Anti-Gun Nut Wants Legislators "Snuffed".

[Go Fish]

The best part is that he's a homie of Calypso Louie. And a priest. From Illinois.
Renegade Chicago Priest Set to Face Off With Legislators He Wants 'Snuffed'

http://www.prnewswire.com/publicinterest/


CHICAGO, April 7, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was
released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):



In May of 2007, Rev. Michael Pfleger, Pastor of Chicago's St. Sabina's
Catholic Church, shocked the nation when he called for the "snuffing" of
legislators who vote against gun control bills.



Late last week, Pfleger raised the bar on this issue by publishing a
list of members of the Illinois General Assembly who oppose his extremist
position on gun control. In light of his May 2007 diatribe, it must be
presumed that the list identifies those legislators that Pfleger wants his
followers to "snuff."



The list of legislators appeared on the back side of a flyer being
faxed by "Faith Community of Saint Sabina" to various legislators' offices
in the Illinois Capitol. The front side of the flyer exhorts readers to
"Stop the Gun Flow." The flyer also features a message from Fr. Pfleger and
announces a $5,000 "bounty" on suspected triggermen in crimes.



"Fr. Pfleger apparently didn't learn his lesson last May when he
embarrassed himself and the Dioceses by calling for the 'snuffing' of gun
shop owners and pro-gun legislators," said ISRA Executive Director, Richard
Pearson. "Now he's at it again -- trying to spread an atmosphere of fear
and divisiveness among the good people of Illinois."



"Violent crime is a matter of great concern to all Illinoisans,"
continued Pearson. "Yet, Pfleger uses the issue as a wedge to split the
citizenry for the sole purpose of keeping himself in front of the TV
cameras. Pfleger's desire to become a gun control rock star has blinded him
to the fact that he is supposed to serve as a healer, not a divider."



"I'm not sure whether the 69 legislators who appear on 'Pfleger's List'
should be apprehensive about their personal safety," said Pearson. "But,
then again, Pfleger is a pretty irresponsible guy and he does run with a
pretty rough crowd. It's time for his superiors to rein him in yet again."



According to an e-mail alert put out by the "Friends of St. Sabina,"
Pfleger plans a march on the Illinois Capitol on Wednesday, April 9th. The
purpose of the march is supposedly to put pressure on legislators to pass
legislation cracking down on hunters and sportsmen.



"It'll be interesting to see how brave Pfleger is when he has to come
face to face with the lawmakers he's marked for murder," said Pearson.



The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and
responsible firearms ownership. For more than a century, the ISRA has
represented the interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding Illinois firearm
owners.



WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200705/NAT20070529a.html

[Elrathin]

Either he doesn't know what the word "snuff" means or this is one crazy priest.

Looking at the last statement, it really shows his hypocrisy if he is using the word snuff as I know it to mean:

In a message on the church's website, Pfleger says he believes that "we are called by God to build this church in a world filled with division, alienation and racism in order that we may be a witness to the world that it is possible and that the love of God is stronger than the hate of Satan."

[micfranklin]

Maybe he should read the relation btw. gun ownership and crime.

[David]

I really fail to understand why the 2nd Amendment is so hard to understand.

[brien]

This guy is irresponsible and should be defrocked for advocating murder. Where is his boss? The Vatican should insist upon his immediate removal.

[PatrickHenry]

I'd contribute a dollar to a fund for "snuffing" him....

[jff.law]

I seems to come down to the two dems saying anything that will get them elected, typical, open mouth, insert foot. Small town America is a different market then the big cites, and needs to be treated differently. The folks are a little more trusting and naive then city folks. Been talking about gun control for decades, and what we already have has not helped, or changed things much. The hand gun ban in DC did very little to fight gun crime there, people just go to gun shows in Texas and bring them back to DC.

[Osborn F. Enready]

People who wanted to get guns in DC never had to leave before or after the ban was in place.

There were black markets to buy pistols in DC before and during the ban...... The only thing the ban hurt was LAW ABIDING citizens, as the statistics have shown.

[micfranklin]

And let's not even get started on how ineffective the Assault Weapons Ban was: thanks for nothing Brady.

[Elrathin]

Frankly the disgusting thing is the fact that cops are less armed than crooks.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Elrathin, that is patently false.

Police have body armor, robots, bomb squards, swat teams, interdiction teams, BATF, DEA, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Police have access to, and most departments are equipped with full-auto and select fire submachine guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, riot guns (lethal and non-lethal), chemical weapons like tear gas, stun grenades, smoke grenades, flash-bangs, explosives, etc, etc, etc,


Civillians have access to single shot bolt action, pump action or semi-automatic weapons, legally.

Criminals have access to all of the above and more through the black market, but as a rule are far less well armed, trained or equipped than police.


Of all the cases I have seen, the only criminals I ever saw that were truly well armed were Bonnie and Clyde, and the L.A. Bank Robbery that made international news not long ago. Very rare occurences indeed.

[micfranklin]

Civilians, through certain laws, can be less armed than criminals and like the D.C. gun ban they're wide open to criminal attacks.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Thanks for pointing that out Mic......

[Elrathin]

Elrathin, that is patently false.

Police have body armor, robots, bomb squards, swat teams, interdiction teams, BATF, DEA, etc., etc., etc., etc.

The run of the mill beat cop does not have all those things Osborn. And when dealing with some of these thugs on the streets, they are terribly out armed.

[micfranklin]

Outnumbered too, and this week I watched on the news that one guy was bold enough to shoot an armed cop in the leg.

[Elrathin]

I am not going to sit here and say there aren't corrupt police officers, but at the same time I am not going to sit here and say that a regular beat cop is adequately armed to deal with what is on the streets either.

Regular street thugs are carrying weapons that would put a beat cop's weapons to shame.

[Pookie]

When I was a cop, I ran into too damn many people who had automatic weapons. Ever see your partner nearly cut in half with an AR-15?
Not good.
We don't have all that stuff, not immediately when a situation goes south in a hurry. All we ever had was our handguns and a shotgun, a bulletproof vest, and our brains to keep us alive.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Elrathin]

Thanks Pookie, you have confirmed what I have already heard. Yes, the Police force has SWAT and whatever, but that is after the fact. For the current situation the regular cops are, at times, out gunned when the shit hits the fan at the moment.

I love how some say that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. But when it comes to beat cops, it seems the message is, when you outlaw guns, only the law enforcement has the legal guns and the outlaws have whatever it takes.

[davo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought full-auto AR15's were not commonly available in the States? Or do people buy semi-auto ones and convert them? Or are they smuggled from black market manufacturers or stolen from the police/military?

If the common crook is carrying round that kind of firepower, the common beat cop certainly needs to at least match it.

[micfranklin]

As I read these responses I'm even more convinced than before that regular civilians should be allowed to own automatics or whatever.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Elrathin said:
The run of the mill beat cop does not have all those things Osborn. And when dealing with some of these thugs on the streets, they are terribly out armed.

That is simply not true El.

Check out a "beat cops" cruiser.

El said:
I am not going to sit here and say there aren't corrupt police officers, but at the same time I am not going to sit here and say that a regular beat cop is adequately armed to deal with what is on the streets either.

Regular street thugs are carrying weapons that would put a beat cop's weapons to shame.

Why is that El? Perhaps because they use a black market to obtain illegal firearms? Perhaps because the black market is so big and well equipped due to our idiotic anti-gun laws on citizens? No, of course not, right?

Pookie said:
When I was a cop, I ran into too damn many people who had automatic weapons. Ever see your partner nearly cut in half with an AR-15?

I have to ask you this Pookie.....

What is an "automatic weapon" as you use the phrase above?

Pookie said:
Not good.
We don't have all that stuff, not immediately when a situation goes south in a hurry.

I suggest you check state laws..... states differ, but many now have AR-15's in their cruisers right next to the riot gun in the trunk.

Pookie said:
All we ever had was our handguns and a shotgun, a bulletproof vest, and our brains to keep us alive.

Never mind the DEA, FBI, IRS, special state interidiction units, swat teams, etc, etc, etc, who all come in to play once a SITUATION GOES SOUTH.

[apdst]

Either he doesn't know what the word "snuff" means or this is one crazy priest.

Or, he's just plumb stupid.

Frankly the disgusting thing is the fact that cops are less armed than crooks.

Unfortunately, that will always be the case, because it's illegal to engage American citizens with automatic fire.

What is most disgusting, is that modern schools of thought instaniously accuse the cops of being in the wrong when he uses his weapon to kill a subject. Basically, the cops are fucked before they leave the station.

[Pookie]

I ran into people with M-16s and AR-15s and even one goon with an Uzi. Those were all automatic, and illegally owned.
Have you ever had to wait for a SWAT team? Geez. And I know my state laws, thank you. I'm saying what we have around here. In larger cities maybe they have better equipment, but a 9mm is no match for an M-16.
Hell, like sometimes you'd have TIME to get out and open the trunk?
ROFL!!
Too much Hollywood.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Scribbler1]

If the common crook is carrying round that kind of firepower, the common beat cop certainly needs to at least match it.I was always under the impression that the "common crook" usually only had a pistol. You can't easily conceal an automatic rifle.

[micfranklin]

Wait a minute, isn't it true that hardly any crimes involve automatic or assault weapons?

[apdst]

isn't it true that hardly any crimes involve automatic or assault weapons?

Is it? That would be a good argument in support of doing away with the licensing procedure.

[micfranklin]

Is it? That would be a good argument in support of doing away with the licensing procedure.

Let everyone see for themselves just how "good" the Assault Weapons Ban worked for example:

-Los Angeles. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were "assault weapons."

-Maryland. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland.

