close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Progressive gun owner

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by greentriple, May 5, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. greentriple

    greentriple

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, some of you my hate me already, and that vitriol has inspired this post. I suspect our commonalities are more than our differences, however the divergences are chasms.

    What I'm interested in is this:

    1) I'm a gun owner
    2) I am a strict Bill of Rights Advocate. (my problem with the ACLU for one is their blind eye to the 2nd)
    3) I believe in the right to CCW. (with restrictions)
    4) I think extreme thinking and blind faith will get you killed.
    5) Any government is corrupt. But we need to protect the vulnerable.

    Can "we" work together?


    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  2. GLOCK17DB9

    GLOCK17DB9

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Troy, MI

  3. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    Messages:
    4,116
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Louisiana
    You are not a “strict Bill of Rights Advocate”. You believe in restrictions when it suits you and stretching it to include things that are not in it when that suites you. Examples… You want the first to include “actions” when it states SPEECH“ and ”PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY while wanting restrictions placed on the 2nd. when it clearly states ”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. That is not a “strict Bill of Rights Advocate”. That is someone that wants to manipulate the Amendments / The Bill of Rights to fit HIS opinion / agenda.

    The Bill of Rights was written to BIND the GOVERNMENT not as a tool to be manipulated.

    The one and only Amendment that has the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" in it is the second. However you believe the Founders meant that to mean it can be infringed if the government decides it needs another interpretation.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2012
  4. greentriple

    greentriple

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jerry, here you go again. Man you get worked up easy. Too much beer in the Wheaties?

    First, you know not what I believe, only what I allow you to think.

    Now, if u have a reasonable, rationale response and not an attack I'd be happy to participate.




    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  5. greentriple

    greentriple

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    0
    You believe an action is not speech, I disagree. I believe speech encompasses more than words and I believe our founding fathers did too. I believe they understood this to be true and self evident and not needing of explanation. I have struggled with militia in the 2nd, and believe it has important meaning. But, I also UNDERSTAND the historical period when the COTUS was drafted and ratified, Amendments and all. I believe our founders did not think women should vote, I can't imagine that is something you advocate. I believe they considered Native Americans and Slaves as less than themselves and not worthy of a political voice. I can't imagine you agree with them an that. My point is that values and beliefs, historically grounded in the time colored the lenses our founders wore. We accept some changes and faults and not others depending on our personal agenda. I don't know if it's right, some times it works, others it does not, like prohibition.

    When the Preamble read "All men are created equal..." they were thinking of a very limited group. It's a living document, that's what makes it ever enduring, unlike other historical codifications of social and political contracts.


    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  6. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1998
    Messages:
    4,116
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Louisiana


    I don't get worked up, I speak mater of factually. I especially do it when conversing with someone that post as a liberal. In fact you stated that you are a progressive so I do know exactly how your though process works. That is unless you lied. Progressives are, in my book, the worst of the worst. They wish to shred the Constitution.


    If you don't believe there is a difference in actions and speech you'd better look up the definitions.

    The first states speech and peaceful assembly. If speech and actions weer the same they would have just said speech and left out assembly. Assembly is an action.

    The militia clause is not difficult to understand. "A militia being necessary to a free state." Says exactly what it means. A state needs the ability to form a militia to stay free. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms." The people have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It simply says the the people have a right to bear armed and to form a militia not that a militia is necessary for the people to be armed as the "progressive" have tried to convince the sheelpy. "Shall not be infringed." The government is forbidden from interfering on The Peoples' RIGHT.

    As for woman voting show me where the constitution said they can't. When the constitution was written only land owners could vote. I agree with that. If only land owners, those with something to loose, could vote we wouldn't be in the fix we're in today.

    As for slaves show me where the original constitution says it is or isn't ok. Congress wrote another amendment to cover that. And there in lies the rub. Congress can vote in an amendment to override the 2nd. But they know The People won't go for it so the liberal / progressive politicians put the notion in the heads of the sheeply that interpretation is ok and that the amendments really mean something other than what is written.

