campaign and a bold-faced liar.
And, we're stuck with him for the rest of his life.
That is why electing Obama was such a horribly dangerous thing. Most of his other attempts to destroy America could conceivably be reversed, but not this kind of crap.
Hey, the founding fathers didn't anticipate the telegraph, the radio, television, cellular phones, internet, photocopy machines, loud speakers, video recordings, audio recordings, typewriters, fiber optics . . . so clearly the 1st Amendment isn't applicable to them, right?
ghostinthewood
Sharpshooter
BoldWell, in the first place, a general term like "libtard", not applied to any specific person has so far been acceptable. I say "so far" because I have little doubt that now, someone will come along and attempt to test the limit of that and see what new rule they can cause to be created and applied to the rest of INGO's members.
I feel it'll be a short time since I've started posting here. =o
As for the rest, the 2A was written specifically and for a reason. The Founders and the Framers had just fought a war against the best-trained army the world had yet seen and won, yet they were distrustful of standing armies in peacetime. They would never have countenanced restrictions on what the People were "allowed" to possess while giving a free hand to the central government. Recall that the cannon (analogous to field artillery pieces) and the ships (compare to such things as battleships, fighter aircraft, and/or tanks)were privately owned by individuals; the government had not had time to begin making such things nor had they begun extorting money from the people to pay for it. Try to own the modern-day counterparts to those items today, in the same condition as the cannon and ships were at the time: Fully armed.
You know what, this is an interesting argument. However, I still disagree. At the time, the government was breaking off of another government. I think its a no brainer that most of them were owned privately. I would also take a shot in the dark and say that relative to the people that owned them, the counterparts today are more expensive.
The $200 tax on firearm suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, "destructive devices", and automatic firearms was initially set at that number in 1934 and has not changed since then. Keep in mind that in 1934, $200 was an exorbitant sum of money, set high to price those items far out of the reach of ordinary citizens. It's said that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and this is proof of it. Further, IIRC, suppressors were originally not part of the NFA; rather they were added in in exchange, to keep handguns accessible to the people.
Like I said earlier, the tax doesn't sit well with me but I dont think it's absurd. In '34, I'd agree it'd be absurd.
Keep in mind the real reason for the 2A: It was enacted and ratified as a last-resort "reset button" for the government. How does it make sense to have the peoples' last resort, their "doomsday provision" neutered and continually weakened by the very entity it is designed to protect against? I'm sure the lion would love to have some provision for hobbling the antelope, but it just ain't so.
Aye, this is never a fun argument... I dont think that'll happen any time soon. Most people call me naive, I call them paranoid. Its back and forth and no one is right because we have to wait for something to happen before one argument is right. I understand the concern but I think dont think there is as much emphasis on it today as there used to be. Governments are relatively more stable nowadays. Of course, that statement leads to other arguments and we still end up at nobody being right until something happens...
No, the 27 words of the 2A do not say that the people may have everything the gov't has. Those 27 words say that the right shall not be infringed. Not "a little bit", not "just for this", not "well, because";
Whether you agree with it or not, all of the Rights in the Bill have had exceptions or provisions to them.
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
See, they don't say fully automatic arms. ¬_¬
The intent was that that and every other right of the people would be placed beyond the reach of the central government to affect in the slightest. In light of the 10A and the fact that the 2A does not specify the Congress as the agent of infringement, it seems to me that that was a power that was categorically and specifically forbidden to not only the federal government but also to that of each of the several states.
I think thats reasonable. Selective Incorporation? =p
There is no justification at all, none whatsoever, for criminalizing the mere possession of an object.
IDK how I feel about this. I would think this would turn in to a topic about drugs and not so much about the 2A. Another day? =p
Mr. Breyer has been to school. He is an educated man. He's been appointed and confirmed to the highest Court in the land and indeed, the only one specifically mentioned in the Constitution. I don't dispute his intelligence. His morals, his ethics, and his dedication to the principles and the document he swore on a bible to uphold, however, seem to have been found to be lacking... or perhaps absent is a better word.
A reasonable criticism without name calling or claiming someone is evil?
I respect his position. I find the apparent values of the man occupying that position contemptible.
I still agree with this, I just dont agree as strongly as others. =p
Blessings,
Bill
FCC
E5RANGER375
Shooter
The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
it doesn't get more clear than that to me, a regular guy. And thats the way the founding documents were written, is for people like farmers and shop keepers of the time to understand (regular people, not lawyers and the elite). By the government charging outrageous taxes and by requiring background checks ect, that to ME a regular guy, IS infringing on my right to keep and bear arms. and the declaration of independence explains how to fix it!