-New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

[Scribbler1]

Is it? That would be a good argument in support of doing away with the licensing procedure.I see it as the anti-gun people attempting to scare the public with threats of armed gangs with automatic weapons cruising the streets hanging out the backs of pickup trucks. The mental picture you're supposed to have is like the gangs in Africa who do just that and just imagine them riding down Main Street of "Anytown USA".

The thing about "assault" weapons if that it's easy to outlaw something hardly anyone OWNS. Millions of people own pistols so there would be considerable opposition to a handgun ban, regardless of the fact that THAT is what most criminals use.
But when you outlaw one type of weapon you create a precedent which makes it easier to outlaw others..

[apdst]

McFranklin, I'm missing your point.

[micfranklin]

I just decided to put out some stats from the AWB since this thread was all about guns and anti-gun people.

[apdst]

I understand, but what are you trying to say? Those stats are pre-ban numbers. I didn't see any comparitive info on the site.

[micfranklin]

I understand, but what are you trying to say? Those stats are pre-ban numbers. I didn't see any comparitive info on the site.

Well since they're pre-ban stats was it really necessary to install the ban since barely any crimes involve those kinds of weapons?

[apdst]

Ok, I see what you're getting at. I agree with that premise.

[Pookie]

Wooo, my points were totally missed here. ROFL! I knew they would be.
Purrs,
Pookie

[firefox]

Ever notice how the most adamant "save the [group x]" people are usually the most violent-minded? Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Pookie said:
Wooo, my points were totally missed here. ROFL! I knew they would be.

They weren't missed, at least, not by me.

If police don't like the danger involved with the job, they shouldn't be police.

Fear of illegal weapons is no reason to try to outlaw weapons for law abiding citizens.

[Scribbler1]

The problem, in a nutshell, is that when you "outlaw" something you can only find those things which have been legally registered. That leaves out a whole LOT of guns now in the hands of people who INTEND to use them to commit crimes.

[Buck Laser]

Does it strike anyone as even slightly strange that the "gun enthusiasts" seem to be the ones who talk most about using violence to keep their guns. I once made a mild statement about the desirability of some controls on another forum, and was immediately hit by the gun guys with hopes that I would suffer violence.

Boys, this is a two-way street, and it's time you maniacs realized it. How many of you would kill your mothers or your spouses to protect your right to "keep and bear arms?"
Hmmmm?

[firefox]

I wouldn't, what about you? I'll bet 5 oz of silver you don't own one. I can't speak for all gun owners, but I can say that I and most or all of the people I know who own guns want them for sport and/or self-defense purposes only.

One could argue that guns wouldn't exist in a perfect world, but you still have the problem of brute strength. Imagine the burly man who attempts to rape the weaker woman, or the mugger who attempts to rob the physically smaller victim. Mankind's inevitable tendency to create technology like firearms aside, they are useful for this purpose alone.

[Buck Laser]

I wouldn't, what about you? I'll bet 5 oz of silver you don't own one. I can't speak for all gun owners, but I can say that I and most or all of the people I know who own guns want them for sport and/or self-defense purposes only.

One could argue that guns wouldn't exist in a perfect world, but you still have the problem of brute strength. Imagine the burly man who attempts to rape the weaker woman, or the mugger who attempts to rob the physically smaller victim. Mankind's inevitable tendency to create technology like firearms aside, they are useful for this purpose alone.
OK, Firefox, you owe me 5 oz. of silver. I have three rifles and a Benjamin Air Pistol in my closet. There's a Winchester Model 67 single shot 22, that I got when I was 12, 60 years ago, a Ruger 10-22 that I've had for about 30 years, and a Winchester Model 43 22 Hornet that I built a custom stock for in 1965.

There was a time when I owned a great many more guns, but the attitudes and phony bravado of gun owners made me want to sever any identification with them.

NOW. How will you send me the silver? I can send you my mailing address in a PM, even post pictures of the guns there if you doubt my word. But I think you oughtta pay up on your sucker bet. Firefox.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Hey Buck....

Do you accuse the Jews who fought against the Nazis who disarmed them "victims of false bravado"?

How about when we had to supply the English with weapons to defend their own nation, were they convinced to disarm due to "false bravado"?

Only a fool gives away, or agrees to giveaway his only meaningful form of defense against a larger, superior armed force, to that larger, superior armed force.


"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983. This book was originally published by Public Affairs Press in 1948.

"Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration." Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 27, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.

"As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of "self-defense." In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law." Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 55, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.

[Buck Laser]

[QUOTE=Osborn F. Enready;168074]Hey Buck....

Do you accuse the Jews who fought against the Nazis who disarmed them "victims of false bravado"?

How about when we had to supply the English with weapons to defend their own nation, were they convinced to disarm due to "false bravado"?

Only a fool gives away, or agrees to giveaway his only meaningful form of defense against a larger, superior armed force, to that larger, superior armed force.
[/quote}
Os, you have an absolutely amazing tendency to project ridiculously beyond anything I said. I was talking about a degree of gun regulation--as in IL, where I had to have a Firearm Owners Identification. Nothing like that in TX. But the FOID didn't make any list of firearms I owned or any such thing.

So I'll ask you personally: would you sacrifice a member of your family in order to keep your firearms? It's a simple question, and it'll tell me a lot about your core values.

[namguy]

People who wanted to get guns in DC never had to leave before or after the ban was in place.

There were black markets to buy pistols in DC before and during the ban...... The only thing the ban hurt was LAW ABIDING citizens, as the statistics have shown.

That's right, good post...

[Scribbler1]

One could argue that guns wouldn't exist in a perfect world,And to that, I challenge any anti-gun politician or regular citizen to do ONE thing. If they do that they would get my support.

That thing of course is, PROVE you have gotten rid of ALL the illegal weapons FIRST. Only then (and after you have GUARANTEED the illegal guns won't come back) can you touch any weapons owned by law abiding citizens.

Of course this will never happen, so I'm in NO danger of ever supporting any kind of gun ban. but you still have the problem of brute strength. Imagine the burly man who attempts to rape the weaker woman, or the mugger who attempts to rob the physically smaller victim. Mankind's inevitable tendency to create technology like firearms aside, they are useful for this purpose alone.You can't shoot an unarmed man though, unless you can prove in court you were in danger of being seriously harmed, and sometimes THAT isn't enough.
Since most people are indeed law abiding citizens, I'm guessing the sheer weight of numbers in most places would keep the attacker at bay. Picture a linebacker-sized punk pushing a little guy around in, say, a restaurant. Then picture some Marine there trying to enjoy his meal.
Your scenario suggests the larger man would not have a gun, so I picture a sad outcome for the attacker.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
Os, you have an absolutely amazing tendency to project ridiculously beyond anything I said.

Could that be due to your tendency to fail to project where what you say leads to?
(Natural result of cause and effect, over time)

Buck said:
I was talking about a degree of gun regulation--as in IL, where I had to have a Firearm Owners Identification. Nothing like that in TX. But the FOID didn't make any list of firearms I owned or any such thing.

So I'll ask you personally: would you sacrifice a member of your family in order to keep your firearms?

Buck, the reason I keep my firearms is to prevent ever being ordered or given the ultimatum of such an absurd choice. My family members feel the same way as I do, and they would want me to retain protection as much as I would want them to.

It is "ultimatums" like that, that are prime examples of why we keep arms, and a clear signal of when you should start using them.

Buck said:
It's a simple question, and it'll tell me a lot about your core values.

Its an absurd question, as far as reality goes, since you would never encounter such a question without force being used against you, and in that case, you would be damned glad you had those arms since it may be the ONLY thing between keeping that family member or losing your life, and all of your famillies lives.

I will say this as clearly as possible.

I will not, ever, under any circumstance outside of due process, surrender my arms.

If they make arms illegal, they are in essence making ME illegal, and I will treat those who outlaw me as they treat me, without respect.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
So I'll ask you personally: would you sacrifice a member of your family in order to keep your firearms? It's a simple question, and it'll tell me a lot about your core values.

So Buck, let me ask you a question......

Would you sacrifice a member of your family in order to keep the idea of religion alive?

Its a simple question, and it will tell me a lot about your core values.

[Buck Laser]

So Buck, let me ask you a question......

Would you sacrifice a member of your family in order to keep the idea of religion alive?

Its a simple question, and it will tell me a lot about your core values.
Well no, I wouldn't. Religion is an idea that's recurred constantly among humanity. Firearms are specific objects. Now, if you'd asked me if I'd sacrifice a member of my family in order to preserve my right to chocolate ice cream, it might have been an appropriate rhetorical question. As you put the question however, it's silly and poorly thought out.

[Osborn F. Enready]

All I am saying Buck, is that wouldn't be a choice ever encountered unless the person "giving you" that choice was doing it using force.

If they are using unjust force (which that certainly is), there would be reason to use that gun, not surrender it.

[namguy]

I'm just going to say this; guns have always been a part of the American way of life, there's nothing wrong at all owning a gun, pistol or rifle, actually quite the opposite. There's been endless times that the mere showing of a pistol has prevented crimes from happening. I forget what the percentage is but it was high. There's many people that don't like firearms, they see them as inanimate objects of evil and it just isn't true.

[Buck Laser]

All I am saying Buck, is that wouldn't be a choice ever encountered unless the person "giving you" that choice was doing it using force.

If they are using unjust force (which that certainly is), there would be reason to use that gun, not surrender it.
I'm probably not as loaded with testosterone as you, Os. When I was in my 20s and 30s, doing a lot of shooting and gunstock building, I had quite an arsenal. But somewhere around the age of 35, I began to ask myself seriously what good firearms were doing for my quality of life. As I lived in a big city at the time, and was way more interested in doing things with my kids, like bicycling, camping, going to soccer games, etc., it seemed a good idea to get rid of the firearms save for two or three that I could use to teach my kids to shoot when the opportunity arose. One of the rifles I kept was the single-shot .22 I bought with my own earnings when I was 12.

