GUN OWNERS COURTED BY OBAMA

I must respectfully dissent.
This concept is fundamental and PIVOTAL.

We do not " need " to have unconstitutional laws enforced.
We need to have the BILL OF RIGHTS enforced,
which disables government from controlling or even influencing any citizen in this area.

By assuring an armed populace,
the Founders physically put sovereignty into the hands of the citizens.

As US Supreme Ct Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) put it:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been
considered as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic
since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and
arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally...enable the
people to resist and triumph over them."

His view was adopted by the US Supreme Ct in US v. MILLER
3O7 US 174 together with that of Judge Thomas Cooley who
reiterated that idea, adding:
"The meaning of the provision ... is that the people ... shall have
the right to keep and bear arms and they need no permission
or regulation of law for the purpose."
This is to say that one of the reasons that the Founders
divested government of any authority to legislate in this area,
is that thay knew that it might become necessary or advisable
for the to overthrow government AGAIN, as thay had just finished doing.
If so, thay wanted the CITIZENS to win
(as thay had just finished doing).
Accordingly, government shoud not be able to hold them in subjection by disarming them.

WHO IS THE BOSS ?
THE CITIZENS, or their hireling government ?

The concept was the same as some real estate owners who opt
to hire a property management firm. If thay decide to dispense
with its services, and if the property manager refuses to leave
peacefully, then something must be done. (What if W simply declared
a moratorium on elections indefinitely,
that he and all Republican members of Congress will just remain in office ?? What to do ?)
If governmen were in the process of being overthrown,
it might well declare that the only arms that the people may legally bear
are slingshots and water pistols; maybe some pillows, if u get a license.

The Constitution no more allows any government to control guns
than to edit the Bible or control who has one.

The only sensible gun laws that are compatible with the Bill of Rights
are those MANDATING citizens to be armed.
Such laws will not violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms.





David

We can debate this but my view is the gun issue should be a LOCAL/STATE issue, not a Federal issue.

In my view, I can agree that a City might want to have different rules that a rural community even within a State. If it reasonable to assume New York City for example, might ban certain types of guns for public safety reasons, while a rural section of New York State may not have the need to ban the same gun? Bad example maybe but I hope you get the idea.

New York State could arguably have a different set of gun rules than say Montana.

I will agree, it should not be a federal issue.

I have been well armed for many decades.
I don 't need more guns for my own security:
I want MY FELLOW CITIZENS to be well armed.
That promotes INDIVIDUALISM and an anti-socialist republic.
That re-affirms American Originalism in heart and mind.


For what reason do u feel the need to tell anyone what EMOTIONS he is feeling ??
Are the emotions of your fellow citizens your business ?
Are u VALIANT enuf to explain THAT to me ?


Do claim to be a mindreader ?
Let us assume a state of affairs contrary to known fact.
Let us assume that gun owners like me live in a state of fear.
Our emotions have no effect upon our constitutional rights.
Whether someone loves or fears or hates he has as much right to vote, to travel,
to read, to speak, to go to Church, to start a newspaper,
to be free from having any troops quartered upon him in his house,
to be immune from torture, and to keep and bear arms.

WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make what emotions your fellow citizens feel ?

Did we ASK for your help
in identifying the emotions what we are feeling ?
as if U know my emotions better than I do

What woud u think if I called u a coward
for keeping a fire extinguisher in your house,
instead of facing a potential fire helplessly ?


Are u BRAVE enuf to face the world with no health insurance ?
Do u have the COURAGE to drive around with no
spare tire in your trunk ?






David

If a citizen is being robbed or murdered by a criminal
or if he is being torn apart by a pack of wolves, while fishing,
how much will he care whether he is obeying federal or municipal law ?

NOTHING is more fundamental than the right to defend your life
from the violence of man or beast. If we do not have THAT as an inalienable right,
then surely we have NO ALIENABLE RIGHTS; thay do not exist; a fairy tale.

Tell me that I am rong.

The desires of local governments
have nothing to do with the limits of their jurisdiction.





David

We shoud all bear in mind
our personal freedom is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL
to the domestic power of government;
hence, we shoud all look down upon government as a threat,
and an unreliable employee.





David

I do not disagree with your position.

However, I can see how a place like NY City might want to ban a certain type of weapon for public safety reasons, but allow others. I can see Montana have a different mind set.