Last edited:
E5RANGER375
Shooter
no actualy the 2nd amendment was written and rattified after the war was over, and we were a free country.
ghostinthewood
Sharpshooter
... I know this but they just won their independence...
Just as a matter of procedure, it really, really helps if you break out of the other person's quotes when you reply. You can do that by typing
[noparse][/quote](your comment here)
[noparse][/quote](your comment here)
[/noparse]
obviously replacing the part in parentheses with your comment. That, BTW, is the reverse of what happens when you click theicon. I'll break yours out of my post, then go on. I think you'll agree it's easier to follow. OK, back to your regularly-scheduled INGO, already in progress.
I hope that doesn't mean you'll be the one doing it. More than that, I hope you're mistaken. I've quoted before a phrase a guy I used to work with was told by one of his superiors in the USAF: "Don't make me do my job. My job is to make sure you do your job. If you do it without me having to give orders and such, we're both a lot happier." (that's a paraphrase, not a direct quote, BTW)I feel it'll be a short time since I've started posting here. =oWell, in the first place, a general term like "libtard", not applied to any specific person has so far been acceptable. I say "so far" because I have little doubt that now, someone will come along and attempt to test the limit of that and see what new rule they can cause to be created and applied to the rest of INGO's members.
You're free to disagree. The point about expense is irrelevant; peoples' rights do not depend on the size of their wallets. Do you think that Warren Buffett or Bill Gates should be able to have those very-expensive and very lethal toys? They can certainly afford them. Keep in mind as well that if more people were buying them, the costs would diminish as well due to supply and demand. FTR, I believe that if you can afford it, yes, you should not be restricted from purchasing it. In addition and of greater importance, the people at the time of the revolution owned those expensive items of military hardware and yet we hear no stories of acts of terror committed with them. There were what would be called "terrorist" acts, yes, but most of them were done unarmed. Reference such things as Paul Revere's midnight ride (and that of those who rode with him as well) and the Boston Tea Party. No cannon nor other implement of war was employed by the colonists in those acts, though they were available to any who could afford them. Robert Heinlein put it best: An armed society is a polite society.
So someone's rights should be restricted solely because they can't pay to exercise them? It's not the amount of the tax at all, it's that it exists in the first place. Sound suppressors are a safety device designed to allow shooting without making excessive noise, much like the (required!) muffler on your car. Should everyone around have to wear ear plugs and ear muffs because you decide to exercise the privilege of driving? For their own safety, because you have better things to spend money on than a "can", they HAVE to do so when you shoot. Why is it their responsibility to actively do something because you choose to shoot your rifle or pistol? Conversely, if you own a piece of property inside the city limits, with a safe berm but no can, you cannot use your pistol on that property due to noise ordinances. Why should you be restricted from the safe use of your property on your own land solely because you can't afford to spend $200 (minimum) with (at that price point) a 100% tax on the item?
I hope it won't happen. I pray it won't happen. That said, as the antelope, I'd be a fool to willingly put on my own leg shackles. Put in the context of different animals, if I'm the housecat and I'm being pursued by the neighborhood dog, why would I volunteer to be declawed? If I've a predator out for my blood, I want every advantage available to ensure my own survival. As for the stability of governments, it matters not how stable they are. What matters is the will of those in power to extend that power and tighten the noose on those who give them that power... who they wish not to govern but to rule.
Artificial exceptions and provisions by those who have no right to emplace them. Those rights, our Founders said, are our birthright and come from our Creator. What unmitigated hubris it is to think that because you wear a black robe and wield a gavel, you have the ability to interpret His will!
Nor do they deny them. There is no law allowing you to wear, say, a red shirt. In the absence of law forbidding, an act is lawful. That Amendment forbids government from infringing on the right, it does not create the right for the people. (that is, the right pre-dated the Amendment.)
Yet again, the black robes think that they have the right to restrict rights. Incorporation is a legal device, devised solely to increase government power.
We can have that discussion now, too. It matters not what object is possessed. The sole possession of it should not be a criminal act. Simple.
Oh, I didn't say I didn't think he was evil. I didn't say it because I consider it irrelevant. He's speaking on the issue of the Constitution, though, and as Rhino put it, he is doing so and speaking historically as well, in what must be deliberate falsehoods. An online friend of mine has said (or quoted, not sure which), "When an honest man who is mistaken, is confronted with the truth, he will either cease to be mistaken, or he will cease to be honest." Mr. Breyer has been confronted with the truth. There are only two options now as to what he is.A reasonable criticism without name calling or claiming someone is evil?
