The Goat Pen

eCat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:31 am

hedge wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:52 pm Do you think that just b/c cars weren't invented when the Constitution was written that you don't have a Constitutional right to drive a car?

that's the basic argument isn't it? we register for drivers license, car license before we can drive a car, so why not guns?

but yea, its not a constitutional guarantee - and the basic difference is the forefathers weren't concerned about whether you were guaranteed to ride a horse and buggy, car or whatever - they didn't see the regulation or obstacles created by that as a threat to independence, self defense or tyranny.

You guys see background checks as a very basic no duh, we should do this kind of thing, but its the definition of infringement. The government, the whole reason the 2A was basically created to prevent abuse from, is deciding who can and cannot have a gun. And they have made it very clear they aren't willing to stop with felons. They have already pushed and continue to push for red flag laws that allows a persons rights to be taken away prior to due process if they consider them a threat.

I bet some of you would be in favor of taking guns away from anyone associated with a group you don't agree with - Proud boys or Antifa, or even people that go to Parlor and talk about secession of their state.

That's the threat here. The whole reason the forefathers wanted an armed citizenry was the ability to band them together to form an adhoc militia - they didn't even want a standing army, so the argument about - how can a guy with a hunting rifle stop our military is really moot. The forefathers felt the guy with the hunting rifle *was* our military and the fact he was armed to the teeth was going to prevent tyranny from rising against the citizenry.

Take the Clive Bundy example. This was a family who generationally had been grazing their cattle on these lands for decades, the government Bureau of Land Management steps and says this land is protected for whatever reason and you have to stop. As I recall they wiped out multiple ranchers over the years and the Bundy's were one of the last to continue. Now whether you agree with Bundy or not, his fight brought to light that the federal government owned something like 80% of all public lands in that area and was arbitrarily changing its use laws based on the political landscape in Washington. And when a family objected , eventually they sent multiple armed representatives to them in order to force them to stop , meaning they were willing to shoot this man over cattle grazing. What they didn't expect to see was multiple armed resistors willing to shoot them back. Ultimately he lost and went to jail, and when you get into the details of it, he probably deserved going to jail for some of the decisions he made, but he didn't deserve to be shot for grazing cattle, and when an armed citizenry stood up and showed the government they were willing to shoot back, suddenly the idea of shooting a man over grazing cattle wasn't so important to our government. They faced an ad-hoc militia that prevented them from harming a citizen when they were overstepping their boundaries.

I don't like the idea of a felon intending to use a ghost gun to harm citizens as much as the next person, but every solution that comes out of the mouths of politicians isn't about stopping the crime its about stopping the law abiding citizen to having access. Focus on the people that are causing harm and quit focusing on removing rights of people that are doing nothing wrong. Its a basic concept that is just lost on people because its the easiest solution, not the right one.

DooKSucks wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:45 am

eCat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:31 am

hedge wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:52 pm Do you think that just b/c cars weren't invented when the Constitution was written that you don't have a Constitutional right to drive a car?

that's the basic argument isn't it? we register for drivers license, car license before we can drive a car, so why not guns?

but yea, its not a constitutional guarantee - and the basic difference is the forefathers weren't concerned about whether you were guaranteed to ride a horse and buggy, car or whatever - they didn't see the regulation or obstacles created by that as a threat to independence, self defense or tyranny.

You guys see background checks as a very basic no duh, we should do this kind of thing, but its the definition of infringement. The government, the whole reason the 2A was basically created to prevent abuse from, is deciding who can and cannot have a gun. And they have made it very clear they aren't willing to stop with felons. They have already pushed and continue to push for red flag laws that allows a persons rights to be taken away prior to due process if they consider them a threat.

I bet some of you would be in favor of taking guns away from anyone associated with a group you don't agree with - Proud boys or Antifa, or even people that go to Parlor and talk about secession of their state.

That's the threat here. The whole reason the forefathers wanted an armed citizenry was the ability to band them together to form an adhoc militia - they didn't even want a standing army, so the argument about - how can a guy with a hunting rifle stop our military is really moot. The forefathers felt the guy with the hunting rifle *was* our military and the fact he was armed to the teeth was going to prevent tyranny from rising against the citizenry.

Take the Clive Bundy example. This was a family who generationally had been grazing their cattle on these lands for decades, the government Bureau of Land Management steps and says this land is protected for whatever reason and you have to stop. As I recall they wiped out multiple ranchers over the years and the Bundy's were one of the last to continue. Now whether you agree with Bundy or not, his fight brought to light that the federal government owned something like 80% of all public lands in that area and was arbitrarily changing its use laws based on the political landscape in Washington. And when a family objected , eventually they sent multiple armed representatives to them in order to force them to stop , meaning they were willing to shoot this man over cattle grazing. What they didn't expect to see was multiple armed resistors willing to shoot them back. Ultimately he lost and went to jail, and when you get into the details of it, he probably deserved going to jail for some of the decisions he made, but he didn't deserve to be shot for grazing cattle, and when an armed citizenry stood up and showed the government they were willing to shoot back, suddenly the idea of shooting a man over grazing cattle wasn't so important to our government. They faced an ad-hoc militia that prevented them from harming a citizen when they were overstepping their boundaries.

I don't like the idea of a felon intending to use a ghost gun to harm citizens as much as the next person, but every solution that comes out of the mouths of politicians isn't about stopping the crime its about stopping the law abiding citizen to having access. Focus on the people that are causing harm and quit focusing on removing rights of people that are doing nothing wrong. Its a basic concept that is just lost on people because its the easiest solution, not the right one.

You are wrong. The ability to travel freely is a right protected by the Constitution. The ability to come and go as one pleases falls under the penumbra of liberty as set forth in the constitution. However, the ability to exercise ones rights can be regulated within certain parameters.

I am not trying to demean you when I say this, but part of the political problem we have is that we have leaders who are either ignorant -- or willfully leading the ignorant -- of (1) 230 years of constitutional jurisprudence from the SCOTUS and (2) actual history. Even those who often held/hold strict views of the constitution's breadth and government's permitted actions -- notably originalists / textualists like Scalia -- rely on jurisprudence and historical reference.

Also, your statements regarding a standing army and an ad hoc militia are catchy lines used by the far right, but there is a lot of historical information showing those statements / claims to be far from the blanket truths your brethren claim.

Some -- notably the anit-federalist factions -- opposed having a standing army, but the Federalists generally supported having / having the ability to have a standing army. See Federalist 24 (Alexander Hamilton defending standing armed forces): https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed24.asp

Many notable historical scholars state that the second amendment was not about the right to bear arms but jurisdictional control over militias. Here are two brief pieces by the late Don Higginbotham (a preeminent scholar on the American Revolution, the early days of the nation and George Washington):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2674322?re ... b_contents (you need to register with your gmail account but it is free)

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/vie ... xt=concomm

eCat wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 7:23 pm

GBJs wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:04 am

eCat wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:45 am see if you can pick out what is wrong with this story ....

No background check?? I’m a believer in our 2A right, but a background check should be accomplished. Not too many new gun laws are needed, many of the ones on the books aren’t enforced. Close the loophole and enforce a background check for kits also.

doesn't sound like you are.

why do I need a background check to be approved to own something that the constitution says shall not be infringed?

how about focusing on felons buying gun kits instead of making blanket laws that make it harder on law abiding citizens to own or sell them?