While I did face an occasional threat of violence while I was working in the War on Poverty (a drunk once shot a .22 in my general direction), and several people offered to punch me out, I managed to avoid physical confrontations without ever running away.

Earlier, some guy was all over me because I said half-jokingly that I thought running away was a good tactic. He implied that I was a coward. In most ways, I wish I were, because I've gotten into an occasional confrontation that a wiser man would have avoided. All that anger ain't a good idea for someone my age.

Maybe I'm the only guy here who hasn't had to deal with someone trying to take my life--I'm sure everyone will tell me so. I was fortunate in my military service to have been there in a time when the US had no active war going.

[PatrickHenry]

I like these guys: http://www.jpfo.org/

To destroy "gun control" and to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone.

Those are the twin goals of Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
I'm probably not as loaded with testosterone as you, Os. When I was in my 20s and 30s, doing a lot of shooting and gunstock building, I had quite an arsenal. But somewhere around the age of 35, I began to ask myself seriously what good firearms were doing for my quality of life. As I lived in a big city at the time, and was way more interested in doing things with my kids, like bicycling, camping, going to soccer games, etc., it seemed a good idea to get rid of the firearms save for two or three that I could use to teach my kids to shoot when the opportunity arose. One of the rifles I kept was the single-shot .22 I bought with my own earnings when I was 12.

I can respect that Buck, and I respect peoples rights to own and use arms, or not if they choose not to, I only ask for that same respect back. I own arms for many reasons, but most of them are for reasons of defense from any source of unjust force.

Buck said:
While I did face an occasional threat of violence while I was working in the War on Poverty (a drunk once shot a .22 in my general direction), and several people offered to punch me out, I managed to avoid physical confrontations without ever running away.

Earlier, some guy was all over me because I said half-jokingly that I thought running away was a good tactic. He implied that I was a coward. In most ways, I wish I were, because I've gotten into an occasional confrontation that a wiser man would have avoided. All that anger ain't a good idea for someone my age.

I hear ya, and hell, all that anger isn't good for a person at any age. I have taken a good ass kickin' a couple times, been embarassed once or twice, but not too ashamed to admit it. (I view them as learning experiences if I walk away) I am generally a non-confrontational person socially, but, there are times when a man must take action.
I would never resort to lethal force unless I thought it necessary, and while I enjoy watching a good match of fisticuffs, I have never been a fan of participating unless necessary. More than anything, I am a fan of options, and there are times when violence and lethal force are necessary so I view that a requirement to life, and the pursuit of happiness if I am to be intellectually honest to myself.

Buck said:
Maybe I'm the only guy here who hasn't had to deal with someone trying to take my life--I'm sure everyone will tell me so. I was fortunate in my military service to have been there in a time when the US had no active war going.

I actually joined the Navy to serve in Desert Storm, but it was over before I was out of training.

I was politically ignorant at that time, and had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have joined. I had plans on a military career, hopefully as a SEAL, but that was not to be for personal reasons that came along after I had joined. I learned though... no regrets. I am 36 by the way.

[Buck Laser]

I actually joined the Navy to serve in Desert Storm, but it was over before I was out of training.

I was politically ignorant at that time, and had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have joined. I had plans on a military career, hopefully as a SEAL, but that was not to be for personal reasons that came along after I had joined. I learned though... no regrets. I am 36 by the way.
This is how time flies: I thought Desert Storm was just a couple of years ago. I got out of the army in 1956, so we're looking at these matters from different ends of the age spectrum. Until next month, I'm twice your age.

Just to be clear: I don't advocate draconic gun control, but I don't have much of a problem with the IL law which requires all firearm owners to have a specific ID. No listing of firearms owned--unfortunately, no requirement for safety and proficiency training either.

I don't like concealed carry--that's an attitude I learned from my father, who was born in 1895. He was an excellent hunter and an expert marksman, but he had absolutely NO use for handguns. I shared his view until I inherited an old H & R .38 from an uncle, and shot it a few times--it was kinda fun, but I had young children around the house, and losing a child to a firearm accident is infinitely worse than the outside possibility that someone might attack me.

In the end, most of us arrive at our principles and standards as much by gut feeling and emotion as we do by pure reason. My feelings about firearms have nothing to do with the "media influences" that so many fools love to bitch about. I had the opinions I hold a long time before I ever formulated a personal political philosophy, so there's no way I can say I believe in some gun control because I'm a liberal. I came to the idea of gun control by the time I was ten or so. I didn't get to be a liberal until JFK ran for president.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Well, like I said Buck.

I can respect anyones opinion, as long as it stops at their nose.
I can respect anyones choices, as long as they don't directly affect me.

I only ask for the same respect, and the respect for the law of the land that recognizes my right to keep and bear arms as well as my other enumerated, and non-enumerated rights.

[namguy]

That's right at the age I sold all my pistols and reloading equipment, I also cast my own bullets. Took the money from the selling all that I had and bought wood working equipment. Now I still like guns, pistols in particular, but I never hunted only target shooting and plinking.

[Buck Laser]

That's right at the age I sold all my pistols and reloading equipment, I also cast my own bullets. Took the money from the selling all that I had and bought wood working equipment. Now I still like guns, pistols in particular, but I never hunted only target shooting and plinking.

I'd love to build and use a muzzle loading rifle. But that comes more from the intense pleasure I get in making things. My own interest in guns has always had more to do with fascination with the mechanical and craftsman aspects of the weapons themselves.

I still like to read about guns, but when they turn with religious fervor to the second amendment, I lose interest real quickly.

[namguy]

This is how time flies: I thought Desert Storm was just a couple of years ago. I got out of the army in 1956, so we're looking at these matters from different ends of the age spectrum. Until next month, I'm twice your age.

Just to be clear: I don't advocate draconic gun control, but I don't have much of a problem with the IL law which requires all firearm owners to have a specific ID. No listing of firearms owned--unfortunately, no requirement for safety and proficiency training either.

I don't like concealed carry--that's an attitude I learned from my father, who was born in 1895. He was an excellent hunter and an expert marksman, but he had absolutely NO use for handguns. I shared his view until I inherited an old H & R .38 from an uncle, and shot it a few times--it was kinda fun, but I had young children around the house, and losing a child to a firearm accident is infinitely worse than the outside possibility that someone might attack me.

In the end, most of us arrive at our principles and standards as much by gut feeling and emotion as we do by pure reason. My feelings about firearms have nothing to do with the "media influences" that so many fools love to bitch about. I had the opinions I hold a long time before I ever formulated a personal political philosophy, so there's no way I can say I believe in some gun control because I'm a liberal. I came to the idea of gun control by the time I was ten or so. I didn't get to be a liberal until JFK ran for president.

Good thred Buck...

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
But that comes more from the intense pleasure I get in making things. My own interest in guns has always had more to do with fascination with the mechanical and craftsman aspects of the weapons themselves.

I share much of the same affliction.

I am an amateur metal worker and wood worker myself, and used to be an engine machinist and builder/rebuilder. (still would be if the market would bear it around here)

[namguy]

I share much of the same affliction.

I am an amateur metal worker and wood worker myself, and used to be an engine machinist and builder/rebuilder. (still would be if the market would bear it around here)

Yes, I also like the tech end of pistols, powders,etc. I handloaded and cast my own bullets for 16 years. I once qualified with a 295 at the range, with my own loads. I came up with an alloy that matched lead factory bullets. They went out the tube at right around 1100 fps @ 16,000 cup's.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I have watched others cast their own bullets or assemble their own ammunition, reload, etc, but have never made the investment myself. I would like to eventually, but that is not in my current economic reach.

What caliber were you working with namguy, .45 ACP?

[firefox]

I put some .30'06 bullets together in Scouts once. It was quite interesting.

[namguy]

I have watched others cast their own bullets or assemble their own ammunition, reload, etc, but have never made the investment myself. I would like to eventually, but that is not in my current economic reach.

What caliber were you working with namguy, .45 ACP?

I had a .357/38 Spl., 9mm, 44 Magnum/44 SPL and the 45 ACP. Out of all the handguns I worked with and loaded for my favorate was indeed the 45ACP. The faster burning powders work very fine with the .45ACP. I didn't care for the traditional 230 grain full metal jacket that was so popular, and still is in that caliber, I preferred the 185-200 grain semi-wadcutters, I was able to get good fps with them with realitive low cup's (Copper Units of Presure). I also had about 3 other recoil springs for my .45ACP, they ranged from a 17 lb. down to about a 13 lb.

Once you get into it Osborn let me know I'll help you out. There's so much more to learn, I'll help you.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Thanks for the offer Namguy, when the time comes I won't hesitate to take you up on that! ;)

For defense, I prefer using Glasers and Black Talons in my .45, but in the future when I can afford it, I would like to reload for training ammo.

Again, thanks for the offer. ;)

[namguy]

Thanks for the offer Namguy, when the time comes I won't hesitate to take you up on that! ;)

For defense, I prefer using Glasers and Black Talons in my .45, but in the future when I can afford it, I would like to reload for training ammo.

Again, thanks for the offer. ;)

Anytime Osorn, it's my pleasure. When you get to reloading let me know.
Take care.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Rev. Michael Pfleger sounds like a true nutball...good thing there hasn't been pro-gun nutballs! :lmao:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mouth full of teeth said:
Rev. Michael Pfleger sounds like a true nutball...good thing there hasn't been pro-gun nutballs!

Oh, there have been, many over mans history recent and distant.

Regardless though, no person or entity has the right to remove an innocent persons right to competent defense, period.