Just because an agency exists does not make it right. Please indulge me for another quote: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite government program."
Why are the airwaves or the privately owned wirelines theirs to rule? Another member tried to argue this with me recently. I respect the member's opinions and the way he expresses them, but on the issue of government taking ownership or control of such things, with this I cannot agree nor can I respect it.
Government is best kept small, self-argumentative, and effective in only a very few, limited areas, none of which should include self-growth.
Blessings,
Bill
ghostinthewood
Sharpshooter
(your comment here)
Different forums do it differently so I was just going with what was easier. I've been running forums for a long time, I know about coding. =p[/noparse]
obviously replacing the part in parentheses with your comment. That, BTW, is the reverse of what happens when you click theicon. I'll break yours out of my post, then go on. I think you'll agree it's easier to follow. OK, back to your regularly-scheduled INGO, already in progress.
Of course. I just get the feeling that a lot of people aren't used to people partially agreeing with them and everyone who fully disagrees with them is an enemy, idiot, libtard, whatever elementary school playground names we can think of.
Armed how though? I do think that not everyone here is so polite, although very well armed. =p I do agree with that statement overall, but I still think there are exceptions and rules should be there to help prevent those exceptions. Are the rules stretched? Yes. I conceded that point a long time ago.
As far as the price, I was just making a point that the times are different. People had warships because they may have needed them. Mind you our country started off with a lot of smugglers. I dont think I would trust a lot of people with money and power with warships and nuke's. Maybe you're more trusting of people than I am. Haha
You know what, that is a good argument with the muffler comment. I think people could argue the frequency of noise of cars vs guns. Society isn't so gun friendly right now so I dont think it holds as much water as it should. If we had more guns, and more gun friendly people in our society I'd buy it.
I dont know about that. It just sounds paranoid to me. If it comes about that you get what you want, I wont *****, but I just dont feel comfortable with such easy access to a lot of things to EVERYONE (mind you I have a LTCH and other guns and such). I dont think the government is evil, and if people have elected officials to speak for them and this is what we've ended up with, so be it. I think there are some shady people in government and I think we don't always get the truth, but I'm not going to argue with democracy/republic/whatever the cool kids are calling it.
I'm bowing out on religious discussions.
I was being sarcastic. =p
That actually gave people more rights because states were restricting Constitutionally protected rights...
-
I was commending you. A lot of wannabe zombie killers seem to be zombies and just name call and say things because FOX said so. I can disagree with you and acknowledge you disagree with me intelligently. =p
Quite frankly I dont think society is as honest, or as good, as it used to be. The Amish kick the ass of a lot of folks who think they have so called "small town values." The only values I see coming from small towns is judgment and unwillingness to help people, in whatever shape, because of those judgments. That is another rant that might actually get me to act unreasonable and show emotion though. =p
I'm actually 100% against censorship. I was just making the point that there are regulations on freedom of speech because it seemed like some people were unaware. However, society doesn't seem to have a problem with it. I think its bull**** but I'm not going to get my panties in a wad because people are silly. Thats nothing new. =p
In a perfect world I 110% agree.
Is your name really Bill? That would make your name very punny. ¬_¬
ghostinthewood;1512595 As far as the price said:
ghostinthewood
Sharpshooter
On a personal level I would say you'd be more comfortable in an old Iraq where the few governed. ¬_¬
Look man, like or not a majority of some sort has made America the way it is now. I remember not too long ago that when people complained they didn't like something, they were told to move elsewhere. I'm not telling you to move. I obviously embrace the concept, if you read and comprehended my whole post you'd see that. I made it clear with my distaste with the FCC especially. I'm not getting on a high horse man, I would expect no one talk down to me either..
As painfully obvious as that sarcasm was, I'll go ahead and restate that I have a LTCH. Refer back to my other posts where I talk about guns, and read my reply back to BOR. Jeez I thought the "gotcha media" was bad...
jontheturboguy
Master
Well I can play both sides of the fence just like these Liberal Nut bags can (when they feel its ok to rewrite the Constitution or history).
"The founding fathers wanted gun control..."
Even if that is true, SO WHAT.
I have them now. It's my right, my GOD GIVEN right to own them, so **** of and if you want them....
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS YOU CAN TRY TO TAKE THEM.
