Legal right of gun carriers to shoot back?

[Father of four]

2A only ensures that government can't take away your means of self-defense.

Until that right is regulated away. Then what can you do to stop it.Just ask the civilians of Chicago.

 

[Kevatc]

Just because the courts or the powers that be rule something Constitutional when We the People believe it is not does not make it Constitutional, nor the regulations that are passed by the government without the citizens approval.

Not exactly sure what you're saying here but are you implying that the citizens need to approve of every law and court decision? I thought "we the people" vote for Congressmen and Senators to do the work of legislating, elect a POTUS, and rely on the SCOTUS to wade through all the legal mumbo jumbo on our behalf. I could be wrong.

 

[fd15k]

Until that right is regulated away. Then what can you do to stop it.Just ask the civilians of Chicago.

See, once again you make a statement based on your beliefs. I am on the other hand going off the judicial history. Citizens of Chicago just got "the right" in 2010, and before that they did not have it. So in fact it's the opposite scenario

 

[fd15k]

Not exactly sure what you're saying here but are you implying that the citizens need to approve of every law and court decision? I thought "we the people" vote for Congressmen and Senators to do the work of legislating, elect a POTUS, and rely on the SCOTUS to wade through all the legal mumbo jumbo on our behalf. I could be wrong.

It sounded like he wants a selective direct democracy (or perhaps a complete democracy ?). But we are not a democracy, and have never been.

 

[Father of four]

And government never does anything without approval from the citizens. Those scumbags are elected (approved) by the citizens. They are also not impeached (reapproved) when they do something supposedly unworthy. So I'm not sure where is the problem in this puzzle...

I beg to differ. The government often does things without the citizens approval.Our representatives are not on the citizens favorites list right now with a very very low approval ratting. And just because us citizens cant impeach someone in government doesn't mean that there are A Bunch of then that needs to be impeached.

 

[Kevatc]

Until that right is regulated away. Then what can you do to stop it.Just ask the civilians of Chicago.

Regardless of if you are an advocate of the 2A or not it boggles my mind how anyone with a modicum of sense, fairness, and a minimally working knowledge of the Constitution and BOR would disagree that what Chicago restricts and regulates in terms of the 2A is completely at odds with the BOR/Constitution. Additionally, it is obvious that the very restrictive stance in terms of the 2A is an abject failure of policy.

 

[fd15k]

I beg to differ. The government often does things without the citizens approval.Our representatives are not on the citizens favorites list right now with a very very low approval ratting. And just because us citizens cant impeach someone in government doesn't mean that there are A Bunch of then that needs to be impeached.

Not sure what you wanted to say in the second part of your post. But my point still stands - if you find that the official you've elected is not representing your interests, just impeach (recall) the d-bag.

 

[Father of four]

It sounded like he wants a selective direct democracy (or perhaps a complete democracy ?). But we are not a democracy, and have never been.

No what i want is for the representatives of the people to do the will of the people, I want the courts to do the will of the people, I want the government as a whole to do the will of the people not the will of the government as it sees fit. Is it wrong for the government to do what it wants when the people disagree with it?

 

[Father of four]

Regardless of if you are an advocate of the 2A or not it boggles my mind how anyone with a modicum of sense, fairness, and a minimally working knowledge of the Constitution and BOR would disagree that what Chicago restricts and regulates in terms of the 2A is completely at odds with the BOR/Constitution. Additionally, it is obvious that the very restrictive stance in terms of the 2A is an abject failure of policy.

To me it boggles the mind how the 2nd Amendment gives US a right but the government has written laws to take it away.

 

[fd15k]

No what i want is for the representatives of the people to do the will of the people, I want the courts to do the will of the people, I want the government as a whole to do the will of the people not the will of the government as it sees fit. Is it wrong for the government to do what it wants when the people disagree with it?

It is not a function of the courts to do the will of the people. You are confusing courts with the legislative bodies.

 

[fd15k]

To me it boggles the mind how the 2nd Amendment gives US a right but the government has written laws to take it away.

I think you need to read up on Heller/McDonald, that will give you an idea how our entire system works. Just because something is written in the 2A, it doesn't automatically mean it has unlimited and almighty effect.

 

[Father of four]

It is not a function of the courts to do the will of the people. You are confusing courts with the legislative bodies.

No, i guess I am confusing a once free country that had a government set up to do the will of the free citizens, not of its self.

 

[Father of four]

I think you need to read up on Heller/McDonald, that will give you an idea how our entire system works. Just because something is written in the 2A, it doesn't automatically mean it has unlimited and almighty effect.

It may be a good read but I still have hope that Our Country returns to the true meaning in what I read in The Deceleration Of Independence, The Constitution and Bill of rights.

 

[fd15k]

No, i guess I am confusing a once free country that had a government set up to do the will of the free citizens, not of its self.

Tell me, when was this country free by your standards ? Because 2A restrictions didn't come 5 years ago. Not even 100 years ago. Fact is the scope of the Bill of Rights got clarified for the first time when one of the Founders was still alive. And scope of the courts was clarified when most of them were alive. Nothing of what you see today has been invented yesterday.

 

[Father of four]

How about you take a look at some of the Decelerations of Independence. See if there are some of the things written back then that seems to mirror what is happening now.

The colonies are having the representatives write it for them. Here take a look...

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states;

 

[Father of four]

Tell me, when was this country free by your standards ? Because 2A restrictions didn't come 5 years ago. Not even 100 years ago. Fact is the scope of the Bill of Rights got clarified for the first time when one of the Founders was still alive. And scope of the courts was clarified when most of them were alive. Nothing of what you see today has been invented yesterday.

Its not My standards, It should be We the Peoples standards, Not what the government wants it to be.

 

[fd15k]

...

I'm not sure what's not clear to you. Folks didn't like the regime, they ran a revolution and established a new regime. Today we operate under the frameworks that were created for that very regime. If you don't like something, you have 2 options :

a) use the frameworks of the regime to change/fix the things you don't like
b) run another revolution, and establish yet another regime with its new frameworks and establishing clauses

Btw, my choice is "a"

 

[fd15k]

Its not My standards, It should be We the Peoples standards, Not what the government wants it to be.

I disagree with you in the conclusions, that's why I need to know what you are basing them on.

 

[Member 5605]

I was on vacation so all of this happens while I'm out of town... up in Washington with some relaxation...

Anyway, the point of the post is that my father in law and I are at a resort where there are posted "no firearm" signs. WTH? He realizes this after we are there for a while. Asks me what's up. "If they ask you to leave you must, otherwise face trespassing..."

Same will happen whenever I go out with my family. If I am asked to leave I will. Knowing DAMN well I will NOT willingly do business there again. (exception is the state offices where I am legally obligated to do so).

 

[fd15k]

I was on vacation so all of this happens while I'm out of town... up in Washington with some relaxation...

Anyway, the point of the post is that my father in law and I are at a resort where there are posted "no firearm" signs. WTH? He realizes this after we are there for a while. Asks me what's up. "If they ask you to leave you must, otherwise face trespassing..."

Same will happen whenever I go out with my family. If I am asked to leave I will. Knowing DAMN well I will NOT willingly do business there again. (exception is the state offices where I am legally obligated to do so).

See, and that's the thing we should pursue in courts. We have no choice not to go to the government offices. So either they let us protect ourselves, or they MUST provide adequate security (like in the court houses).