Since the invention of the gun, and as far as we can see in the forseeable future, a COMPETENT defense entails having a right to keep and bear arms.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Regardless though, no person or entity has the right to remove an innocent persons right to competent defense, period.

Since the invention of the gun, and as far as we can see in the forseeable future, a COMPETENT defense entails having a right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.taylorstudio-taxidermy-art.com/files/bear1.jpg

You can keep your bear arms!

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Regardless though, no person or entity has the right to remove an innocent persons right to competent defense, period.

Since the invention of the gun, and as far as we can see in the forseeable future, a COMPETENT defense entails having a right to keep and bear arms.

Seriously, now...

I think there are problems with claiming that guns are a COMPETENT defense...

And I think gun-control advocates would agree with you that COMPETENT should be capitalized. Part of that COMPETENT would be gun control measures such as required training, waiting periods and special licensing for particular kinds of arms, etc.

But, I have to ask, who are you intending to defend yourself against? And, what kinds of guns do you need for your defense? Do you need an assult rifle for your defense? If so, why?

[namguy]

Rev. Michael Pfleger sounds like a true nutball...good thing there hasn't been pro-gun nutballs! :lmao:

Tell me, please, what is so wrong with owning guns? I referring to good law abiding people. Tell me.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Tell me, please, what is so wrong with owning guns? I referring to good law abiding people. Tell me.

Er...
My point wasn't that gun are bad, necessarily, but that both sides of any argument will have nutballs. The original article just seemed a little silly to me...

As for the problems of "good law abiding people" owning guns...hmmm... Off the top of my head, I'd say that the biggest problem with "good law abiding people" owning guns is gun accidents. These accidents can take the form of a child getting ahold of a gun and using it improperly, a case of self-defense where someone shoots an innocent (could be a bystandard or someone wrongfully feeling threatened), unsafe gun practices that lead to the owner or another being hurt or killed, etc. Oh, and the gun being stolen and used by someone that isn't a "good law abiding" person, of course.

Other than that, the biggest problem is how to determine who is a "good law abiding" person, and who is not.

[namguy]

Er...
My point wasn't that gun are bad, necessarily, but that both sides of any argument will have nutballs. The original article just seemed a little silly to me...

As for the problems of "good law abiding people" owning guns...hmmm... Off the top of my head, I'd say that the biggest problem with "good law abiding people" owning guns is gun accidents. These accidents can take the form of a child getting ahold of a gun and using it improperly, a case of self-defense where someone shoots an innocent (could be a bystandard or someone wrongfully feeling threatened), unsafe gun practices that lead to the owner or another being hurt or killed, etc. Oh, and the gun being stolen and used by someone that isn't a "good law abiding" person, of course.

Other than that, the biggest problem is how to determine who is a "good law abiding" person, and who is not.

There's always going to be accidents, with anything. I rased a daughter at the time and I owned 4 handguns, locked in a pistol case, up far enough that she couldn't get to them. In the sixteen years I target shot I never even came close to an accident. Now that's me, I can't speak for others. As for law abiding citizens, their guns are regestered with the state and, I'm certain by now, the Federal Government. The Federal Arms Lincesed dealers can tell in a moment if said person is legelly able to purchase the gun. It's been quite a few years since my hobby was firearms, I sold everything I had, I just didn't have the time anymore to load, target shoot, etc. As for guns being stolen, they make very good gun safes, extremely good. I haven't never heard many stories of stolen firearms being used in roberies or murders, those 'type' of firearms are usually mechaniclly un-sound and are of manufactures of lesser quality. What you say does hold credence but look at how many stolen cars have killed people, drunk drivers, addicts.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mouth full of teeth said:
Seriously, now...

I think there are problems with claiming that guns are a COMPETENT defense...

I would love to see you elaborate on what those problems are.

Firstly, you do understand that this was designed as, and still claims to be a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic, right? You do know we have an explicit guarantee to a republican form of government, and that entails a right to remove or disband and reform government all together, right?

If any of that seems foreign to you, please go here and read the Decleration of Independence (reasons that compel rational men to shrug off the yolk of oppressive and self-damaging government), the Constitution of the United States (the formal allocation, description and limitation of such government as the self-governed expressly conscent to), and the Bill of Rights that were REQUIRED before ratification of the documents could take place (the enumerated RECOGNITION, not granting, of individual rights and individual responsibility that all citizens are recognized to have, and government is forbidden to infringe upon).......

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html

Ok, now that we are on the same page hopefully.....


Mouth full of teeth said:
And I think gun-control advocates would agree with you that COMPETENT should be capitalized. Part of that COMPETENT would be gun control measures such as required training, waiting periods and special licensing for particular kinds of arms, etc.

What part of the 2nd amendment is not clear? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is pretty clear, is it not?

Mouth full of teeth said:
But, I have to ask, who are you intending to defend yourself against?

All enemies, foreign and domestic, or any bearer of unjust force regardless of the pretty uniforms, badges or pretenses with which they attempt to extoll or try to unjustly infringe any individuals rights.

For clarification, that is UP TO and INCLUDING our own government or any forces it may raise or use against its own citizens if need be. That was the PURPOSE of the 2nd amendment, forbidding a government to attempt to use armed force against its own armed populace en masse, because they knew any level of law that would require that would be unjust to the core.

Mouth full of teeth said:
And, what kinds of guns do you need for your defense?

Any individual arm that is available in the current arms market, realisticly. I would love to debate this issue some time if you felt compelled to do so.

Mouth full of teeth said:
Do you need an assult rifle for your defense? If so, why?

Obviously. The standard arm for all military and most police forces around the world is the assault rifle, therefore a "competent defense" would require at least matching that specification available for civillian citizens use. (as it currently is with exception to the special licenses required to attain fully-automatic weapons, which is quite rare and costly)

The 2nd amendment is not in place so hunters can hunt, or so people can go shoot paper targets, though the right does entail both also. The 2nd amendment is in place to ensure that individuals have the LEGALLY RECOGNIZED RIGHT to protect themselves, their loved ones, their property from those who use lethal force to threaten them or their lives.

Individual responsibility entails being responsible for your health and welfare, which includes being responsible for your own safety. Police departments were created to aid town citizens with this, as an addition, not a replacement. Standing armies and national guard replaced state militia and national militias, but the people still retain the right to form these militias, and they also permanently retain the right to keep and bear arms for both defense against criminals as well as tyrannical government or foreign government threats that reach our shores.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

There's always going to be accidents, with anything. I rased a daughter at the time and I owned 4 handguns, locked in a pistol case, up far enough that she couldn't get to them. In the sixteen years I target shot I never even came close to an accident. Now that's me, I can't speak for others. As for law abiding citizens, their guns are regestered with the state and, I'm certain by now, the Federal Government. The Federal Arms Lincesed dealers can tell in a moment if said person is legelly able to purchase the gun. It's been quite a few years since my hobby was firearms, I sold everything I had, I just didn't have the time anymore to load, target shoot, etc. As for guns being stolen, they make very good gun safes, extremely good. I haven't never heard many stories of stolen firearms being used in roberies or murders, those 'type' of firearms are usually mechaniclly un-sound and are of manufactures of lesser quality. What you say does hold credence but look at how many stolen cars have killed people, drunk drivers, addicts.

I think you're under the mistaken impression that I'm in favor of banning all guns. I'm not. I do believe in gun CONTROL, however. Gun control does aim to address some of the problems that I raised when you asked if there were any problems with "good law abiding people" owning guns. And, I support such legislation.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

You do know we have an explicit guarantee to a republican form of government, and that entails a right to remove or disband and reform government all together, right?

You are not guaranteed a REPUBLICAN form of government, and come the next election, I hope that we will no longer have one...;)

What part of the 2nd amendment is not clear? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is pretty clear, is it not?

You kind of skipped over the "well armed militia" part...

That was the PURPOSE of the 2nd amendment, forbidding a government to attempt to use armed force against its own armed populace en masse, because they knew any level of law that would require that would be unjust to the core.

Well, we all know how well that worked out for David Koresh. It seems that guns aren't going to do it. You would be in favor, I assume, of personally owned tanks, fighter jets, gernade launchers, nukes, etc, right?

Any individual arm that is available in the current arms market, realisticly. I would love to debate this issue some time if you felt compelled to do so.

But any individual arm that is available in the current arms market has not been proven to actually be able to protect one from one's government. Kind of throws the whole excuse out the window...

The 2nd amendment is not in place so hunters can hunt, or so people can go shoot paper targets, though the right does entail both also. The 2nd amendment is in place to ensure that individuals have the LEGALLY RECOGNIZED RIGHT to protect themselves, their loved ones, their property from those who use lethal force to threaten them or their lives.

That's up to judicial interpretation. The last case the Supreme Court specifically decided on this issue, didn't come out in favor of the gun owner. Another case was recently put before the Supreme Court...we'll see how that one turns out.

Individual responsibility entails being responsible for your health and welfare, which includes being responsible for your own safety. Police departments were created to aid town citizens with this, as an addition, not a replacement. Standing armies and national guard replaced state militia and national militias, but the people still retain the right to form these militias, and they also permanently retain the right to keep and bear arms for both defense against criminals as well as tyrannical government or foreign government threats that reach our shores.

See above. If you're really going to be effective in a militia, you're going to have to argue for a lot more than just guns... And, I'm not sure that the courts (your reading and my reading of the Constitution really doesn't matter) are going to agree with you that an individual citizen wishing to own a gun is considered a "militia".

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mouth full of teeth said:
You are not guaranteed a REPUBLICAN form of government, and come the next election, I hope that we will no longer have one...

While I hope that was a tongue-in-cheek joke, just in case, let me clarify....

Article IV

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Mouth full of teeth said:
You kind of skipped over the "well armed militia" part...