"The founding fathers wanted gun control..."
Even if that is true, SO WHAT.
I have them now. It's my right, my GOD GIVEN right to own them, so **** of and if you want them....
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS YOU CAN TRY TO TAKE THEM.
The only problem I have with this discussion is how absolutist some people are about the 2nd Amendment, but then are willing to accept all kinds of "reasonable" restrictions on many other amendments.
Let's take this argument to a couple of different levels and places to see where everyone stands.
Let's say I work hard and in my garage I create a suitcase sized nuclear weapon that can kill 100,000 people if I set it off. Does that come under the 2nd Amendment? Should I be able to own such a weapon? After all, I'm a law-abiding citizen.
Let's go to the 1st Amendment. Should I be able to draw elaborate pictures of sex with children, including accompanying graphic stories about it, and in the appendix, print a guide about how to accomplish the seduction of young children?
Let's go the 9th Amendment. Is there an unstated right to privacy, which includes medical procedures performed under the advice of a medical doctor, that the state may not regulate? Or is that just making up rights?
Let's go to the 4th Amendment. I own property that happens to have a church and a school across the street from me. I want to open a strip club on that property. Is that okay? It's my property, I should be able to do what I want, right? Including graphic images on the sign outside, which sits on my property, right?
These are areas where conservatives find themselves entangled in a mess of their own making.
If you're going to be absolutist about the 2nd, you have to be absolutist about the rest. If "shall not be infringed," is written in stone, then so is "Congress shall make no law."
Let's take this argument to a couple of different levels and places to see where everyone stands.
Let's say I work hard and in my garage I create a suitcase sized nuclear weapon that can kill 100,000 people if I set it off. Does that come under the 2nd Amendment? Should I be able to own such a weapon? After all, I'm a law-abiding citizen.
Let's go to the 1st Amendment. Should I be able to draw elaborate pictures of sex with children, including accompanying graphic stories about it, and in the appendix, print a guide about how to accomplish the seduction of young children?
Let's go the 9th Amendment. Is there an unstated right to privacy, which includes medical procedures performed under the advice of a medical doctor, that the state may not regulate? Or is that just making up rights?
Let's go to the 4th Amendment. I own property that happens to have a church and a school across the street from me. I want to open a strip club on that property. Is that okay? It's my property, I should be able to do what I want, right? Including graphic images on the sign outside, which sits on my property, right?
These are areas where conservatives find themselves entangled in a mess of their own making.
If you're going to be absolutist about the 2nd, you have to be absolutist about the rest. If "shall not be infringed," is written in stone, then so is "Congress shall make no law."
I want automatic weapons so I can defend myself from someone with automatic weapons. Criminals have them, the government has them, foreign governments have them. Why cant I? I want them because all of those people that have them seem to think I shouldnt, but I am a clever man, and I think they are just trying to keep it so only THEY can have them. Why do THEY need them if I dont need them? Should I be worried about THEM? What do I do if THEY become my enemy?
Yes. I support your right to do any of those things. 100%. I get called a liberal sometimes because I support rights, no ifs and or buts. Ironically that should be a conservative value, but it seems liberals get more bent out of shape over them, so the stereotype is made.
You cant support one right and disallow the rest. If someone wants to write a book on molesting children, so be it. If they arent molesting children, I dont see the problem. The second they touch a child illegally, it is our duty to prosecute them to the fullest.
If someone wants to build a strip club on their property, so be it. I dont care if there is a school near by. The school will have to build walls. Let capitalism work it out. If the school has enough money to take the proper measures, they will stay in the end, and the strip joint will go under, or they will harmonize. If the school is crummy and cant afford walls, they can move. They both have the same right to be there, and they both can be. If one party is not happy, they can chose to move.
Site Supporter
Members online
- DoggyDaddy
- Demoderb1989
- Nazgul
- 223 Gunner
- Mongo59
- TheSpookyCat
- ComeJesuscome
- Bassat
- BIGE7.62
- Creedmoor
- indyblue
- AlienRayGun
- MDpolo
- Middlefart
- SEIndSAM
- Rafterman
- morve80
- EODFXSTI
- billyramair
- lance
- tca1352
- 10mm
- sadclownwp
- wesleyoliver95
- jbm1521
- snapping turtle
- michael711
- 1775usmarine
- vitamink
- wesnellans
- keeph8n
- radar8756
- bigz82
- FNparabellum
- Okimeister
- 9teen56f100
- blueskies
- ancjr
- VostocK
- Steve