Have we been duped?

[causerofwait]

[rant] It seems like we all love the 2nd Amendment and do our best to talk about it, celebrate it and exercise it, some even fight for it (thank you!) while others stand up for it in other ways. My questions is this:
Where in the second amendment does it say anything about needing a permit to exercise it. Where does it say that it will cost $x.xx to exercise it. Where does it say that the 2nd amendment applies in this place and this place but not that place or that place. Where does it even say that you need to be a "proper person" to exercise it. Where does it say that it applies if you live in this state and that state but not this,that or the other state. I'm beginning to wonder if the 2nd Amendment event exists anymore the way it is written in the constitution. Could Illinois and Wisconsin just decide that the 1st Amendment or the 4th Amendment don't apply in their state and get away with it? Can "they" decide that I need to apply for a permit and pay money to exercise the 5th Amendment?

Someone please help me understand why the 2nd is so different and why we are all OK with it. Everyone worries and talks about the government somehow taking away "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Isn't it already gone, as far as the way it was intended? [/rant]

 

[rmcrob]

That nail was hit directly on it widdle head.

The rights we are guaranteed have been slowly (and not so slowly) eroding. We must stop the erosion and rebuild what has been lost.

 

[Lucas156]

Yeah it has been slowly eroded away. I believe it started when people started to get dumbed down and brainwashed. carry permit and all that crap is unconstitutional. There are way too many unconstitutional laws on the book even ones not involving firearms. This tells me our government is out of control and needs to be restrained. What can we do? Other than vote and complain to elected officials nothing unless you want to take things a step further.....rant completed

 

[Lucas156]

rmcrob you used my word! eroded. lol

 

[wtfd661]

Great post, I agree 100%. Really never thought of that, maybe we out to start charging the liberal media/press to exercise their right.

I don't really think that but it would be nice, since they seem to enjoy attacking our right to bear arms.

 

[CulpeperMM]

The right to bear arms cannot be eroded. it is a Natural right. You were born with it. Whether here or in Kenya or Indonesia. Doesn't matter. It's like your right to breath air. One cannot lose that right. Someone may suffocate you, but you still have the right to breath. Rights cannot be taken away.

Having said that, while you are on someone else's private property, you have to play by their rules or be in violation of their rights to control their property (also a Natural right).

As far as the question of permits and licensing, i could not agree more with you. They are violations of our Natural right to arms, as well as the 2nd Amendment. The permit to carry is an infringement, without doubt. Just like it says on the Allen County Courthouse inscription, "Consent Makes the Law". People have consented to the permitting of firearms because the have been fooled into thinking that buys them some safety. When enough people no longer consent to it, the law, by default, will change.

 

[Scout]

I thought this pic looked familliar.

I can understand the LEOs wanting to know who is carrying, but since criminals don't obey the law, it's no good to require a background check. Anyone who really wants to carry will do so anyway. I can also understand requiring a class. IMHO it's a very good idea. Just look on youtube for idiots with guns, and think these people have some knowledge of firearms, how bad would it be if people with no knowledge were walking around armed?

I'd also like to see a reduction of gun violence in movies and tv. I think that goes a long long way in portraying firearms in a negative light. Remember how the election was influenced by television? (Saturday Night Live in particular) Yeah, same thing.

 

[Shaker]

I fear our concerns are growing. Occording to Fox News the person who has been nominated to the Supreme Court does not believe in induviduals right to carry, those rights only belong to goverment agencys. It only takes one bad apple to rot the whole bushel.

 

[flagtag]

I thought this pic looked familliar.

I can understand the LEOs wanting to know who is carrying, but since criminals don't obey the law, it's no good to require a background check. Anyone who really wants to carry will do so anyway. I can also understand requiring a class. IMHO it's a very good idea. Just look on youtube for idiots with guns, and think these people have some knowledge of firearms, how bad would it be if people with no knowledge were walking around armed?

I'd also like to see a reduction of gun violence in movies and tv. I think that goes a long long way in portraying firearms in a negative light. Remember how the election was influenced by television? (Saturday Night Live in particular) Yeah, same thing.

Yeah, the movies today aren't the same as the old Westerns were. There was a moral to the story and the good guy always won.
Today, it's all about special effects and shooting is no longer the last resort. How often does one hear of "firefights" going on in this country on even a simi-regular basis? (Even in the largest cities.)

It seems that today, the criminal is elevated in status, and the law, downgraded, pretty much.
(Remember "Walker, Texas Ranger"? Towards the end of it's run, it showed the bad guys disrespecting - even attacking - the law enforcement officers, yet it didn't show the bad guy "paying' for his crime very often. No arrest, no jail time. What did that teach the kids?)

