Help Me Understand Gun Rights

OP
T
Messages
289
Reactions
324
Why is it that people like to ask questions as if they are capable of having a nuanced discussion or are actually seeking a broader perspective, when all they want are their biases confirmed?

Why not just ask Q what you should think and be done with any sort of conversation?
I can only present the facts. At the end of the day, there are those who claim they are for the Second Amendment and yet they support gun control in one form or another.

Meanwhile, the courts are doing exactly what Thomas Jefferson said government would do: they gain ground while the people yield. If you are for some form of gun control, you should be apprised of the facts. I'm not telling you to be for or against gun control. I can only tell you how the government got to their rationale for imposing unconstitutional gun control measures. If you are going to yield, you have a duty and a responsibility to know how the government reached its conclusions. That way, you begin to know the ultimate costs. I wouldn't know a lot about Q. What I can tell you is how the government (specifically the courts) arrived at the conclusion that they had some power (as differentiated from authority) to infringe on gun Rights.

I'm moving toward Liberty; you are moving toward tyranny. Please reread posts # 84, #87, and # 96 so that we don't keep repeating the civics lesson. IF you read that, we can then talk about inalienable rights. No point in talking about the topic if you're going to ignore what the courts have ruled.
 
Last edited:
Messages
41
Reactions
2
I absolutely do NOT think that inalienable means absolute. You are not paying attention. I have already quoted and gave you the post number in this thread where absolute Rights were declared, by the federal courts, to be unalienable. We have NOT discussed inalienable rights except to show how they are different from unalienable. Are you even reading this thread?

Courts interpret words to their liking. Sometimes the word they ascribe a meaning to is very specific. It can and does differ from the dictionary meaning which has been shown. You need to focus on the facts before you.
Yeah, you said:
Your unalienable Rights were declared to be absolute.
So you're disagreeing with this?

Or are you talking about un vs in? Because inalienable and unalienable mean the same things:
 
Messages
41
Reactions
2
I can only present the facts. At the end of the day, there are those who claim they are for the Second Amendment and yet they support gun control in one form or another.

Meanwhile, the courts are doing exactly what Thomas Jefferson said government would do: they gain ground while the people yield. If you are for some form of gun control, you should be apprised of the facts. I'm not telling you to be for or against gun control. I can only tell you how the government got to their rationale for imposing unconstitutional gun control measures. If you are going to yield, you have a duty and a responsibility to know how the government reached its conclusions. That way, you begin to know the ultimate costs. I wouldn't know a lot about Q. What I can tell you is how the government (specifically the courts) arrived at the conclusion that they had some power (as differentiated from authority) to infringe on gun Rights.

I'm moving toward Liberty; you are moving toward tyranny. Please reread posts # 84, #87, and # 96 so that we don't keep repeating the civics lesson. IF you read that, we can then talk about inalienable rights. No point in talking about the topic if you're going to ignore what the courts have ruled.
The facts are this: Thomas Jefferson wrote the BoR, and immediately ignored it by continuing to keep a group of people in his direct control disarmed. This either means that Jefferson was two faced, or you are not understanding what he meant in the BoR. The lurid details of how the courts have waffled doesn't change the fact that an absolute right to arms has never been practiced in the US, even by its supposed originators.


But that's legal theory, to a large degree. Legal theory, at this point in history, is not going to change much about the status quo if even people intimately familiar with the arguments have never heard of your particular esoteric nit pick. What is status quo, accepted by virtually every lawyer, judge, LEO and representative, is that the BoR is subject to a wide range of regulation and limitations. This is illustrated by the obvious - no one supports allowing a schizophrenic to build a nuke. And because that's off the table, the very idea of absolutism in any form goes with it. Which is why people who make absolutist arguments get nowhere both in the courts or in public opinion.

What I have attempted to point out (while you've insulted me), is that insisting on an absolutist ideology based on a difficult to articulate philosophical argument is pretty much the same thing as quitting. Because the debate isn't taking place between idealists, and the people that ultimately decide and enforce law - even the conservative ones - aren't ever going to do what you want.

Which leaves us with pragmatism. What can we actually do that would be effective, rather than take a stand on the most unlikely (and possibly fallacious) ideological dead end that only serves to allow the incremental removal of rights because it has no answer to them?

You do realize that not playing the game only leads to losing, right? We are incrementally losing because we're not actually fighting anything, just sticking to our dreams and hoping SCOTUS will stay conservative - which it won't.

The newest iteration of the "Lost Cause".
 
Last edited:
OP
T
Messages
289
Reactions
324
Yeah, you said:

So you're disagreeing with this?

