I Need Permission?

[DarkFury]

Our rights are natural, not national. They are not granted to us by the govt...it is the duty of govt to.protect them. When the govt ceases to do so, it is our duty to eliminate the acting govt and re- establish a constitutional one.

Our rights are national in the sense that every one born in this nation has those rights. And no state or city has a right to remove that nation wide right.

Every person in the world is born with those rights, they come from God. Our government as established recognizes that..they are NOT national rights. Our government is just the only one that acknowledges that these are natural rights we're born with, and no gov't has the authority to deny them.

Some of the same countries that say you have no right to a gun also say you have no right to a God. Ours spells out you have both.

 

[2aguy]

If it's unconstitutional, why don't you take it to the Supreme Court? Probably someone has already tried. Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun. You may be born with that right, but some people's actions deserve taking that right away. How does that get monitored except by registration, which requires time and money, necessitating a fee?
It isn't the law abiding gun owners who screw things up for the rest of us, but screw it up they do. And we pay for it. I don't see any way around it.

If a state or city government can require that you buy a right. Which ones can you afford and for how long?

How do we make it harder for violent criminals and violently mentally ill people from buying guns otherwise? Okay, get the registration done by some centralized, independent bureau and have the cost of it absorbed in the cost of the weapon? So people just don't realize they're paying for it?

Nope....Canada tried to register just their long guns.....about 15 million....it failed miserably......the cost and the manpower increased to the point it was impossible to do......

And again...registration is only wanted so that they can ban or confiscate guns in the future.....Britain, Australia and Germany show this......

And you already have background checks to keep criminals from buying guns...and if you catch them they can be arrested....

We already have those laws on the books...

Do you realize that under the ruling in Hayes v. United States....criminals do not have to register their illegal guns? So the only people who would be required to register their guns would be law abiding people...who don't commit crimes with guns...

And that makes sense to you?

And again...registration is only wanted so that they can ban or confiscate guns in the future.....Britain, Australia and Germany show this.....
You just began a thread noting that 800,000 individuals in Australia own guns. They seem to have missed some in their confiscation? It seems to me that perhaps they just got gun ownership down to a more reasonable level so p-o'd S.O.B.'s like Tordil won't grab their legally owned firearm from tThe nightstand and murder three innocent people, wound 3 more. Sure he could have killed his wife with a knife or a baseball bat, but it would have been a lot of effort to attack those folks in the parking lots of the shopping centers. Not so hard with a gun. Guns are how you can murder people without getting crap on your shoes.

Yes.....and that is the point too......when you register guns and confiscate them...you turn normal, law abiding people into criminals simply because they fail to comply to bureaucratic paperwork....not because they use the guns to commit crimes......

Sorry...even in Australia, the people using guns to commit gun murder...after the confiscation...are criminals with previous convictions...not normal Australians.....

You are just wrong...you think normal people will commit murder simply because they have access to a gun....nothing shows this to be the case...none of the research and not reality........

It is a myth, a belief and they are both wrong....

 

[2aguy]

If it's unconstitutional, why don't you take it to the Supreme Court? Probably someone has already tried. Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun. You may be born with that right, but some people's actions deserve taking that right away. How does that get monitored except by registration, which requires time and money, necessitating a fee?
It isn't the law abiding gun owners who screw things up for the rest of us, but screw it up they do. And we pay for it. I don't see any way around it.

Sorry....registration does not work....they tried it in Canada.....and in every country where they have done it, all it does is set up the next step...confiscation.

We already have laws against using guns to commit crimes....and felons are already "registered" because of previous crimes....when they are caught with a gun they can already be arrested.

You register the criminal...not the law abiding gun owner......

The law abiding gun owners own 356,991876 million guns that are not used to commit gun murder......actually slightly more since many murders are multiple with the same gun....so less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder....

In what sane universe is 356,991,876 million guns that are not used by law abiding people to commit crimes, "screwing it up?"

Since, of the 8,124 gun murders......90% of the shooters are already convicted felons who already cannot legally own or carry a gun....and they are already registered with law enforcement as criminals.........

Again....nothing you say about gun ownership in the United States is true or accurate...

felons are already "registered" because of previous crimes....when they are caught with a gun they can already be arrested.
How does the kid at WalMart know the guy is a felon when he comes in to buy his semi automatic and a trunk full of bullets? That's what I mean by "registered." Do you mean something different?

