ANTI-DEMOCRACY IN WYOMING ?

Are you serious?

I think Wyoming was the first state to give women the vote. How anti-democratic is that?

Have you ever been to Wyoming? If you have you'd know that they just don't give a **** about anyone else telling them what to do -- and that includes the NRA. I kid you not -- the NRA clog up their mail with bullshit and people in Wyoming are going to f*** them up.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The NRA needs to lighten up.

I'm not opposed to guns but I hate the NRA.

And I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Wyoming.

I kinda like the idea of licenses. Can't think of any good reason not to have them. Maybe I'm missing something?

Everything that Boomer said.

(Oh, except for that about the NRA. I pay dues.)

Women shud have had that legal right from the beginning.
It is obvious to me that every citizen who is required to comply with the law
has a moral right to participate in making those laws, by the election process, including children.
If it were MY choice, Mo coud & shoud vote, if he wants to, the same as anyone else.


No.



I 'd agree with u that it woud make sense for them to DO that,
if Wayne LaPierre called them from his NRA office in Virginia
and told them what to do, but what happened is that many,
many citizens of Wyoming emailed their State Senators,
telling them how to represent their wishes as citizens of Wyoming.

Lots of them were members of local Wyoming civil rights groups,
in addition to the NRA, and acted at the behest of those WYOMING groups.
Those recalcitrant State Senators did not attack the NRA;
thay attacked their own citizens, their own constituents, some of whom contacted them by email.

Democracy can be meaningful only if the citizens WATCH
their elected representatives in legislative and executive offices
and tell them what to do, HOW to represent them at local, state,
and federal levels, every day. That is IMPOSSIBLE for any citizen to do.
Most citizens have to earn a living every day.
Only thru the agents of special interest groups like the AARP, AAA,
The Sierra Club, the NRA, vitamin clubs, investment clubs, stamp collecting clubs,
Medical Associations, Educational Associations, dog grooming clubs,
fishing associations, vegetarian groups, and 1000s of other special interest groups
( meaning focused on one point of interest )
can the average citizen look over the shoulders of ALL of his representatives; its a lot of time-consuming, specialized work.
Maybe there is a special interest group for adoptive parents.
If not, u might start one to speak up for their legal interests.


Without special interest groups like the local Wyoming gun groups
and the NRA, elected representatives woud do whatever thay damn well please,
instead of representing the voters who elected them.
Democracy requires that citizens WATCH them.

The alternative is living under an arbitrary OLIGARCHY
whose members run for office every few years.





Their mail was filled by Wyoming citizens who chose to exercise their
constitutional rights in a democratic republic.
For THAT, thay were punished by irate legislators,
the Associated Press informs us.



With all respect Boomer, the issue dealt with by NRA
is very, very serious: literally a matter of life and death.
It is pressing the point that when a violent predator, man or beast,
pounces on his prey, we want the victim to win
and we don 't want a government to tie the hands of the victim
before he begins to fight for his life; ITS JUST NOT RIGHT.

Most Respectfully, I don 't see how this issue can be dealt with lightly.





What I know of it: I love too.

I disagree with some of NRA's policies also,
but I must admit that the 2nd Amendment woud have been abandoned long ago, without NRA resistance.
NRA is the most valuable civil rights group in American history,
in that it has defended the right to protect your LIFE
and the lives of your loved ones from imminent violent death.





David

What is your reasoning in doing so ?





David

I'm not sure I understand your question, David. Are you asking why I pay dues to the NRA or why I agree with Boomerang on the rst of her post?

There are several reasons against licensing, which are independent of one another.

Let me begin with the most urgent reason, to wit:
when we take cognizance of emergency equipment,
e.g., seat belts, fire extinguishers, jacks n spare tires, etc.,
it is desirable to PROMOTE and ENCOURAGE their use.
Hence, a sailor shoud not be required to pass a test,
and get a license to buy a life preserver to take on his boat,
nor shoud he be required to get a license on pain of fine
& incarceration before he can legally learn to swim.
Obstacles shoud not be placed to obstruct our path to safety.
Defensive guns are life-saving emergency equipment.
Being unarmed can bring on fatally bad luck; ask Kitty Genovese.
She depended on ambient society for personal protection; that did not work out very well.



If a citizen becomes the prey of man or beast,
he (or she) will live or die, in the discretion of a violent predator,
unless the victim is able to summon up the power to CONTROL that emergency.

A predatory emergency is a contest of power.

A legal requirement of licensure tends to reduce
the probability that the victim will have acquired
the equipment that is necessary to SURVIVE the event.
It is bad public policy for government to take sides against
the innocent citizens, by disarming them,
or by discouraging them from defensively arming themselves in the first place.
In that spirit, it was illegal in Colonial times, in some colonies
for a citizen to go to Church or to go to work in an unarmed condition.
Such a practice was deemed dangerously irresponsible (like modern failure to wear seatbelts).