I "kind of tried" to help you overlook a common mistake people make when referring to militias use in the amendment, when it is clearly the right of individuals.

You may claim to "have a different interpretation", and if you do, I implore you to provide it and the REASONS why you have it, as well as some links to verify why anyone would consider it valid.

As far as my position, its being argued in the Supreme Court and has been clearly illustrated in meaning and intent by the people who created and ratified the damn document:

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;…" Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789 quoting Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State by the Honorable Samuel Adams, Esquire.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. 1824. ME 16:45.

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796.

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

"In England...A large proportion of the most valuable of the provisions in Magna Charta, and the bill of rights in 1688, consists of a solemn recognition, of limitations upon the power of parliament; that is, a declaration, that parliament ought not to abolish, or restrict those rights. Such are the right of trial by jury; the right to personal liberty and private property according to the law of the land; that the subjects ought to have a right to bear arms;..." Joseph Story, Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Book III at 718, § 1858. Chapter. Whole Book.

"If, for example, a law be passed by congress, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates, or persuasions of a man's own conscience or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peaceably, or to keep and bear arms; it would, in any of these cases, be the province of the judiciary to pronounce whether any such act were constitutional, or not; and if not, to acquit the accused from any penalty which might be annexed to the breach of such unconstitutional act." Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D [Section 16: Judicial Powers]. Whole Book.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1. Coxe sent a copy of his essay to James Madison along with a letter of the same date. Madison wrote back and the quote follows.

"Accept my acknowledgments for your favor of the 18th. instant. The printed remarks inclosed in it are already I find in the Gazettes here [New York] ... The amendments ... will however be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your pen." James Madison in a response letter to Tench Coxe above supporting the interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;…" Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).

"Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty …" Senator William Grayson of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646 (June 25, 1788).


Obviously the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, for the purpose of limiting the power of government by force through the will of the people, should the peaceful methods which were AGREED TO IN THE DOCUMENT AND BOR not be respected.

Mouth full of teeth said:
Well, we all know how well that worked out for David Koresh. It seems that guns aren't going to do it. You would be in favor, I assume, of personally owned tanks, fighter jets, gernade launchers, nukes, etc, right?

First of all, you are trying to detract this into a strawman "rambo" argument.

Secondly, if I have to resort to force to protect my liberties, dying is a very real and very possible risk, and would be assumed when doing so. That is the point of making a stand, and the truth behind the statement "live free, or die".

Life is not worth living if it is only at the will and whim of another, and while I am alive and armed I will not bow to any such notion.

Thirdly, Koresh was a buffoon, but he was still trampled by a corrupt government acting illegally and against the Constitution, as was Randy Weaver victimized and forced to suffer the death of members of his family at the hands of state and federal mercenaries who long ago forgot THEIR JOB. Lon Horiuchi should have been strung up for his actions.

Mouth full of teeth said:
You would be in favor, I assume, of personally owned tanks, fighter jets, gernade launchers, nukes, etc, right?

Well you would be wrong... but hey, nice guess, having nothing to base it on except preconcieved labels and attributes you have already assigned me without knowing a damn thing about me. ;)

Mouth full of teeth said:
But any individual arm that is available in the current arms market has not been proven to actually be able to protect one from one's government. Kind of throws the whole excuse out the window...

LOL... not at all.

Arms have been used since invented to uproot and remove tyranny, and the concept is so well vetted all militaries use them, as do all police.... sorry.

Mouth full of teeth said:
That's up to judicial interpretation.

You can accept that perception if you choose. I however do not. I do not live at the whim of any court, nor do I live under contract to serve in any way other than within my rights. I did however enlist in the military and take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States from any and all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I took that quite seriously.

Do you need someone to explain what each and every word means for each and every application? No. You need to understand the words used when the documents were ratified and took effect, all other interpretations are simply awaiting judicial review to be struck from the code, but that won't happen while the bi-partisan monopoly on power exists, which has existed for 157 years.

Court seats are by appointment, and all the seats now have been seeded by bi-partisan hacks, who put agenda before obligation to integrity, honor and country.

The reason people call revolutions, revolutions, be they peaceable or violent... is because the people REFUSE to accept what the courts, the representatives, the government says.

Mouth full of teeth said:
The last case the Supreme Court specifically decided on this issue, didn't come out in favor of the gun owner. Another case was recently put before the Supreme Court...we'll see how that one turns out.

Indeed we will....

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

While I hope that was a tongue-in-cheek joke, just in case, let me clarify....

Yes, it was...

You may claim to "have a different interpretation", and if you do, I implore you to provide it and the REASONS why you have it, as well as some links to verify why anyone would consider it valid.

I have the specific interpretation that says it doesn't matter how you or I read it...it's how the courts interpret it. BTW, with the conservative nature of the court, I predict that I'm not going to like the way they are going to interpret the 2nd Admendment...but legally, my like or dislike has absolutely nothing to do with what IS the law.

As far as my position, its being argued in the Supreme Court and has been clearly illustrated in meaning and intent by the people who created and ratified the damn document:

Much has changed since 1788...

First of all, you are trying to detract this into a strawman "rambo" argument.

No, I'm simply pointing out the fact that guns don't seem to be an effective method to protect oneself from the government -- especially with the weapons and arms that this government has access to. I find your reasoning, dubious.

Secondly, if I have to resort to force to protect my liberties, dying is a very real and very possible risk, and would be assumed when doing so. That is the point of making a stand, and the truth behind the statement "live free, or die".

As long as we agree that your guns will be ineffective...

Thirdly, Koresh was a buffoon, but he was still trampled by a corrupt government acting illegally and against the Constitution, as was Randy Weaver victimized and forced to suffer the death of members of his family at the hands of state and federal mercenaries who long ago forgot THEIR JOB. Lon Horiuchi should have been strung up for his actions.

I'm not arguing Koresh's specific case. I'm pointing out that there hasn't been one sucessful group of people that have been able to stand up against the federal government with their guns and "protect their rights". Therefore, the justification to have guns based on "defending yourself" from your government, doesn't even work practically, to say nothing of legally.

Well you would be wrong... but hey, nice guess, having nothing to base it on except preconcieved labels and attributes you have already assigned me without knowing a damn thing about me. ;)

Er...you didn't understand the point of the question. I didn't seriously think that you were, in fact, in favor of personal nukes, fighter jets, tanks, etc. Again, see above.

You can accept that perception if you choose. I however do not. I do not live at the whim of any court, nor do I live under contract to serve in any way other than within my rights.

:ponder:

Well, we were talking about the constitution and what rights we are aforded. I assumed that we were talking about what rights we actually had... Not what rights you want to believe in dispite what the government grants you. If you want to suppose what rights you have dispite the government, why bring up the constitution at all?

I did however enlist in the military and take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States from any and all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I took that quite seriously.

Part of what the constitution says is that the judicial branch gets to interpret the constitution...

Do you need someone to explain what each and every word means for each and every application? No. You need to understand the words used when the documents were ratified and took effect, all other interpretations are simply awaiting judicial review to be struck from the code, but that won't happen while the bi-partisan monopoly on power exists, which has existed for 157 years.

Yes, you do need that. You need exactly that. That is why, in the constitution, the founding fathers specifically spelled out WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THAT.

Court seats are by appointment, and all the seats now have been seeded by bi-partisan hacks, who put agenda before obligation to integrity, honor and country.

Maybe so, but that is our system as spelled out in the constitution...

The reason people call revolutions, revolutions, be they peaceable or violent... is because the people REFUSE to accept what the courts, the representatives, the government says.

Well, again, good luck with that. You're going to need a lot more than guns to actually enforce it, however.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mouth full of teeth said:
I have the specific interpretation that says it doesn't matter how you or I read it...it's how the courts interpret it.

Can you provide a source link please? Also, can you show me in any way how any law DIRECTLY affects a persons action, outside the use of force? The government has no right to use force against you unless you have taken acts against the rights of others, or infringed the rights of others, so how could a government have a right to use force to REMOVE your rights, using force, without REASONABLE provocation? Explain what reasonable provocation to use force against a citizen is?

Mouth full of teeth said:
BTW, with the conservative nature of the court, I predict that I'm not going to like the way they are going to interpret the 2nd Admendment...but legally, my like or dislike has absolutely nothing to do with what IS the law.

Law is law, it is however individuals who CHOOSE to conscent to law, or oppose it.
Speeding is against the law, but as you well know, the courts are jammed everyday with people who willingly break the law, and then willingly pay the fines, or oppose the reasonability of the case. That is their right. Are you saying this is not their right? Are you saying this is NOT a government of conscent?

Mouth full of teeth said:
Much has changed since 1788...

One thing that has not changed, is that we are all still individuals, and we all still have right should we seek to exercise them and defend them, as we have the legal right to do.

Hell, much has changed since 2000, but that doesn't give open door to wholesale violate the role of government, its limits emplaced by the people, or the peoples rights to act within or without the purview of the government.

Mouth full of teeth said:
No, I'm simply pointing out the fact that guns don't seem to be an effective method to protect oneself from the government -- especially with the weapons and arms that this government has access to. I find your reasoning, dubious.

I find your logic flawed. Guns are the ONLY way to keep a government in check, that uses force at will against its citizens. Can you show me where anything else has worked long term, against a government that only recognizes force? How was Hitler defeated? (force of arms)

Regardless of what weapons exist, the best method of defense for any and all individuals is the method which best suits an individual, and in this day, much like in 1900, 1800, the gun is the best means of accomplishing this.

Also, you site examples such as Koresh, where it was one small group against a NATIONAL force. How about the Civil War, which would be more aprapo, or perhaps the revolution from england? Do you dispute that armed men using only individual arms can fight a national force? I think you should examine what is happening in Iraq, and make an attempt to understand the tactics of war, mainly, guerilla tactics.