Or are you talking about un vs in? Because inalienable and unalienable mean the same things:
You are ignoring the facts presented and not following the thread. I'm not going to keep repeating myself and proving that what you're saying has been debunked.
 
OP
T
Messages
289
Reactions
324
The facts are this: Thomas Jefferson wrote the BoR, and immediately ignored it by continuing to keep a group of people in his direct control disarmed. This either means that Jefferson was two faced, or you are not understanding what he meant in the BoR. The lurid details of how the courts have waffled doesn't change the fact that an absolute right to arms has never been practiced in the US, even by its supposed originators.


But that's legal theory, to a large degree. Legal theory, at this point in history, is not going to change much about the status quo if even people intimately familiar with the arguments have never heard of your particular esoteric nit pick. What is status quo, accepted by virtually every lawyer, judge, LEO and representative, is that the BoR is subject to a wide range of regulation and limitations. This is illustrated by the obvious - no one supports allowing a schizophrenic to build a nuke. And because that's off the table, the very idea of absolutism in any form goes with it. Which is why people who make absolutist arguments get nowhere both in the courts or in public opinion.

What I have attempted to point out (while you've insulted me), is that insisting on an absolutist ideology based on a difficult to articulate philosophical argument is pretty much the same thing as quitting. Because the debate isn't taking place between idealists, and the people that ultimately decide and enforce law - even the conservative ones - aren't ever going to do what you want.

Which leaves us with pragmatism. What can we actually do that would be effective, rather than take a stand on the most unlikely (and possibly fallacious) ideological dead end that only serves to allow the incremental removal of rights because it has no answer to them?

You do realize that not playing the game only leads to losing, right? We are incrementally losing because we're not actually fighting anything, just sticking to our dreams and hoping SCOTUS will stay conservative - which it won't.

The newest iteration of the "Lost Cause".
You are ignoring the facts. I am not arguing for conservatives or liberals. I am pointing out what the courts say. What Jefferson said is largely irrelevant to what the current law says. The law is 180 degrees opposite of what the founders and framers intended. How did we get there? If you would read the thread already, you would not feel insulted. I made it easy and gave you a high school civics lesson AND showed you how the COURTS, NOT ME, said that unalienable Rights and absolute rights are the same thing. You seem to have a problem with that. It was the United States Supreme Court in 1876 that determined that the Right to keep and bear Arms pre-dated the Constitution. We've gone over this. Unalienable and inalienable are not the same thing according to the courts. ALL of this has been covered. The only issue we have not delved into is how the courts created inalienable rights. There is no point going there if you're going to ignore the relevant posts where this has already been covered. If insulting you is telling you that you argue stuff that has been asked and answered, then don't you think you deserve it? If you're going to participate in a conversation, you need to be a part of the whole conversation. You're ignoring it and treating me like an idiot when your objections were asked and answered. Are you now going to argue with the courts?

Good luck.
 

The Heretic

Messages
21,046
Reactions
49,558
Government is what you ask for when you live in a republic. Vote. Run for office. Sue the government. It's a service that works for you. That's why we had a revolution.
Yeah ok. I ask for the minimal government necessary with maximum freedom possible within reasonable limits.

I do not ask for a "service".

As for running for office - I am not good at telling lies so no one would vote for me.
 
Messages
41
Reactions
2
I made it easy and gave you a high school civics lesson AND showed you how the COURTS, NOT ME, said that unalienable Rights and absolute rights are the same thing. You seem to have a problem with that.
Nope. You just weren't clear in how you wrote it whether it was a fact that you agree with, because the courts said so, or whether it was a falsehood that the courts created. That's your sloppy prose.

I don't really consider that distinction as important, because all of this is navel-gazing. How the courts may or may not interpret a word in different eras has zero impact on your gun rights.


And you using insulting language has nothing to do with whether I missed your obscure point or not. Be a man, not an anonymous internet baby.
 
Messages
41
Reactions
2
Yeah ok. I ask for the minimal government necessary with maximum freedom possible within reasonable limits.

I do not ask for a "service".

As for running for office - I am not good at telling lies so no one would vote for me.
Actually, I think most everyone looks at government this way. What varies is how people see "minimal necessary". What's funny is that both sides seem to always spend about the same amount of money - at least until recently.
 
OP
T
Messages
289
Reactions
324
Nope. You just weren't clear in how you wrote it whether it was a fact that you agree with, because the courts said so, or whether it was a falsehood that the courts created. That's your sloppy prose.

I don't really consider that distinction as important, because all of this is navel-gazing. How the courts may or may not interpret a word in different eras has zero impact on your gun rights.