    You are trying to say the Constitution grants or denies rights. The Bill of Rights tells the government what it cannot do. It's there to guarantee our rights and to protect us from government abuse. The rest of the Constitution tells the Federal Government what "power" is granted to it.

    Do I have to explain that to you. The government has no power other than that granted to it. Shall not be infringed tells the government it IS FORBIDDEN, IS NOT GRANTED THE POWER TO TELL THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH FIREARMS
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
  7. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,453
    Likes Received:
    5,689
    No. I don't believe a thing you type.
     
  8. ancient_serpent

    ancient_serpent

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    222
    This alone has convinced me that you do not want to "work together," you simply want others to tell you that your beliefs are right. You want to argue and type pseudo-smart aleck things.
    If your attitude in this and in past posts are indicative of other progressives then I am glad to have been in opposition to your ideologies for as long as I have.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2012
  9. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,453
    Likes Received:
    5,689
  10. IhRedrider

    IhRedrider Not a walker

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    3
    greetriple



    How about, you answer the questions I asked you before?

    I know that you will feign ignorance of the actual questions, and I was about to go cut and paste, but I'm not going to do that until you actually claim to not know what I'm talking about. SO

    "with restrictions"

    What restrictions and where , in the Constitution, can you back these "restrictions" up.


     
    Last edited: May 6, 2012
  11. greentriple

    greentriple

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clearly felons and the mentally ill should not legally own guns. Violent misdemeanors also be prohibited during the course of their probation. I prefer a CCW to be "may", with a requirement that a person must "justify" the need. I don't think people should open carry. Not sure the need for high capacity magazine or fully auto weapons, but I don't think restricting them makes sense. I think all guns should be registered, at least with local law-enforcement. No restriction on the number of guns owned, although people with arsenals and stock piles of ammo seem odd to me. No registration on ammo. And unlike the city fathers of Laverken Utah, I don't think every person who want a gun must have on.

    As for they being in the four corners of the constitution, I agree the direct wording is not. But I be live there are implied powers. I also read restrictions to voting rights that no longer apply. It's not a stagnant dogmatic document, at least not for me.

    I agree, you don't have to accept or agree to any restrictions. If they were on a ballot I presume you'd vote "no" and depending on what they were I might vote "yes". We'd tally up the votes and presto..., "democracy" at work. Now in a representative government we "give/delegate" decision making. If the same issue comes up, well they vote and again, presto... "representative democracy" at work. We don't like the result, vote the bum out and start again, etc, etc, etc...

    Does that answer the question?


    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2012
  12. ChuteTheMall

    ChuteTheMall Witless Protection Program

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    60,950
    Likes Received:
    70,537
    Location:
    Trump Tower, overlooking the wall Mexico bought.
    No.

    "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
    - Mao Tse Tung

    Just because you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.
     
  13. greentriple

    greentriple

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    0
    He's dead.

    But I'm unclear if u use the quote to assert you position about your political power, or what you believe mine is? I presume mine since Mao was a Communist and I think you assume I'm one too.

    "Enemy"? Strong sentiment for a fellow American.


    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  14. Cambo

    Cambo

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,358
    Likes Received:
    2,306
    Location:
    Texas

    I live in a "May" issue state and it doesn't work, at all. Why you should anyone have to justify a need to carry? You don't know when violent crime will hit you, it doesn't call you up months beforehand and let you know it's coming. Having been a victim of violent crime, one that would have turned out differently if I had been armed, I find your reasoning to be childish and immature. Like a true progressive, you seek to restrict rights of the average citizen, but would bend over backwards to give rights to the criminal through your precious, communist founded(look it up) ACLU. As for registration, look up all of the vicious governments that used registration for confiscation. You'll find examples going back as far as early Japan, where swords and martial arts were banned. You'll find modern day examples such as Australia, Great Britain, Canada, etc. Look at Syria and Libya where firearms are banned. Do you think they would have benefitted from registration, IF they were allowed to have guns? Do us all a favor and research the true effects of gun control rather than spout off about what YOU want.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2012
  15. 1gewehr

    1gewehr

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Mid TN
    Hmm. I'm coming a bit late to this party. Some of the things you (greentriple) have said are factually incorrect, and some are logically inconsistent. I'll address a few of the items I believe are most important.