Mouth full of teeth said:
As long as we agree that your guns will be ineffective...

We don't agree. My guns are quite effective at launching projectiles where I point them and then pull the trigger. That is what is required for a gun to be effective. No victory is assured, ever, and in every conflict there are winners and losers, regardless of whether violent or peaceful.

I think you know very little at all about tactics and warfare, or their history, but time will tell.

Mouth full of teeth said:
I'm not arguing Koresh's specific case. I'm pointing out that there hasn't been one sucessful group of people that have been able to stand up against the federal government with their guns and "protect their rights". Therefore, the justification to have guns based on "defending yourself" from your government, doesn't even work practically, to say nothing of legally.

Uh, once again... how about the Civil War and the Revolt from England. Please don't make the false assumption that since technology has progressed in arms and tactics, that firearms are for some reason "ineffective" as you were hinting above.... that view is patently false and provably so.

Mouth full of teeth said:
Well, we were talking about the constitution and what rights we are aforded. I assumed that we were talking about what rights we actually had... Not what rights you want to believe in dispite what the government grants you. If you want to suppose what rights you have dispite the government, why bring up the constitution at all?

I assume you missed the part about rights being unalienable? Do you understand the term "unalienable"?

Mouth full of teeth said:
Part of what the constitution says is that the judicial branch gets to interpret the constitution...

To the extent of the conscent of the people. That conscent can, and has been removed in the past. (civil war)

Also, I think you have obviously never heard, or don't understand what the role of jury nullification is? A jury can nullify a supreme court precedent in any individual case they choose and deem fit, do you disagree?

Mouth full of teeth said:
Yes, you do need that. You need exactly that. That is why, in the constitution, the founding fathers specifically spelled out WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THAT.

Actually, they didn't spell out anything like you think they did in regards to the power of the supreme court.... I suggest you investigate the history of the role of the supreme court and how it has changed since its creation.

Do you deny or disregard judicial review?
Do you deny or disregard that judicial activism has existed, and does still exist or the role it can play in direct antithesis to the Constitutions defined role of the court?
What role does public conscent play here, or do you deny it exists entirely?

Mouth full of teeth said:
Maybe so, but that is our system as spelled out in the constitution...

Yes, and that can be modified, and has been, whereas rights cannot, as they are unalienable.

Mouth full of teeth said:
Well, again, good luck with that. You're going to need a lot more than guns to actually enforce it, however.

No need for wishing of luck, or having an opinion. Individuals do what suits them best and in the case I were to take up arms, it would be at my discretion, not yours.

[namguy]

I think you're under the mistaken impression that I'm in favor of banning all guns. I'm not. I do believe in gun CONTROL, however. Gun control does aim to address some of the problems that I raised when you asked if there were any problems with "good law abiding people" owning guns. And, I support such legislation.

Being a law abiding citizen, I follow the law. Actually there is and has been gun control laws in place for well over 35 years. Now it's gotten to the point that the supporters of firearms legislation, the anti-gun lobby, wants to ban all types of firearms ownership, to the sportsmen, competion shooters and just plain 'plinkers.' What's next, bowes, BB guns, water guns, pop guns, starter pistols. If you want to stop killing people...ban booze, that stuff has killed more people than any firearm ever has and it can be purchased legally, in some states in drug stores! All states have DUI laws set in place, people still drink and drive. The comparisions are different but the end point is the same, the bad guys will always have guns and the drunks will keep committing DUI's.

You'll never see the banning of either in this country.

[namguy]

Being a law abiding citizen, I follow the law. Actually there is and has been gun control laws in place for well over 35 years. Now it's gotten to the point that the supporters of firearms legislation, the anti-gun lobby, wants to ban all types of firearms ownership, to the sportsmen, competion shooters and just plain 'plinkers.' What's next, bowes, BB guns, water guns, pop guns, starter pistols. If you want to stop killing people...ban booze, that stuff has killed more people than any firearm ever has and it can be purchased legally, in some states in drug stores! All states have DUI laws set in place, people still drink and drive. The comparisions are different but the end point is the same, the bad guys will always have guns and the drunks will keep committing DUI's.

You'll never see the banning of either in this country.

I don't see a use for non-sporting firearms except for the military and police.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Being a law abiding citizen, I follow the law. Actually there is and has been gun control laws in place for well over 35 years. Now it's gotten to the point that the supporters of firearms legislation, the anti-gun lobby, wants to ban all types of firearms ownership, to the sportsmen, competion shooters and just plain 'plinkers.' What's next, bowes, BB guns, water guns, pop guns, starter pistols. If you want to stop killing people...ban booze, that stuff has killed more people than any firearm ever has and it can be purchased legally, in some states in drug stores! All states have DUI laws set in place, people still drink and drive. The comparisions are different but the end point is the same, the bad guys will always have guns and the drunks will keep committing DUI's.

You'll never see the banning of either in this country.

This is a slippery slope argument. A fallacy. See the following: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Can you provide a source link please?

For what? That your interpretation of the law is not necessarily the one that the government uses? Are you serious?

The government has no right to use force against you unless you have taken acts against the rights of others, or infringed the rights of others, so how could a government have a right to use force to REMOVE your rights, using force, without REASONABLE provocation?

Let's say that you are correct in this. Please explain parking tickets

Law is law, it is however individuals who CHOOSE to conscent to law, or oppose it.
Speeding is against the law, but as you well know, the courts are jammed everyday with people who willingly break the law, and then willingly pay the fines, or oppose the reasonability of the case. That is their right. Are you saying this is not their right? Are you saying this is NOT a government of conscent?

If it was their RIGHT to speed, then they could not be fined, lose their privilage to drive and even jailed by the government for speeding.

That people still do it, aren't always caught, etc...doesn't mean that they have a RIGHT to do it...

I find your logic flawed. Guns are the ONLY way to keep a government in check, that uses force at will against its citizens. Can you show me where anything else has worked long term, against a government that only recognizes force? How was Hitler defeated? (force of arms)

Passive resistance. See Gahndi.

Regardless of what weapons exist, the best method of defense for any and all individuals is the method which best suits an individual, and in this day, much like in 1900, 1800, the gun is the best means of accomplishing this.

Yes, but it's still ineffective.

Also, you site examples such as Koresh, where it was one small group against a NATIONAL force. How about the Civil War, which would be more aprapo, or perhaps the revolution from england? Do you dispute that armed men using only individual arms can fight a national force? I think you should examine what is happening in Iraq, and make an attempt to understand the tactics of war, mainly, guerilla tactics.

Er...the South lost the Civil War, you realize... And you realize that they aren't necessarily "winning" in Iraq, right? But, Iraq is a great example. Thanks for bringing that up. You know that Saddam allowed each family to own an AK-47? Yet, they didn't overthrow him...

We don't agree. My guns are quite effective at launching projectiles where I point them and then pull the trigger. That is what is required for a gun to be effective. No victory is assured, ever, and in every conflict there are winners and losers, regardless of whether violent or peaceful.

I think you know very little at all about tactics and warfare, or their history, but time will tell.

Then we will agree to disagree. I see no examples of a group in the US, with the US's military against them, able to protect themselves from the government. Nor, do I see this happening with simple guns.

I assume you missed the part about rights being unalienable? Do you understand the term "unalienable"?

I assume you missed the part about it being up to interpretation. The "unalienable" right can be interpreted to mean militias as in the police, national guard, etc...not individual citizens.

Also, I think you have obviously never heard, or don't understand what the role of jury nullification is? A jury can nullify a supreme court precedent in any individual case they choose and deem fit, do you disagree?

Er...I don't think you understand the term "jury nullification"... It does not mean that any decision that they make will stand juris prudence. If so, then appeals would not be possible...

Jury Nullification is quite different. Please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Actually, they didn't spell out anything like you think they did in regards to the power of the supreme court.... I suggest you investigate the history of the role of the supreme court and how it has changed since its creation.

It may have changed to some degree (as all of the offices have), but that is the core responsibility of the the Judicial branch. It's not the case that every citizen determines for him or herself what the law means and acts whatever way they want based on their decision.

Do you deny or disregard judicial review?
Do you deny or disregard that judicial activism has existed, and does still exist or the role it can play in direct antithesis to the Constitutions defined role of the court?
What role does public conscent play here, or do you deny it exists entirely?

The fact that there is "judicial activism", only goes to prove my point.. Not yours. The judicial branch does have the power, under our current government, to interpret the laws. Of course, I think we'll see a new brand of "judicial activism" now that we have a conservative court. It will just be more favorable to the conservatives that originally coined the term, "judicial activism", but it's the same thing...

No need for wishing of luck, or having an opinion. Individuals do what suits them best and in the case I were to take up arms, it would be at my discretion, not yours.

Your discretion, yes. Sucessful? No. Not even close. You say that you'll then die to protect your freedoms and are perfectly willing to do that. I say, then what's important about having guns? You're going to die, either way...

[Osborn F. Enready]

Namguy said;
Being a law abiding citizen, I follow the law. Actually there is and has been gun control laws in place for well over 35 years. Now it's gotten to the point that the supporters of firearms legislation, the anti-gun lobby, wants to ban all types of firearms ownership, to the sportsmen, competion shooters and just plain 'plinkers.' What's next, bowes, BB guns, water guns, pop guns, starter pistols.

I can agree with all of that, and that is exactly what has happened over history in all civilizations. Once a door is opened, a precedent set- that erodes individual liberty in one small way, that door is kicked open by government and time and apathy, and individual rights are eroded in every manner possible from that one precedent.

That was why the forefathers made rights UNALIENABLE, or, not able to be made alien or foreign to an individual. They recognized that reasonable men, in order to live rational lives, must be able to logically apply their natural, inherant rights granted by nature and our physical, mental limitations in their daily life and to the extent that they will be affected by outside influences. Those rights they rightfully thought, must be made unalienable to man, as reason, peace and logic demand it if they are to exist together, or exclusively. Reason, peace and logic are dependent on a lack of contradiction for law to be sound, and objective reason to be respected, and we all know that any amount of peace requires an amount of tolerance which is attainable among reasonable men if the payoffs for the sacrifice of tolerance is individually (not collectively) worth the sacrifice.
The only way for something to be individually acceptable, is to have something to offer to any individual, which is the reward of the minimum use of force except for defense of these rights which are objectively sound, and allow reasonable men not only a market with which to interact, but the ability to have legally recognized property up to and including themselves, until they remove or directly infringe the rights of another, as well as the full rights of their natural being... to speak, to assemble, to defense, to do things required to live (own property and what you put on it, such as shelter, food, beds and any other thing you can lawfully attain and build, or have built through mutual conscent volitional choice contract agreement, to better yourself, your enjoyment of life or your way of life that does not directly affect the rights of others.) and the overarching right to PURSUE HAPPINESS< which is an objectively rational individual pursuit, limited only by the equal boundaries around all men by their natural inherant rights.

While many systems claim to be moral, which is a subjective compilation of values relevant only from an individual perspective, I challenge anyone to show a system more MORAL TO ALL PEOPLE, RELIGIONS, BELIEFS than the ones contained in our founding systems Bill of Rights, and limited, equal three branch system of government.

This system is centered on self-ownership and self-responsibility. It took from our founding until the Civil War to recognize and deal with the logical contradiction of inherant rights of individuals, to deal with it and the enormous costs of implementing the required change to rectify the role of slavery in our society, and then moved on to womens suffrage. Overall though, the individual is the operative force in any collective, and no collective can stand without the support of individuals. Obviously, the most morally sound system would be one that accepts all individuals based on the minimum amount of sacrifice to each individual, as that allows each person to live their life as they see fit to the best of their ability, the only path to seek true happiness since hapiness eminates from each individual in a unique way, all of which moral unless they prey on the sacrifice of the rights of others through any measure of force.

The point is, the logical objective nature of individual rights is the measure of its validity, and the argument contains many self-evident truths that must be addressed if an argument is to be made against it and expected to be considered valid in any sense, again, assuming reason is valued above force.

If force is valued above reason, there is not much point in talking at all, is there?

Namguy said:
If you want to stop killing people...ban booze,

That is a direct and obvious contradiction to the concept of self-ownership and self-responsibility, therefore the concept of individual rights.

Namguy said:
that stuff has killed more people than any firearm ever has and it can be purchased legally, in some states in drug stores!

Are we to outlaw and regulate anything that a person can logically use to injure themselves in some abstract way? That would obviously rule guns out, wouldn't it? What was your previous argument based on again?

Namguy said:
All states have DUI laws set in place, people still drink and drive. The comparisions are different but the end point is the same, the bad guys will always have guns and the drunks will keep committing DUI's.

Agreed, and law has little role in the acts of either if indviduals are determined as far as "preventing them" from doing anything. Law is meant to be used to prosecute those who violate the rights of others in some manner, not as a scare tactic preventative measure.


Namguy said:
You'll never see the banning of either in this country.

They have tried and succeeded with alchohol, but the people forced them to change through constitutional process. Since then, they have changed the rules and removed the voice of the people in regard to prohibition of drugs, and other items, based on logically flawed, emotional appeal based unconstitutional laws. Harrison Act, Brady Bill, Mandatory Minimums on Crack, Meth, etc. come to mind off the top of my head. All of these laws have done NOTHING but put individuals more at risk to total loss of their rights to a fair trial, and exposes them to state prosecution for VICTIMLESS CRIME.

These laws too must be repealed through constitutional process, but with the way the current and past SEVERAL administrations have regarded the Constitution or the will or conscent of the people, I fear little hope remains without the use of force most likely in the end. They fear this and know it is a logical possibility, hence the increase of anti-gun legislation even from the traditionally more gun friendly republicans. Of course, all done in the name of "peace and security"..... though no such evidence is clear to show proof of that in any respect.

Individual Rights allow people to be held accountable for their actions, and there is no need for the bulk of those laws to legally prosecute people for their actions when they affect the rights of another.

"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded."
-Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mouth full of teeth said:
For what? That your interpretation of the law is not necessarily the one that the government uses? Are you serious?

Do you need the law or the government to tell you gravity exists and that you can't float above the ground naturally without some form of mechanical or contrived assistance?

I would hope not....

That being the case, again, what don't you understand about the intent of the word unalienable in the 2nd amendment?

My 2nd amendment right was RECOGNIZED, not granted by government. Enumerated is a way of saying "officially recorded and/or recognized" in the context it was used.

Once I "recognize" gravity, I do not care what law changes that says gravity doesn't exist, I can plainly see when gravity is observable without "external validation" by some abstract law. I have legally purchased arms, I own them, and no law will take them nor will I sacrifice them at request by any agent of government or any other entity without just cause to compel me to do so. It would obviously be an individual choice.

Do you dispute I have purchased my guns legally or that I have had that right, as do and did all other legal arms owners?

I am stating clearly, that unless there is evidence to compel a government of my conscent to recognize that I have, or they "reasonably believe" me to have violated the rights of another giving them reason to aquire me and my weapons and are forthcoming with that in the process of attempting to do so, I WILL NOT sacrifice or surrender my arms or my rights without first attempting reason, and then resorting to force if reason fails, myself knowing that I am not guilty of any such action.

Mouth full of teeth said:
Let's say that you are correct in this. Please explain parking tickets

Reasonable people don't think the use of force is justified when contending a parking ticket, assuming the ticket fine and its process of issuance was reasonably done. Reasonable people also recognize that traffic laws if reasonable, are a benefit, and an aid
to travel safety and efficiency with little sacrifice for those who have honorable intent, and will accept the concept of traffic tickets if applied objectively, reasonably and fairly in an attempt to achieve justice and a reasonable application of individual rights as an outcome.

I have never contended a ticket I knew I was guilty of. I have on the other hand contended many traffic tickets when I knew I could logically prove my argument, and rightfully so. Most of them where I proved my case, I was not held accountable, but I have stood before some petty and somewhat irrationally opinionated judges..... (who hasn't that has had multiple infractions?)

I don't necessarily agree with ALL forms of road and traffic laws, but, I do not dispute that road and traffic laws do in many cases offer a significant benefit to all people who partake of, and are affected by other drivers while travelling, or operating a vehicle on local, state or national roads, if kept in context of respecting individual rights and the necessity of travel.

Mouth full of teeth said:
If it was their RIGHT to speed, then they could not be fined, lose their privilage to drive and even jailed by the government for speeding.

That people still do it, aren't always caught, etc...doesn't mean that they have a RIGHT to do it...

By the same token, there ARE legitimate reasons to speed, if done without putting others at risk, and it is the precedent that police and fire, as well as ambulance drivers use to do their jobs.... the rational argument is to save lives that are in jeapordy, or may be put in jeapordy if not for their timely response. This is why individuals have a RIGHT to make a case of appeal to a ticket that may be unjustly issued.

You have a right to speed within reason, if you have a valid reason for doing so.

Making it home quickly so your food doesn't get cold, is not a reasonable reason.
Making it to the hospital to get your friend who is having a heart attack there in time to be saved, is a reasonable reason.

Do you disagree with anything said there? Do you see the logical precedent, on the right to speed or disobey traffic laws without affecting the safety or rights of others with legitimate reason and honorable intent?

Mouth full of teeth said:
Passive resistance. See Gahndi.

Passive resistance is ONLY an option if the aggressor is compassionate in some respect to human life.

Do you think, and are you willing to argue that Hitler, Pol-Pot, or the Crusades could have been contested through passive resistance? If so, under what pretense would YOUR choice to do so, affect my choice not to?

Mouth full of teeth said:
Yes, but it's still ineffective.

Again, you are provably wrong, and I would be willing to either prove it through sources or another means if necessary.

What proof would you accept to be proven wrong?

Mouth full of teeth said:
Er...the South lost the Civil War, you realize...

Yes, and you realize there was a war because people chose force over reason, right?
Do you deny that governments have, and will choose force over reason in some cases against the will of their own citizens?

Mouth full of teeth said:
And you realize that they aren't necessarily "winning" in Iraq, right?

Hence my point of bringing it up, exactly. No force, no matter how well armed or equipped is guaranteed success, EVER, if they face a coherant, human being of volitional choice with a physical and mental means of resistance.

There is literally a voluminnous history to prove this if required.

Mouth full of teeth said:
But, Iraq is a great example. Thanks for bringing that up. You know that Saddam allowed each family to own an AK-47? Yet, they didn't overthrow him...

And why didn't they overthrow him?
And why are they not embracing and supporting our troops to the same level our troops are supporting them?

They chose to live under his rule as opposed to risk their lives, their famillies lives, their existence to challenge it, as they deemed the sacrifice worthy of their existence as allowed. ONLY THEY had the right to choose to overthrow their government, hence the reason that nation building HAS ALWAYS been a failure without the will of the people to change in the direction the liberators are putting forth.

This outcome was predicted and known long before we went to war, and its why we didn't continue into Iraq at the completion of Desert Storm.

Do you deny that the American forces are far superior in training and armaments?
Why then have they not won and left the area with peace as a result?

Mouth full of teeth said:
Then we will agree to disagree. I see no examples of a group in the US, with the US's military against them, able to protect themselves from the government. Nor, do I see this happening with simple guns.

Refer to the last question in my last reply above this one.....