Any licensed gun seller has to do a background check.....if you buy a gun at Walmart, they have to do a background check.

On all the cop shows, when they find a firearm at a crime scene, they trace it back to ownership. Isn't that registration? It is already being done, as well as the background check, isn't it?

actually, they don't.......that is television...not real life.

 

[2aguy]

If it's unconstitutional, why don't you take it to the Supreme Court? Probably someone has already tried. Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun. You may be born with that right, but some people's actions deserve taking that right away. How does that get monitored except by registration, which requires time and money, necessitating a fee?
It isn't the law abiding gun owners who screw things up for the rest of us, but screw it up they do. And we pay for it. I don't see any way around it.

If a state or city government can require that you buy a right. Which ones can you afford and for how long?

How do we make it harder for violent criminals and violently mentally ill people from buying guns otherwise? Okay, get the registration done by some centralized, independent bureau and have the cost of it absorbed in the cost of the weapon? So people just don't realize they're paying for it?

Nope....Canada tried to register just their long guns.....about 15 million....it failed miserably......the cost and the manpower increased to the point it was impossible to do......

And again...registration is only wanted so that they can ban or confiscate guns in the future.....Britain, Australia and Germany show this......

And you already have background checks to keep criminals from buying guns...and if you catch them they can be arrested....

We already have those laws on the books...

Do you realize that under the ruling in Hayes v. United States....criminals do not have to register their illegal guns? So the only people who would be required to register their guns would be law abiding people...who don't commit crimes with guns...

And that makes sense to you?

And again...registration is only wanted so that they can ban or confiscate guns in the future.....Britain, Australia and Germany show this.....
You just began a thread noting that 800,000 individuals in Australia own guns. They seem to have missed some in their confiscation? It seems to me that perhaps they just got gun ownership down to a more reasonable level so p-o'd S.O.B.'s like Tordil won't grab their legally owned firearm from tThe nightstand and murder three innocent people, wound 3 more. Sure he could have killed his wife with a knife or a baseball bat, but it would have been a lot of effort to attack those folks in the parking lots of the shopping centers. Not so hard with a gun. Guns are how you can murder people without getting crap on your shoes.

again...you are wrong...

Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.

Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.

 

[koshergrl]

Our rights are natural, not national. They are not granted to us by the govt...it is the duty of govt to.protect them. When the govt ceases to do so, it is our duty to eliminate the acting govt and re- establish a constitutional one.

Our rights are national in the sense that every one born in this nation has those rights. And no state or city has a right to remove that nation wide right.

Every person in the world is born with those rights, they come from God. Our government as established recognizes that..they are NOT national rights. Our government is just the only one that acknowledges that these are natural rights we're born with, and no gov't has the authority to deny them.

Some of the same countries that say you have no right to a gun also say you have no right to a God. Ours spells out you have both.

Ours acknowledges that those rights are not theirs to grant...that every person is born with them. It's an important distinction, because when they start to take those rights and trample them, that is the distinction that affords us the right to defend ourselves. We don't need the government's permission in order to bave these rights, and when they make the claim that they grant us rights is when we rebel. We don't answer to them, they answer to us.

 

[2aguy]

If it's unconstitutional, why don't you take it to the Supreme Court? Probably someone has already tried. Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun. You may be born with that right, but some people's actions deserve taking that right away. How does that get monitored except by registration, which requires time and money, necessitating a fee?
It isn't the law abiding gun owners who screw things up for the rest of us, but screw it up they do. And we pay for it. I don't see any way around it.

Sorry....registration does not work....they tried it in Canada.....and in every country where they have done it, all it does is set up the next step...confiscation.

We already have laws against using guns to commit crimes....and felons are already "registered" because of previous crimes....when they are caught with a gun they can already be arrested.

You register the criminal...not the law abiding gun owner......

The law abiding gun owners own 356,991876 million guns that are not used to commit gun murder......actually slightly more since many murders are multiple with the same gun....so less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder....

In what sane universe is 356,991,876 million guns that are not used by law abiding people to commit crimes, "screwing it up?"

Since, of the 8,124 gun murders......90% of the shooters are already convicted felons who already cannot legally own or carry a gun....and they are already registered with law enforcement as criminals.........