    "I believe our founders did not think women should vote, I can't imagine that is something you advocate. I believe they considered Native Americans and Slaves as less than themselves and not worthy of a political voice."
    Actually, the founders believed that there was no 'right' to vote. Democracy was not a goal to be attained, but an evil to avoid. That is why they limited the franchise to one person per family. They did not limit the franchise by race. All blacks were not slaves. Look up Crispus Attucks, Salem Poor, Prince Esterbrooks, and Peter Salem.

    As far as counting slaves as "3/5 of a person", that had nothing to do with their feelings towards blacks as people. Free blacks were counted as a full person. Likewise Indians who lived and worked within the states. The census is primarily for the purpose of allocating representatives and raising taxes. What they wanted to avoid was the ability of some men to buy a congressman by having a very few slave-owners with a lot of slaves be able to be a congressional district. By counting the slaves as 3/5 of a free man, it would take a lot more slaves to be able to get the headcount high enough to warrant a congressional district. The Federalist Papers are very clear on this point. Also, they were able to get slave-owners to pay taxes on the headcount of their slaves.

    "When the Preamble read "All men are created equal..." they were thinking of a very limited group."
    No, they were not. That is not from the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independance. The entire sentence reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
    In debate on this issue during the latter part of June 1776 even Edward Rutledge and Button Gwinnett never argued against this applying to blacks.

    "I have struggled with militia in the 2nd, and believe it has important meaning."

    This is actually a very simple concept. Once again referring to the Federalist Papers, it becomes clear that the Founders viewed a large standing army as potential instrument of government oppression. In order to provide a check and balance to that power, they realized that a free people, with arms of their own, would vastly outnumber any army the government could field. It may also help to realize that even today, most Americans are members of the militia and subject to call-out at need. That is why a military draft is legal and not considered involuntary servitude.
    Even today, there are no Federal laws prohibiting private ownership of machine guns, cannon, or any other type of weapon. All Federal firearms laws are tax regulations on the transfer and manufacture of such weapons.

    "Any government is corrupt. But we need to protect the vulnerable. "
    So, we must put up with a certain amount of government corruption in order to provide wealth transfer payments to some people at the expense of others? And you don't see that stealing from some folks to make others dependent on government checks is vote-buying at it's most basic level? I believe in charity. I do not believe in theft.
     
  16. greentriple

    greentriple

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    0
    1g, while I do appreciate you cogent and non-insulting response, it is not much more than opinion. If you could give citations to historical examples or academic articles that support you opinion I'd enjoy reading them. Other than that, while interesting, it's no more substantial than your claim of my opinion. In other words, I too can say you are wrong and write why I believe so.

    Your position without support will be credited here by others because they share your opinion, but their cheer does not make you right.

    Oh, and I'm not saying they "intentionally" excluded blacks, women and non-land owners to be racist, classist and sexist, it was just the socio-political context of the time. Yet, today in a different time, we do not intentionally or unintentionally preclude suffrage to these groups. And if it were inherent in our original document we would not have needed an amendment o guarantee those writes to previously disenfranchised groups. Again, my opinion, without citation.

    Finally, I can't imagine the founders conceived the Constitution would apply to 50 states.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2012
  17. ancient_serpent

    ancient_serpent

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    222
  18. lethal tupperwa

    lethal tupperwa

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    9,071
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Location:
    Virginia
  19. ChuteTheMall

    ChuteTheMall Witless Protection Program

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    60,950
    Likes Received:
    70,537
    Location:
    Trump Tower, overlooking the wall Mexico bought.
    My closest enemies are either Americans, or in America.

    My oath was to defend against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

    Your place of birth and your claim that you own a gun doesn't negate the fact that you are the enemy.
     
  20. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,453
    Likes Received:
    5,689
    :agree:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.