 

[smhall3212]

Just like anything the government touches if it cant make $ off of it, make it ilegal or you have to have a permit (stamp).

 

[5.56'aholic]

i think what a lot of us fail to realize, is that the reason a lot of these "legislations" have been enacted were in times when we were complacent, and now our rights are on the verge of being further "eroded." We need to stay vigilant 24/7 to beat an enemy that never sleeps or vacations, and uses the media to spread lies and misinformation.

 

[Plague421]

I agree with the rights, however I also agree that if you use those rights to harm another individual, you lose yours. By harm another individual I mean robbery sexual assault so fourth.

I believe in SOME (please notice emphasis) of the "proper Person" standards. I think they are wanting to take it WAY too far. However, I cannot and will not say a convicted felon should carry a gun. Especially if the previous crime committed was violent in any way.

 

[Chefcook]

[rant] It seems like we all love the 2nd Amendment and do our best to talk about it, celebrate it and exercise it, some even fight for it (thank you!) while others stand up for it in other ways. My questions is this:
Where in the second amendment does it say anything about needing a permit to exercise it. Where does it say that it will cost .xx to exercise it. Where does it say that the 2nd amendment applies in this place and this place but not that place or that place. Where does it even say that you need to be a "proper person" to exercise it. Where does it say that it applies if you live in this state and that state but not this,that or the other state. I'm beginning to wonder if the 2nd Amendment event exists anymore the way it is written in the constitution. Could Illinois and Wisconsin just decide that the 1st Amendment or the 4th Amendment don't apply in their state and get away with it? Can "they" decide that I need to apply for a permit and pay money to exercise the 5th Amendment?

Someone please help me understand why the 2nd is so different and why we are all OK with it. Everyone worries and talks about the government somehow taking away "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Isn't it already gone, as far as the way it was intended? [/rant]

You sir are absolutely correct. I concur and agree wholeheartedly. Now what are we gonna do about it???

 

[flagtag]

I agree with the rights, however I also agree that if you use those rights to harm another individual, you lose yours. By harm another individual I mean robbery sexual assault so fourth.

I believe in SOME (please notice emphasis) of the "proper Person" standards. I think they are wanting to take it WAY too far. However, I cannot and will not say a convicted felon should carry a gun. Especially if the previous crime committed was violent in any way.

I'm confused by your first line here. "if you use those rights to harm another individual - robbery, sexual assult......"
One never has the right to commit any type of crime. Help me out here, please. Am I reading that line incorrectly?

 

[Plague421]

I'm confused by your first line here. "if you use those rights to harm another individual - robbery, sexual assult......"
One never has the right to commit any type of crime. Help me out here, please. Am I reading that line incorrectly?

As in I believe that we all have the right to bear arms, however when you use that right to gain leverage for example, you are using your right to harm another.

Real world example would be a man points a gun at a woman, tells her to take her clothes off. He has violated her rights by exercising his right to bear arms. Obviously laws exist to "prevent" and prosecute this sort of thing.

The way I see it, carrying a gun is a right, not a law. So by exercising your right and infringing upon another's, I feel you should lose yours. However this is a touchy situation as my freedom of speech may offend somebody, but I don't think that should be taken away in that event. Physical harm to people or assets is what I am talking about.

 

[flagtag]

As in I believe that we all have the right to bear arms, however when you use that right to gain leverage for example, you are using your right to harm another.

Real world example would be a man points a gun at a woman, tells her to take her clothes off. He has violated her rights by exercising his right to bear arms. Obviously laws exist to "prevent" and prosecute this sort of thing.

The way I see it, carrying a gun is a right, not a law. So by exercising your right and infringing upon another's, I feel you should lose yours. However this is a touchy situation as my freedom of speech may offend somebody, but I don't think that should be taken away in that event. Physical harm to people or assets is what I am talking about.

Got it. Thanks

 

[jedi]

You sir are absolutely correct. I concur and agree wholeheartedly. Now what are we gonna do about it???

nothing... HISTORY has already rolled the dice for all of us, yet many do not believe it, understand it, or want to think about it. HISTORY is repeating itself right now and by 2012 HISTORY will show it's cards and everything will start to "balance" itself again. There is going to be a whole lot of pain and loss, however, before everything is fine again.

 

[causerofwait]

You sir are absolutely correct. I concur and agree wholeheartedly. Now what are we gonna do about it???