Again....nothing you say about gun ownership in the United States is true or accurate...

felons are already "registered" because of previous crimes....when they are caught with a gun they can already be arrested.
How does the kid at WalMart know the guy is a felon when he comes in to buy his semi automatic and a trunk full of bullets? That's what I mean by "registered." Do you mean something different?

Any licensed gun seller has to do a background check.....if you buy a gun at Walmart, they have to do a background check.

On all the cop shows, when they find a firearm at a crime scene, they trace it back to ownership. Isn't that registration? It is already being done, as well as the background check, isn't it?

In real life, and I have posted the stories.....they catch people selling illegal guns the old fashioned way....they catch a criminal with an illegal gun.....and get him to tell him who sold him the gun.....since in most cases that gun has passed through the hands of multiple criminals over a number of years....

 

[2aguy]

Yes...our Rights predate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights....those documents simply record them for all to see....we have them simply because we exist...not because of the government granting them.......that is where the left goes wrong....they believe the government grants the rights......

 

[koshergrl]

If it's unconstitutional, why don't you take it to the Supreme Court? Probably someone has already tried. Personally, I have run into quite a few people I hope to hell don't have a "right" any longer to a gun. You may be born with that right, but some people's actions deserve taking that right away. How does that get monitored except by registration, which requires time and money, necessitating a fee?
It isn't the law abiding gun owners who screw things up for the rest of us, but screw it up they do. And we pay for it. I don't see any way around it.

If a state or city government can require that you buy a right. Which ones can you afford and for how long?

How do we make it harder for violent criminals and violently mentally ill people from buying guns otherwise? Okay, get the registration done by some centralized, independent bureau and have the cost of it absorbed in the cost of the weapon? So people just don't realize they're paying for it?

Nope....Canada tried to register just their long guns.....about 15 million....it failed miserably......the cost and the manpower increased to the point it was impossible to do......

And again...registration is only wanted so that they can ban or confiscate guns in the future.....Britain, Australia and Germany show this......

And you already have background checks to keep criminals from buying guns...and if you catch them they can be arrested....

We already have those laws on the books...

Do you realize that under the ruling in Hayes v. United States....criminals do not have to register their illegal guns? So the only people who would be required to register their guns would be law abiding people...who don't commit crimes with guns...

And that makes sense to you?

And again...registration is only wanted so that they can ban or confiscate guns in the future.....Britain, Australia and Germany show this.....
You just began a thread noting that 800,000 individuals in Australia own guns. They seem to have missed some in their confiscation? It seems to me that perhaps they just got gun ownership down to a more reasonable level so p-o'd S.O.B.'s like Tordil won't grab their legally owned firearm from tThe nightstand and murder three innocent people, wound 3 more. Sure he could have killed his wife with a knife or a baseball bat, but it would have been a lot of effort to attack those folks in the parking lots of the shopping centers. Not so hard with a gun. Guns are how you can murder people without getting crap on your shoes.

Yes.....and that is the point too......when you register guns and confiscate them...you turn normal, law abiding people into criminals simply because they fail to comply to bureaucratic paperwork....not because they use the guns to commit crimes......

Sorry...even in Australia, the people using guns to commit gun murder...after the confiscation...are criminals with previous convictions...not normal Australians.....

You are just wrong...you think normal people will commit murder simply because they have access to a gun....nothing shows this to be the case...none of the research and not reality........

It is a myth, a belief and they are both wrong....

The feds are using weapons charges to jail all the people who accurately reported bunkerville.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our rights are natural, not national. They are not granted to us by the govt...it is the duty of govt to.protect them. When the govt ceases to do so, it is our duty to eliminate the acting govt and re- establish a constitutional one.

Our rights are national in the sense that every one born in this nation has those rights. And no state or city has a right to remove that nation wide right.

Every person in the world is born with those rights, they come from God. Our government as established recognizes that..they are NOT national rights. Our government is just the only one that acknowledges that these are natural rights we're born with, and no gov't has the authority to deny them.

Some of the same countries that say you have no right to a gun also say you have no right to a God. Ours spells out you have both.

Ours acknowledges that those rights are not theirs to grant...that every person is born with them. It's an important distinction, because when they start to take those rights and trample them, that is the distinction that affords us the right to defend ourselves. We don't need the government's permission in order to bave these rights, and when they make the claim that they grant us rights is when we rebel. We don't answer to them, they answer to us.