If technical and training superiority were the only relevant factor in battle, we would have long ago won in Iraq, correct?

How many other wars would have turned out the opposite of what they did if your alledged theory were true? Obviously, we couldn't have defeated England in the Revolution if your theory were true, without reservation, correct?

(continued)

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mouth full of teeth said:
I assume you missed the part about it being up to interpretation. The "unalienable" right can be interpreted to mean militias as in the police, national guard, etc...not individual citizens.

Show me that please, in application to ALL OTHER RIGHTS, or any number you feel confident in addressing in the same context.

For example, is free speech, the right to assemble, freedom of religion, the right to pursue happiness all also "granted, limitable rights" as you imply the 2nd amendment can be interpreted?

Please demonstrate.

Mouth full of teeth said:
Er...I don't think you understand the term "jury nullification"... It does not mean that any decision that they make will stand juris prudence. If so, then appeals would not be possible...

Jury Nullification is quite different. Please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

While I too sometimes use wikipedia for a source, I would obviously not use it as an only reference to support my argument.

Here are some links to the aspect I am speaking, regarding jury nullification rights.

http://www.fija.org/
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13/JuryNullification.html



http://www.amazon.com/Jury-Nullification-Evolution-Clay-Conrad/dp/0890897026
The Federal Lawyer, Vol. 47, No. 4, 2000
"Conrad provides...a comprehensive overview of jury nullification in historical, substantive, policy, and practical terms."

Book Description
Juries have been delivering independent verdicts in the interest of justice for over 800 years, and many legal historians and scholars believe the value of juries is their power to act as the "conscience of the community," serving as the final check and balance on government in the moment of truth. If juries are nothing more than rubber stamps, they are no limit on government's power to pass unjust, immoral, or oppressive laws, and citizens are entirely at the mercy of sometimes jaded or corrupt courts and legislatures. This was what the Founding Fathers feared, and this is the reason why they guaranteed trial by jury three times in the Constitution -- more than any other right.
In Jury Nullification, author Clay Conrad examines the history, the law, and the practical and political implications of jury independence, examining in depth the role of nullification in capital punishment law, the dark side of jury nullification in Southern lynching and civil rights cases, and the purpose and legal effect of the juror's oath. The book concludes with an examination of what trial lawyers can do when nullification is the best available defense. This book should be of interest to historians, trial lawyers, criminologists, political scientists, and anyone interested in knowing how our criminal justice system works -- and how to make it better.


The concept of jury nullification is the MAIN reason we have juries.....

They have the right to vote not guilty, even if the person is technically guilty of violating a law, if the jury determines that application of the law or the law itself is unjust as related to the case.


Mouth full of teeth said:
It may have changed to some degree (as all of the offices have), but that is the core responsibility of the the Judicial branch. It's not the case that every citizen determines for him or herself what the law means and acts whatever way they want based on their decision.

I beg to differ. Any and every person who serves on a jury has the LEGAL RIGHT to invoke a right of jury nullification of law for an individual case. That is in effect exactly what you just said does not, can not happen.

By the same token, the whole of the people can DEMAND repeal of a law, with enough support, through petition of redress of grievance or through direct appeal to congress and constitutional amendment.

If both of these are prevented or refused, while subjecting people to abject use of force by government, the right to revolt is clearly reasonable and justifiable to any reasonable man recognizing individual rights and self ownership without contradiction.

Mouth full of teeth said:
The fact that there is "judicial activism", only goes to prove my point.. Not yours. The judicial branch does have the power, under our current government, to interpret the laws. Of course, I think we'll see a new brand of "judicial activism" now that we have a conservative court. It will just be more favorable to the conservatives that originally coined the term, "judicial activism", but it's the same thing...

The purpose of the court is to clearly and logically explain where something applies to the Constitution, and how it relates to an individual case.

Logic requires the removal of contradiction.

The people however are the ultimate arbiter of justice....


The Constitution plainly says:

Article. VI.
.....

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;.......

This implies all laws made in the process prescribed by, or in accordance with... aka, without contradiction.

.....
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The people STILL retain the right through jury nullification to effectively remove any standing law in application to individual cases.

.....
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This would make provably, purposeful redefinition, or mis-application an offense, both impeachable and in some cases criminally liable.

and then you look to the BOR which states in the preamble, the purpose is to LIMIT the federal and in some cases state government in defense of the unalienable rights of the people.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Paying obvious heed that the validity of government is dependent on the public confidence in it, as it has full power to in any individual case override the court through jury nullification, to mount a collective case of impeachment against an alledged corrupt administration and seated president, to file a petition of redress of grievance and demand it be heard by the courts, to attempt redirection through the ballot box, or in the final case, to use individual and collective force to shrug off self-damaging, self-defeating government that abuses its power with regularity and a reasonable littany of injustice to its credit. (example, the Declaration of Independence)

All seated politicians are individuals also, only seated by the public while the public has confidence in its election system, its oversight, and the outcomes can measure to a reasonable measure of "fariness".


Now, you tell me....

Look at Emergency Powers, Executive Order Privlidge, Fast-Track Authority, All victimless crime prohibition laws (adult drug use, etc.) the 157 years of gerrymandering, rigging of state ballot access laws by BOTH PARTIES, consistent encroachment of individual rights on all fronts under all pretenses from national security to protecting people from themselves, out of control deficit spending and unsound dollar policies, questionable motives and procedural process for the last several military engagements, congressional denial of responsibility regarding war powers, border protection, citizenship requirements, "
what the definition of "is" is.....etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,....

tell me again, why I am I supposed to trust my safety to someone else?

Mouth full of teeth said:
Your discretion, yes. Sucessful? No. Not even close. You say that you'll then die to protect your freedoms and are perfectly willing to do that. I say, then what's important about having guns? You're going to die, either way...

The importance is not suffering the evil and suffering that accompanies servitude to a master that knows only force, with little to no compassion to life that does not fit within their narrow subjective, arbitrary view of "benefit" to them, at their whim..... having no control or choice in life or death... the loss of all respect and integrity or any shred of value that makes any individuals life worth living.

You can subject your own life and future to such things with no hope or ability for reasonable competent defense, but nobody has a right to demand anyone else be subject to it without same defense.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Do you need the law or the government to tell you gravity exists and that you can't float above the ground naturally without some form of mechanical or contrived assistance?

I would hope not....

Straw man. We are talking about RIGHTS. Rights specificially have to do with what the government can and cannot enforce against you. Who decides these rights? The government. Who enforces these rights? The government.

That being the case, again, what don't you understand about the intent of the word unalienable in the 2nd amendment?

What can't you understand about the wording of the 2nd Admendment being up to interpretation?

Do you dispute I have purchased my guns legally or that I have had that right, as do and did all other legal arms owners?

I have no idea how you purchased your guns. There are both legal and illegal means out there. In any event, the question is irrelevant. We are talking about if the 2nd Admendment gives you the right to own whatever gun you want. The law, in other areas, specifically deals with guns and other "arms", which you are allowed to have access to and which you are not allowed to have access to. The law does not end with the 2nd Admendment.

I am stating clearly, that unless there is evidence to compel a government of my conscent to recognize that I have, or they "reasonably believe" me to have violated the rights of another giving them reason to aquire me and my weapons and are forthcoming with that in the process of attempting to do so, I WILL NOT sacrifice or surrender my arms or my rights without first attempting reason, and then resorting to force if reason fails, myself knowing that I am not guilty of any such action.

What you believe, as I have said before, is irrelevant. Ever hear that common phrase, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

Reasonable people don't think the use of force is justified when contending a parking ticket, assuming the ticket fine and its process of issuance was reasonably done. Reasonable people also recognize that traffic laws if reasonable, are a benefit, and an aid
to travel safety and efficiency with little sacrifice for those who have honorable intent, and will accept the concept of traffic tickets if applied objectively, reasonably and fairly in an attempt to achieve justice and a reasonable application of individual rights as an outcome.

Now you have to define "force". Is force taking away your car? They do that with parking violations.

By the same token, there ARE legitimate reasons to speed, if done without putting others at risk, and it is the precedent that police and fire, as well as ambulance drivers use to do their jobs.... the rational argument is to save lives that are in jeapordy, or may be put in jeapordy if not for their timely response. This is why individuals have a RIGHT to make a case of appeal to a ticket that may be unjustly issued.

Yes..and those exceptions are spelled out in the law. And so?

Do you disagree with anything said there? Do you see the logical precedent, on the right to speed or disobey traffic laws without affecting the safety or rights of others with legitimate reason and honorable intent?

Depends on how you define "honorable". The law (and a judge) would have to interpret the law as to a specific case...kind of like if the 2nd Admendment really applies to individuals...

Passive resistance is ONLY an option if the aggressor is compassionate in some respect to human life.

You asked me to name one. I did. I never claimed it would work in all instances.

Again, you are provably wrong, and I would be willing to either prove it through sources or another means if necessary.

What proof would you accept to be proven wrong?

I already asked for it. A case where it's been done sucessfully against the US government with the arms that it has vs. the arms that you think will secure your rights...

Hence my point of bringing it up, exactly. No force, no matter how well armed or equipped is guaranteed success, EVER, if they face a coherant, human being of volitional choice with a physical and mental means of resistance.

Maybe. But I doubt your guns alone will do it...

They chose to live under his rule as opposed to risk their lives, their famillies lives, their existence to challenge it, as they deemed the sacrifice worthy of their existence as allowed. ONLY THEY had the right to choose to overthrow their government, hence the reason that nation building HAS ALWAYS been a failure without the will of the people to change in the direction the liberators are putting forth.

It had nothing to do with the fact that Saddam had over-whelming force against them...

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Show me that please, in application to ALL OTHER RIGHTS, or any number you fee