Legal requirements of licensure to be able to defend your life with this emergency equipment
(as distinct from carrying a pillow everywhere, that u may smother robbers or hungry cougars, if necessary)
have as their philosophical justification the concept that criminals (like Leona Helmsley or Martha Stewart, or Walt Disney)
will not be able to get licensure and therefore, crime will end, unless thay use swords, clubs or arrows, etc.
This is terrible reasoning, failing to consider that many criminals are unwilling to obay the law.

I fail to understand how a man who is willing to violate the laws against robbery or against murder can be convinced
to obay gun control laws, so that he shuns guns for inability to get licensure.

Has ANY prohibition ever worked in America?
How about the prohibition in the 1920s against alcohol?
How about the prohibition against marijuana now??
Is there someone in America who wants marijuana but refuses it because of the law ??
How many BILLION$$ of $$$$ has Uncle Sam thrown into that futility for HOW LONG so far?
Shoud we expect prohibitions against guns to be MORE successful? If so, Y??

I think it was in the 1980s, that I read of some criminals shooting their way out of a prison in the Mid-West
after thay built a fully operational submachinegun in the prison workshop, one-part-at-a-time, with the guards around,
assembled in private. (Thay were captured when their getaway car hit a tree.)

Guns were among the world's first machines with moving parts, (tho more easily made now with modern "know-how").
Guns were not new to Columbus. They are simple machines, easily made. (The M-1 Carbine was invented by a prisoner,
David Williams, in prison for moonshining.) The accumulated knowledge of the gunsmith is NOT SECRET; it is among
the world's freely available engineering data. If criminals had no guns, they'd arm themselves using that information
and unsupervized access to the hardware stores of America; thus the FUTILITY of the "gun control" philosophy:
the disarmament of criminals is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE; might as well try to make gold out of water.


Repressionists want to disarm citizens, saying that guns are sometimes used to facilitate crime.
They fail to understand that the actual weapon is the HUMAN MIND, whose cleverness has not been controlled
nor restrained (even in prison). This mind expresses itself perseveringly, into the manifestation of its felt needs
or desires, and it has FOREVER to do the job that it selects (e.g., the art of the gunsmith/gun merchant).
In the 1920s, it was pervasively proven by citizens privately making bathtub gin, or using Speakeasys
(and is proven again now by marijuana users) that Prohibition is futile. Prohibition is idle superstition
unless u can convince criminals to obay the law.

TO BE CONTINUED . . . .

The former.





David

. . . CONTINUED

IF by a history of misconduct, a man has proven himself intolerably dangerous, then unarmed or not,
he shoud be removed from access to the decent people of America permanently,
or for many years, but if a man was slow to pay his taxes or erred
in his arithmetic, his natural right to self defense remains unaffected.

Another consideration is the moral and constitutional requirement
of “equal protection of the laws”. US Constitution Amendments 5 & 14
[All emphasis has been added by David.]

Most citizens woud probably agree that after a convict has been released from prison,
it ’d be rong to make him play Russian Roulette.
Upon that same principle, it is both morally intolerable and in my opinion,
repugnant to the US Constitution, to force him to just take his chances
of violent depredation, every time he ventures to the corner to get a loaf of bread,
or when he goes fishing or hiking in the wilderness.
If he is going to be offered a fresh start after he ’s served his time,
then there must be no discrimination against him qua whether or not
he can defend his life, or defend his family at any time or place.

We know for a fact that innocent men have been convicted n incarcerated,
regardless of the presumption of guilt after a conviction.
Shoud thay be forever screwed out of their natural right to defend
their families from violence because a court made a mistake? I don’t think so.
During the years that such a man awaits a judicial certificate of relief
from disabilities, he can get killed or his loved ones can be slain in front of him.

We know, from abundant historical experience, that government
can be arbitrary n capricious in attending to citizens' rights.
Suppose, e.g., that as u walk thru the world, some nasty angry fellow shoves u
out of his way, with obnoxious words; in so doing, he loses his balance,
grabs u for support, u cry out in surprize and rejection,
and falling, he breaks his head and his brain falls out.
(Imagine that u did not expect this.)

Arriving on the scene, police deem u to have been involved in an altercation with fatal results
and thay arrest u. Some witness says that he heard some angry words said, before the death.

The D.A. offers to let u off easy, if u plead to a minor offense,
and very slight penalty. This will save u a trial and expensive legal defense fees.
If u take the deal, then your record looks like u may be too "hot headed" to "be trusted"
with a license to defend your life from future robbery, etc.
Some surprizes have arrived unexpectedly; not all for the good.

Suppose u go to friends for a weekend with them.
Host gives u hors d’ oeuvres with a nice wine, while u chat about the children.
U get a call of an emergency at home. In a state of alarm, u rush home
and get stopped for speeding 7 miles over the limit;
arrested for speeding & DWI, plead down to DUI.
As far as your right to defend your child from burglars
at home a year or 2 later, or from robbers in the street:
where does that record leave u qua licensure??
The purpose of licensure is DISCRIMINATION.
What will thay do to your application?
How will u fare in the discrimination after your guilty pleas?

The 2nd Amendment was NOT written for the defense of immaculate SAINTS and ANGELS.
It was written to defend the natural rights of ALL American citizens.
GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER GRANTED JURISDICTION TO DISCRIMINATE QUA WEAPONS,
tho it CAN rid us of dangerous robbers, murderers, etc, etc. thru confinement or ISOLATION.
Let government act against the offender, not against his tools.