A great big Happy Mother's Day!!!

 

[koshergrl]

Our rights are natural, not national. They are not granted to us by the govt...it is the duty of govt to.protect them. When the govt ceases to do so, it is our duty to eliminate the acting govt and re- establish a constitutional one.

Our rights are national in the sense that every one born in this nation has those rights. And no state or city has a right to remove that nation wide right.

Every person in the world is born with those rights, they come from God. Our government as established recognizes that..they are NOT national rights. Our government is just the only one that acknowledges that these are natural rights we're born with, and no gov't has the authority to deny them.

Some of the same countries that say you have no right to a gun also say you have no right to a God. Ours spells out you have both.

Ours acknowledges that those rights are not theirs to grant...that every person is born with them. It's an important distinction, because when they start to take those rights and trample them, that is the distinction that affords us the right to defend ourselves. We don't need the government's permission in order to bave these rights, and when they make the claim that they grant us rights is when we rebel. We don't answer to them, they answer to us.

A great big Happy Mother's Day!!!

Happy Mother's day to you as well....I'm glad you reminded me, I have to call my mom and guilt my kids into doing housework now!

 

[OldLady]

Yes...our Rights predate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights....those documents simply record them for all to see....we have them simply because we exist...not because of the government granting them.......that is where the left goes wrong....they believe the government grants the rights......

No. Those rights were put in the Bill of Rights because the goverrnments elsewhere DID in that time have the right to limit/grant gun ownership. We made it a God Given Right with our language, WE MADE IT UP!

 

[koshergrl]

Yes...our Rights predate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights....those documents simply record them for all to see....we have them simply because we exist...not because of the government granting them.......that is where the left goes wrong....they believe the government grants the rights......

No. Those rights were put in the Bill of Rights because the goverrnments elsewhere DID in that time have the right to limit/grant gun ownership. We made it a God Given Right with our language, WE MADE IT UP!

No, we didn't, but regardless.of your abyssmal historical understanding, it is the primary tenet of our Constitution, and for as long as we are a constitutional republic, that is our framework.

 

[2aguy]

Yes...our Rights predate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights....those documents simply record them for all to see....we have them simply because we exist...not because of the government granting them.......that is where the left goes wrong....they believe the government grants the rights......

No. Those rights were put in the Bill of Rights because the goverrnments elsewhere DID in that time have the right to limit/grant gun ownership. We made it a God Given Right with our language, WE MADE IT UP!

Have you ever studied history....? You are as wrong on this as you are on guns. That our natural rights were curtailed by government doesn't mean they didn't exist........you have it backward.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our rights are national in the sense that every one born in this nation has those rights. And no state or city has a right to remove that nation wide right.

Every person in the world is born with those rights, they come from God. Our government as established recognizes that..they are NOT national rights. Our government is just the only one that acknowledges that these are natural rights we're born with, and no gov't has the authority to deny them.

Some of the same countries that say you have no right to a gun also say you have no right to a God. Ours spells out you have both.

Ours acknowledges that those rights are not theirs to grant...that every person is born with them. It's an important distinction, because when they start to take those rights and trample them, that is the distinction that affords us the right to defend ourselves. We don't need the government's permission in order to bave these rights, and when they make the claim that they grant us rights is when we rebel. We don't answer to them, they answer to us.

A great big Happy Mother's Day!!!

Happy Mother's day to you as well....I'm glad you reminded me, I have to call my mom and guilt my kids into doing housework now!

I often worry about the safety of my children. Especially when they roll their eyes and talk back.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes...our Rights predate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights....those documents simply record them for all to see....we have them simply because we exist...not because of the government granting them.......that is where the left goes wrong....they believe the government grants the rights......

No. Those rights were put in the Bill of Rights because the goverrnments elsewhere DID in that time have the right to limit/grant gun ownership. We made it a God Given Right with our language, WE MADE IT UP!

Have you ever studied history....? You are as wrong on this as you are on guns. That our natural rights were curtailed by government doesn't mean they didn't exist........you have it backward.

And other governments have recognized it.