I would NEVER agree to a total ban on ANY and ALL types of guns, hand, rifle, etc...

There is no room for doubt
that the mayor of NYC woud ban guns if he were ABLE to do so.

What the supporters of victim disarmament WANT to do
and
what thay ARE ABLE to do are not related.

I believe that it is good for citizens to be mindful of the historical fact
that governments wish to AGGRANDIZE their political power,
which is diametrically opposed to the citizens' personal freedom.

Your ignorance is truly astounding, David.

It's amazing how each of you gun nuts have studiously avoided the sorry statistics that point up just how foolish the USA is on firearms.

Really ? What facts do I not know ?


The Founders made it a point to divest government
of any jurisdiction to control guns. That has nothing to do with statistics.
A man 's right to defend himself from predatory violence
has nothing to do with statistics.

Insofar as thay are concerned,
statistically, crime dropped in each state (40 of the 50 states now), when gun control
(i.e., discriminatory licensure of the right to defend your life)
was rejected in favor of CCW.

I m not going to claim to be some hot-shot statistician.
Dr. John Lott can take care of that; he already has.

The purpose of possessing a gun, JTT,
is to have the necessary emergency equipment
to control the situation, if a predatory emergency arises.
Sometimes that has happened without prior notice to the victim.

Its better to HAVE a gun and not NEED it,
than to NEED a gun and not HAVE it.




David

It's amazing how easily duped the sheeple are - so quick to blame an object for what is obviosly a behavioral problem. JTT - did your father hunt? Do you even know your father?

The reason I say this is the loudest anti-gun types typically have grown up in gang infested, fatherless neighborhoods.

To bad the facts do not support your stupid statement.

Show me a stat that indicates that crimes are committed by people who own guns LEGALLY that is outside the norm.

Only self absorb liberals will look to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens because the "bad guys" are not prosecuted by the liberal elected officials and judges YOU VOTED FOR!!!!

That is because thay are given to reaching their beliefs by EMOTING,
as distinct from rational analysis.

I regret that I cannot attribute the source of this,
for failure of memory, but I read that the incidence
of crime using legally owned guns is LOWER among private citizens
than it is in the police; i.e., legally armed citizens are MORE
lawabiding than the police are.

(I remember several years ago, a captain in the NYPD
tried to bribe me, but we wont get into that; multiple be the chuckles.)






David

I grew up fatherless in a gang infested environment and I'm pro gun ownership. My father was a career criminal with a murderous temper...I'm not a criminal and I've over the years brought my temper under control. So there. Leave peoples families and parents out of things why not? Poor form.

There are exceptions to every rule. I simply asked JTT a question, and she has chosen to run away.

OK: lemme show all of u how radical I can be
( altho implicitly I have already set this forth over the years ):
I believe that incorrigibly recidivistic violent felons shoud be BANISHED;
removed from contact with the decent people.
This can be done by incarceration in secure prisons
or, more economically, by removal from the North American Continent.

Having said that,
I reject the concept that criminals shoud not possess guns
the same as the rest of us.
Morally and constitutionally, in my opinion, thay have an equal right
to defend their lives, or their mothers' or little children 's lives, like anyone else.

By legally disarming someone, u are in effect telling him or her:
" u just have to roll the dice and your defenses from predatory
criminals or animals may only consist of HOPING that thay
will not fall upon u." That is, in principle, the same as forcing them
to play Russian Roulette every day for the rest of their lives.
IMO, that is cruel & unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment.
It also requires an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that
ex-cons are not part of "the people". Is that what the Founders had in mind ?
If thay were desperately fighting off savage Indians
( KNOWING what savage Indians did to their victims )
woud thay have said: "NO, that guy cant fight back, because he
stole a sheep a few years ago" ?? I don 't think so.

I am at a loss to understand the reason ( other than petty spite )
that Martha Stewart or the late Leona Helmsley or some poor soul
who peacefully possessed cannabis but never harmed anyone, or
some tax evader shoud not freely have access to competent emergency equipment.
Such a penalty is arbitrary, capricious, futile, pointless, cruel and unusual.
If a man has been too dangerous to tolerate among the decent people,
then that man shoud be isolated from contact with them,
but if he is freely released, then he shoud have the same freedom
to defend his mother and children as anyone else.

(his wife, too)




David