Licensure can only be accomplished by USURPATION of power by government,
which was explicitly denied authority to interfere in personal armament of the citizenry.
Government can only exercise this power of licensing by STEALING it, in violation of the Instrument
that created that government. One of the reasons for civilian armament, in the
vu of the Founders, was for the citizens to keep their employee, government, in line.
The Creators of that government were most acutely aware of the occasional
need to overthrow government, as thay had just finished doing.
In such a confrontation: thay wanted the citizens to WIN.
The means to that goal must remain at hand.


The Founders physically put sovereignty into the hands of the citizens.
US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) pointed out that:
"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."
[All emphasis has been added by David.]

His view was adopted by the US Supreme Court in US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939),
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."
[All emphasis has been added by David.] This quote was also cited with favor by the USSC in HELLER
554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)
The Constitution no more allows any government to control guns than to edit the Bible or control who has one.
(Any conflict between the Constitution of 1787 [e.g. the interstate commerce clause] and the Bill of Rights
must be resolved to favor the Bill of Rights, because those rights were changes to the original instrument.)

If I think of any more reasons against the institution of licensure,
I 'll let u know, K.





David

Thank you, David. That's a lot to digest and I appreciate you taking the time to point out some points I had not considered. I can't say I'm wholly convinced that licenses to own/carry guns aren't necessary, but I'll give it more thought.

BTW, we have only been to Jackson Hole, WY and some parts of Yellowstone...I don't recall seeing anyone with guns (but that's not to say some weren't packing heat beneath their parkas -- it was wintertime.)

For the same reason that I pay annual dues to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I support all 10 of the amendments to the US Constitution which comprise the Bill of Rights. I do not support the NRA unconditionally. Like all lobbying groups, they frequently go way too far in supporting the interests of the weapons manufacturers. But their main role -- that of protecting and representing the interests of gun owners -- is laudable.

So far as I discern, manufacturers and product owners share a community of interest,
against the hostility and threat from governments.





David

OK, if I was in any way helpful, I 'm glad for that, K.

Until very recently, guns were illegal in national parks.

In Wyoming, it is very, very easy to get a license to carry concealed,
if u have not been convicted of a drug offense within the last year b4 application.





David

In too many instances, a legal requirement for a license
to carry defensive firearms concealed, is a tacit death sentence,
if it moves a citizen to procrastinate.


I just can 't see a government telling its citizens:
"well, u apply, and we 'll just have to SEE whether YOU are good enuf
to be able to defend your life from violence,
so u apply, and we 'll let u know."


Arguably,
it is an INDIGNITY for a government to be asked its PERMISSION
by a citizen to exercise a natural right, and a constitutional right.

Imagine going to the police to humbly ask permission
to go to Church, or to buy a newspaper.





David

Here is another supplementary reason against licensure, K:

as a general rule, licenses are only granted to "law abiding citizens."
The NRA is forever talking about the rights of "law abiding citizens."

I question that there are more than a few "law abiding citizens"
in America much above the age of walking n talking.
Even those citizens who lay paralyzed in their hospital beds
may be guilty of violating tax laws for failure to file
or parking laws for failure to feed the meter.

Few citizens have any concept of the multiple subtle webs of law
that (unseen) ensnarl, ensnare & entangle us:
federal, state, county, city, boro, school dist, sewer dist.,
statutory law, common law, or administrative regulations
addressing very, very numerous areas of human concern.

Some years ago, I attended a legal symposium of attorneys (PLI).
There were a few 100 attorneys in this audience.
There were several superexperts up on the stage for Q & A.
Thay were some retired judges, some commissioners and
some very senior attorneys whose practices centered on litigation
of the subject matter in question. One question was considered
by the elite Illuminated Ones; after maybe 25 minutes of discussion,
thay rendered their consensus advice to assembled counsel in the audience
of how to answer their clients when consulted on this particular question.
The Word came down from on HIgh (the stage).

A few minutes later, someone behind me supplemented that question,
inquiring qua whether their collective advice on this point
woud violate a designated statute of of the State of NY.
Upon consideration and reflection, the group of them admitted
that it DID; i.e., if a citizen approached an attorney with a
practice in this area of law and addressed him with an appeal for
advice on that point of how to stay clean and out of trouble
with any violations of law, upon the collective advice of
the higher professional sagacities of these retired judges
and very senior attorneys, the advice rendered to that citizen
woud have been (unknowingly) illegal and subject that citizen to legal jeopardy.

My point is that if the group of these august, lofty, eminent, superexperts
did not know the law in their own area of expertise, then how can any citizen with
a high school diploma be expected to live his life without ignorantly violating
unseen webs of law, in varying degrees of the arcane ???

Yet: "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

To limit licensure of the right to defend your life
only to "law abiding citizens", to the immaculate Saints or Angels of America,
is radically inconsistent with recognition of the NATURAL RIGHT
of self defense (acknowledged by the USSC in HELLER)
which includes the right to the equipment to carry it out.





David