 

[OldLady]

Yes...our Rights predate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights....those documents simply record them for all to see....we have them simply because we exist...not because of the government granting them.......that is where the left goes wrong....they believe the government grants the rights......

No. Those rights were put in the Bill of Rights because the goverrnments elsewhere DID in that time have the right to limit/grant gun ownership. We made it a God Given Right with our language, WE MADE IT UP!

Have you ever studied history....? You are as wrong on this as you are on guns. That our natural rights were curtailed by government doesn't mean they didn't exist........you have it backward.

Do school me on that history, Guy, that proves we have a natural right to own guns. You have it backward. We just took a right that we wanted away from the government.

 

[OldLady]

John Locke | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

"For contemporary Americans, one reason for studying Locke (together with Hobbes) is to understand the character of liberalism. A liberal system such as ours enshrines individual rights, but its health depends upon people exercising those rights responsibly. It depends on people taking seriously their duty to respect the rights of others. Many observers believe that, while Americans today are eager to claim their rights, too few are willing to shoulder the attendant responsibilities. Is a rights-based society doomed to degenerate into simple selfishness? Or is it possible to construct a rights philosophy with a robust element of responsibility built into it? Must such a philosophy place natural law above individual right? Must this law have a religious dimension? These are questions that should send us back to Hobbes, Locke, and the architects of the American Constitution."

I don't feel the stance of extreme 2A supporters is responsible or respects the rights of others.
Of course we made up our "right" to arm our citizenry without exception. It was an extension of the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, an INTERPRETATION which we are still arguing today. That's what happens when you get into philosophies--there can be no right or wrong answer, only endless arguments.

I do love how it's called liberalism. Pretty ironic, hey?

 

[2aguy]

John Locke | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

"For contemporary Americans, one reason for studying Locke (together with Hobbes) is to understand the character of liberalism. A liberal system such as ours enshrines individual rights, but its health depends upon people exercising those rights responsibly. It depends on people taking seriously their duty to respect the rights of others. Many observers believe that, while Americans today are eager to claim their rights, too few are willing to shoulder the attendant responsibilities. Is a rights-based society doomed to degenerate into simple selfishness? Or is it possible to construct a rights philosophy with a robust element of responsibility built into it? Must such a philosophy place natural law above individual right? Must this law have a religious dimension? These are questions that should send us back to Hobbes, Locke, and the architects of the American Constitution."

I don't feel the stance of extreme 2A supporters is responsible or respects the rights of others.
Of course we made up our "right" to arm our citizenry without exception. It was an extension of the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, an INTERPRETATION which we are still arguing today. That's what happens when you get into philosophies--there can be no right or wrong answer, only endless arguments.

I do love how it's called liberalism. Pretty ironic, hey?

And you are wrong. Nothing in the the reality of gun ownership in the United States is irresponsible....and I have posted the facts the truth and the reality....

Do you even realize that the "Liberalism" of the founders is the core of Modern American Conservatism? Not left wing progressivism....you understand that...right?

By that post you show how little you really understand...

 

[2aguy]

John Locke | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

"For contemporary Americans, one reason for studying Locke (together with Hobbes) is to understand the character of liberalism. A liberal system such as ours enshrines individual rights, but its health depends upon people exercising those rights responsibly. It depends on people taking seriously their duty to respect the rights of others. Many observers believe that, while Americans today are eager to claim their rights, too few are willing to shoulder the attendant responsibilities. Is a rights-based society doomed to degenerate into simple selfishness? Or is it possible to construct a rights philosophy with a robust element of responsibility built into it? Must such a philosophy place natural law above individual right? Must this law have a religious dimension? These are questions that should send us back to Hobbes, Locke, and the architects of the American Constitution."

I don't feel the stance of extreme 2A supporters is responsible or respects the rights of others.
Of course we made up our "right" to arm our citizenry without exception. It was an extension of the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, an INTERPRETATION which we are still arguing today. That's what happens when you get into philosophies--there can be no right or wrong answer, only endless arguments.

I do love how it's called liberalism. Pretty ironic, hey?

Careful.....when you bring up Locke you should know what he says.....

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 19

Sec. 232. Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

And right there he supports the right to self defense.....even with a gun....

Allow me to repeat.....

and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

 

[2aguy]

And I like this...

In English thus:

I answer: Self-defence is a part of the law of nature; nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself: