Ah, Houston, we calculate thread-lock in 3... 2... 1...
It would be wasted bandwidth. There must be like 12 people like you that live on the Internet, on the lookout for the guys like me that actually DID something productive for gun Rights. Your style, arguments, condescension, and talking points never deviate. I've been on enough boards to direct people who have your exact style of rationalization. You may pretend to be for gun Rights; maybe even you look for the accolades of the patriots.But why not try? I told you I admire your effort and passion. It wasn’t a joke.
I’ll be around if you change your mind!It would be wasted bandwidth. There must be like 12 people like you that live on the Internet, on the lookout for the guys like me that actually DID something productive for gun Rights. Your style, arguments, condescension, and talking points never deviate. I've been on enough boards to direct people who have your exact style of rationalization. You may pretend to be for gun Rights; maybe even you look for the accolades of the patriots.
In reality, you know how to use the power of the Internet and have an advantage over old pharts that spent their time fighting real battles rather than playing Internet games. Having worked as a lobbyist, probably before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes, I've earned the respect that people show me face to face. You may not see that on the Internet, especially on discussion boards that have at least one of you living on the board 24 / 7. Keyboard Commandos may be able to fool all the people SOME of the time, but if people see this same scenario play itself out, they realize who the real deal is and who the disinformation artists are.
I fight gun control; I don't try to do mental masturbation on a discussion board with insecure people that are looking for a pretend fight.
I did not say I believed in a "living document", and I do not believe in that. I said it would be better if the court had ruled that "all gun laws are unconstitutional". Is that not clear enough?Lastly, constitutionalists never believed in a "living document" as you are supporting. I really miss the strict constructionists and patriot movement types before this backpedaling and compromise came along.
Thank you for clearing that up. I was just commenting on a different site that I went to a right wing site (this one), a left wing site, and a Libertarian site and to explain the difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right. On ALL THREE SITES I was greeted by a guru in good standing that it was considered trolling to disagree with that guru. ON ALL THREE SITES I was greeted with the same objections, verbiage, arguments, strategies and rebuffs to the concept of unalienable Rights (which are not recognized in the modern legal lexicon, BTW). But, once you allow social liberals to define the vocabulary, they then control the direction of the discussion... and, in our case, the direction of gun Rights.I did not say I believed in a "living document", and I do not believe in that. I said it would be better if the court had ruled that "all gun laws are unconstitutional". Is that not clear enough?
The Brennan Center website, linked to above, specifically states their belief (not mine) in a living document; and they apparently also believe the NRA is rabidly pro-2A. Did you read it? Because of their extreme leftist bias, I would not believe much of their "history", but their view of NRA power in the gun control debate is interesting and relevant to the OP question.
The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.www.brennancenter.org
I appreciate the dialogue we’ve had. Water under the bridge.Thank you for clearing that up. I was just commenting on a different site that I went to a right wing site (this one), a left wing site, and a Libertarian site and to explain the difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right. On ALL THREE SITES I was greeted by a guru in good standing that it was considered trolling to disagree with that guru. ON ALL THREE SITES I was greeted with the same objections, verbiage, arguments, strategies and rebuffs to the concept of unalienable Rights (which are not recognized in the modern legal lexicon, BTW). But, once you allow social liberals to define the vocabulary, they then control the direction of the discussion... and, in our case, the direction of gun Rights.
For that reason, I misunderstood your intent. I have not gotten a very warm reception toward the truth. In my day, it was better to ask a guy a few questions before making presumptions and even when I gave a synopsis of my experience, it was greeted with great disdain. I admit it. Discussion boards are not my forte'.
Same here. I will say this much so you understand where I'm coming from:I appreciate the dialogue we’ve had. Water under the bridge.
Same here. I will say this much so you understand where I'm coming from:
After many years I find a lot of approaches to be highly suspect. And, in my mind, many times there is no language that can predict and answer all the nuances we anticipate. Sometimes I do not understand why people filibuster over semantics. You get bit by a snake. One guy says it's poisonous; the next guy corrects him and says it venomous. I'd just put it in the English vernacular and say you gonna xxxing die. Someone may tell you a coin is pure silver, but you know it's 99.999 percent silver.
This is my take, boiling everything down to the basics. The official word in the Declaration of Independence relative to what I brought up is unalienable. I'm not sure why the right fights this, but it's obvious why the left does. There is no word in the English language that means the government cannot infringe upon your Rights except as a punishment for you having committed a crime and / or take your Rights temporarily because you are endangering the Life, Liberty, or Property of another. The intent of the founders of this country and the framers of the Constitution was to limit the size, power, and scope of government. And so, they used the word unalienable in the Declaration of Independence. Our forefathers fought a war over the concept. I know this will be long winded, but I will get to the NRA.
The courts were unequivocal in the direction they wanted to go with respect to the issue of unalienable Rights. AND, the laws regarding the Right to keep and bear Arms was equally clear. I'll cite some of them if you doubt it. The liberals argument is that no right is unalienable since there are circumstances where the system can deprive you of the Right (albeit limited as they are). So, the liberals have you agreeing to their ulterior motive of marginalizing the Right. Surely, if we can take away the firearms of people who commit a crime and put them in prison; if we can take a firearm away from a person to keep them from shooting an innocent person, then there are exceptions to that word unalienable and nothing is unalienable. To that I would say, you have Rights and I have Rights, but how do we both exercise our Rights without infringing upon each other's Rights? Back to the Declaration of Independence:
"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
The legitimate function of government is to secure Rights, not infringe on them. So, the concept of unalienable means that man has no legitimate authority to do something with an intentional outcome of infringing on the Right, but to do things necessary to secure the Right. Then along came the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. We were told the 14th Amendment was put into place to give black people a "right" to vote. What the 14th Amendment actually did was to create two classes of citizenship, Preamble Citizens and 14th amendment citizens.
Preamble Citizens retained their constitutional standing while 14th Amendment citizens have "privileges and immunities." While this was going on, the courts were building a body of case law for something called "inalienable rights." The definition the courts gave to unalienable Rights used terminology like inherent, natural, irrevocable, God given, absolute, and above the law. Inalienable rights were defined differently. One court case made these "rights" very distinguishable.
“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)
Unalienable Rights could NOT be forfeited. And then the fight was on to weaken the concept of unalienable Rights. In the 7th edition of Blacks Law Dictionary, the word unalienable was dropped. Liberals loved the new term "inalienable" and, because of the court interpretations, inalienable rights are now connected to the 14th Amendment and the privileges and immunities clause. Without a legal primer, this is real easy - unalienable Rights are given by a Creator and are above the jurisdiction of government. Inalienable rights are connected to the 14th Amendment (specifically the privileges and immunities Clause) which are government given privileges (not exactly the unalienable Rights we went to war to secure in the War of Independence).
The NRA is not oblivious to this argument which is why they compromise and pander to the left with that language about "common sense gun laws." IF all you have are inalienable rights and you are pushing these mythical "common sense gun laws" (which is an oxymoron at best) you CANNOT be pro-gun. Period. The objective of supporting the language of the left and saying inalienable is an intentional slap at Thomas Jefferson's usage of the word unalienable because of Jefferson's intent. Intelligent people ought to realize that if you want to keep guns out of the wrong hands, you keep the bodies of the wrong hands in jails, prisons, or mental wards. Maintaining different classes of citizens and prohibiting some people from owning a firearm due to some past indiscretion was NOT the intent of the Second Amendment nor anything else in the Constitution of the United States.
As soon as I read your last line, I instantly thought of this scene (for those that are not Trekkies, skip to the 1:00 mark):The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
As soon as I read your last line, I instantly thought of this scene (for those that are not Trekkies, skip to the 1:00 mark):
From Star Trek: TNG, Season 4, Episode 21; The Drumhead, IMHO as a True Trekkie, one of the best episodes of the series. Well worth the watch...
It does not matter what a politician believes or disbelieves. I'm telling you that if you speak the vocabulary of your enemy, your enemy controls the narrative. It's that simple. The language you speak is as relevant as the talking head you sent to Washington Wonderland to mouth the words. Once you compromise your language and adopt theirs, you begin to find ways to agree with their position and sell your fellow Americans out - whether intentional or not.Politicians, particularly leftist politicians, do not care what the Constitution says, and they do not care what words mean. With respect to the 2A, their intent is to diminish it and infringe on it as much as possible every day, to eventually overturn the amendment, and then to take every gun from WE THE PEOPLE. They want the US to be like South Korea or perhaps the UK - essentially unarmed. If it came down to a national popular vote today, the 2A would be eliminated or severely restricted, and leftists, the NRA, and politicians know it. The NRA and politicians operate in this toxic environment (to the 2A), so those who are pro-gun are forced to compromise so they seem "reasonable" since unreasonable people do not get re-elected. Heller was an important win because it said, apparently for the first time, that the 2A gives individuals the right to own guns. As soon as leftists have control again, they will pack the courts with anti-gun judges - they are already talking about adding more judges to the USSC so they can have an unbeatable leftist majority on the court. The judges are nothing more than politicians - they do not care one whit what the constitution says - they rule solely on their personal opinions - same as our local judges who convict people for self-defense, then let their attackers go free. That's where we are today.
There is a vote for President in 50 days. We will also be voting for senators and representatives. Each of us will either vote pro-gun (R), or anti-gun (anything other than R). Choose wisely. You will not get another chance.
Edit to add:
Also, don't just vote, but give as much as possible to Rs in races in other states. Volunteer to make calls if you can. Bloomberg and other anti-gun/anti-USA leftists are donating hundred$ of million$ to defeat Rs around the nation. Some close races I recommend donating to are:
Donald Trump (President) - Love him or hate him, he's the only hope we have this year.
Susan Collins (Maine) - yes, she's a flake, but she usually comes thru when it really matters.
Joni Ernst (Iowa)
Martha McSally (Arizona)
David Perdue (Georgia)
Cory Gardner (Colorado)
Thom Tillis (North Carolina)
Steve Daines (Montana)
Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)
I hope to post some links at thread below soon, but until I do, it isn't hard to find their donation pages:
If you are in Oregon, you get a 100% tax credit for donating up to $50 per person, $100 per couple. Find races with pro-2A candidates that were in "close" districts last year. For example, in Oregon House district 26, Peggy Stevens (R) is challenging incumbent Courtney Neron (D). In 2018...www.northwestfirearms.com