And you using insulting language has nothing to do with whether I missed your obscure point or not. Be a man, not an anonymous internet baby.
You troll too much. I asked a question in starting this thread. I produced the facts as I researched them. I drew no conclusions for anyone. Not my job to tell you what I agree with or don't agree with at this juncture when the thread is asking a question - and presenting the facts as I know them so you can do your own research and figure out what it is you want me to believe.
 
OP
T
Messages
289
Reactions
324
Somebody on this thread is being deliberately obtuse.
I think that you have people that are too lazy to keep up with the conversation so that they don't have to understand. They already have an opinion formed and are trying to interrogate people without any basis for doing so.

On the question of Rights, Thomas Jefferson once said:

"...nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.."

The federal courts ruled that we have absolute Rights. The word absolute, in layman's terms is synonymous with unlimited:


The Heller decision claims that "most rights" are not "unlimited." They specifically say that is the case with the Second Amendment. Here is the problem:

The controlling precedent from the United States Supreme Court before the Heller decision was unequivocally clear: The Second Amendment was not a right granted by the Constitution.

" The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms) is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms) in any manner dependent upon that instrument (the Constitution of the United States) for its existence .
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The issue, at this point, is figuring out how the United States Supreme Court legislated from the bench to reverse the original intent of the Second Amendment - even reinterpreting their own holdings to mean something 180 degrees opposite of what the Constitution says. How did they do it and how do they get away with it? I was in the midst of explaining that to someone that was actually trolling me. So, that issue may be moot. Maybe some gun owners that support some form of gun control know the rest of the story and are comfortable with some degree of gun control. Others may ignorantly want something like background checks, withholding the Right from other people, etc. not realizing HOW the law was changed and what the long term ramifications of what they want in the short term are going to be.
 
Last edited:
Messages
41
Reactions
2
You troll too much. I asked a question in starting this thread. I produced the facts as I researched them. I drew no conclusions for anyone. Not my job to tell you what I agree with or don't agree with at this juncture when the thread is asking a question - and presenting the facts as I know them so you can do your own research and figure out what it is you want me to believe.
Funny, it sure seemed like you have an opinion about what the courts have said.
 
OP
T
Messages
289
Reactions
324
Funny, it sure seemed like you have an opinion about what the courts have said.
I do have an opinion, but have not expressed it. I began this thread to find out where the disconnect is with gun owners - particularly those who end up supporting gun control.

The only time I've expressed my personal opinion to you is when I said I tend to lean toward Liberty and you tend to lean toward tyranny. I base that on the fact that you have consistently denied what the courts ruled relative to absolute Rights. It's like I told you. Nothing is 100 percent, regardless of the language. Pure silver is not 100 percent pure. If you want Liberty, you have to lean toward that which reduces the size, power, and scope of government - no matter what the political issue.
 
Messages
41
Reactions
2
I do have an opinion, but have not expressed it. I began this thread to find out where the disconnect is with gun owners - particularly those who end up supporting gun control.

The only time I've expressed my personal opinion to you is when I said I tend to lean toward Liberty and you tend to lean toward tyranny. I base that on the fact that you have consistently denied what the courts ruled relative to absolute Rights. It's like I told you. Nothing is 100 percent, regardless of the language. Pure silver is not 100 percent pure. If you want Liberty, you have to lean toward that which reduces the size, power, and scope of government - no matter what the political issue.
Quote where I consistently said that. You're hallucinating.

And why would you want explore why gun owners believe whatever by exploring esoteric legal arguments that gun owners are likely unaware of?
 
Messages
41
Reactions
2
If you want Liberty, you have to lean toward that which reduces the size, power, and scope of government - no matter what the political issue.
I never said otherwise. Passing laws can increase or reduce the scale of government.

It is really clear that your preconceptons are impacting your ability to read. Which is an unsurprisingly common problem on gun rights forums.
 
OP
T
Messages
289
Reactions
324
It is a very good book, but I've noticed that there are no follow up books to help people really understand the law. For example, you read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers along with all the writings of the era to get a sense of how the founders and framers would have interpreted the law.

Next you need to know a little about how the three branches of government work. Hint: They do not operate the way that the founders and framers intended. There is a reason that you continue to hear that word "democracy" every day and you never hear the politicians utter the word republic. The way things work in the modern world is that the law ultimately means what the courts say. Voting, petitioning your congresscritters, writing to legislators, etc. all have their limitations. Unless and until people understand that the United States Supreme Court thinks that they "make new law," you are limited as to what you can do in the enforcement of your Rights.
 
OP
T
Messages
289
Reactions
324
To those of you who participated in this thread in the spirit that the OP was posted in, thank you. The answers I sought were not to be found, however. A few people worried too much about where I was coming from. So, now that people have had an opportunity to tell me what they think, I will tell you my stance on gun control. BEFORE I do, I want you to consider some things very carefully:

When you petition your congresscritter to tell them you are for or against any given legislation, you should know by what authority the government can implement gun control. Even the United States Supreme Court has opined that we are under no duty to obey an unconstitutional act. I'd give you the quote and citation, but it's long and I don't know that any of you are actually reading the longer posts. Anyway...

Through fraud, deceit, trickery, literary prestidigitation (i.e. changing the meaning of words and ascribing one definition to a word and another definition to a synonym) the courts have successfully replaced the legislature. When you lobby against gun control, it is my opinion that you would be more effective if you let the politician know that you speak their language (legalese); that you are well aware of the authority they are using to justify their vote in the legislature; that you understand your Rights and that you know jurisdiction.

I am against any form of gun control. I have researched the laws, read the history, and formed conclusions based upon many years of diligent research. This is not meant to brag, but rather to state something that is, most likely true. Today, there is probably not a single living human being that has put in as much time working against gun control in the United States as I have. I began at 17 and just turned 64. In that time, there probably hasn't been a week that I've not been doing something related to firearms. Back in the 1990s I was in a car wreck. I was in ICU for three days and was released on a Saturday morning (having had the car wreck in the wee hours of the previous Friday while going to a Black Friday sale). My right elbow was shattered, right leg broken, part of the bone that covers your knee cap destroyed, collapsed lung, cracked and broken ribs, head cut open to the skull, right eyelid cut, and a broken wrist. So, I leave the hospital and my first stop... a gun show.

I have written proposed legislation, lobbied (professionally), and worked on legal teams doing legal research pro -bono. I have supported political candidates with money and worked their campaigns as a manager. Before the Internet, I was always on tv, radio and in newspapers (even hitting the letters to the editor columns in the state I live in every week). My first letter to the editor came out when I was 17.

The best way to understand gun control measures is to do what Thomas Jefferson urged us to do:

"On every question of construction, 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 to William Johnson, 1823

And so, in drawing my own conclusions that is what I did. Time was spent researching the author of the Second Amendment and the Justice he nominated to the United States Supreme Court. What did the man who wrote the Second Amendment say it meant? What was the objective of the Second Amendment? What kinds of limitations would the founders / framers (if any) endorse? How would the founders / framers handle the 40,000 + federal, state, county and city ordinances, statutes, Executive Orders, rules, regulations, court case holdings, etc.? What is the real purpose of gun control today? What are the ramifications of backing gun control measures? What are the alternatives to gun control and why haven't we employed them as a counter - measure to the liberals putting gun control on the table every legislative session? What are our options today? Have gun owners contemplated ANY of this? The answer for most gun Rights organizations - specifically the major ones (speaking from first hand experience), is that they don't have ANYONE assigned to study those issues much less be able to answer them.

I welcome your input on all of that. Thank you for participating in this thread.
 

UPCOMING EVENTS

Project Appleseed
Douglas Ridge Rifle Club
27787 OR-224, Eagle Creek, OR 97022, USA
Albany Rifle & Pistol Club (ARPC) Gun Show 2021 show is cancelled
Linn County Expo Center
3700 Knox Butte Rd E, Albany, OR 97322, USA
22 Rimfire Challenge
Redmond Rod and Gun Club
Redmond, OR 97756, USA

LATEST RESOURCE REVIEWS

  • Sound Loan and Pawn
    5.00 star(s)
    Definitely recommended
    friendly people, great prices on guns ammo tools, jewelry, other pawn shop stuff, always been easy to deal with
  • A Cut Above Pawn
    5.00 star(s)
    Responsive, courteous, great comms and absolutely reasonable!
    Bought a firearm from a local NWF's member and as I live in Idaho it had to transfer through a local FFL. The Seller picked A Cut Above... The...
  • A Cut Above Pawn
    5.00 star(s)
    Another sterling experience A+
    Tyler is a great man and this place is a treasure. Reasonable fees and excellent service. Kind and polite. No BS. I will keep coming back.
  • A Cut Above Pawn
    5.00 star(s)
    Great FFL Gun Transfers.
    Last Saturday morning. Me & the wife bought a pistol from another great Northwestfirearm's member. Meet up A Cut Above pawn shop. Wife had a...
  • TJ Gun Sales
    5.00 star(s)
    TJ Gun Sales
    Needed some sights for a Glock 19. Found them here for a good price and free install. :)
Top Bottom