On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 00:45:27 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
23:19:51 -0500, Don Foreman, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:00:20 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
00:33:32 -0500, Don Foreman, wrote:
The actions and "statement" of the guy in AZ were noted in places far
removed from AZ, thanks to the media. I don't question, challenge or
deny that his act was within his rights, that is NOT MY POINT. I
maintain that his act was ill-considered and foolish as regards the
preservation of his rights and mine. That's the part that bothers
me.
It should maybe bother you more that his actions
should have any repercussions on your rights at all.
Is there perhaps a typo here? I'm not sure what you're saying.
I'm saying that rights based on such mushy ground
that they can be abolished because of the actions of
one man are pretty flimsy to begin with. If this were
actually the case, THAT should bother you more than some
non-act interpreted as a political message.
Oh. Yeah, that would bother me a lot. Passing an amendment requires
ratification by 3/4 of the States. I acknowledge that the act of one
damned fool will have almost insignificant lasting effect on public
opinion.
Sorry, that's wrong. Some constitutional rights are denied to felons
Yup. I spouted too fast on that one didn't I.
Now... where is it in the Constitution that says
felons can be denied their Constitutional rights?
Good question! I don't know.
Citizens have constitutional rights and citizenship is
conferred by birth (or by naturalization). A right that is
conferred by the constitution or an amendment thereto, the 2d in this
case, can be modified or abolished by a subsequent amendment.
So you don't agree with Thomas Jefferson, or with the
very premise of this nation?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness."
That would seem to completely contradict what you're
saying above; that rights are conferred by government
to its citizens by a piece of paper.
The unalienable rights asserted above are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. The first ten amendments are called the bill of
rights, assert additional rights for citizens of the United States.
For example, the 21st amendment repealed and reversed the 18th. The
people voted and made it so.
Not the people. If it were up to the people, I
doubt the 18th would have ever passed. A
Constitutional Amendment isn't a democratic process.
The 18th showed that even with the safeguards in place,
stupid amendments can get passed. The 21st proved that
even government can't stay stupid forever. I would hope
that would be a lesson not forgotten, but who knows
with this evolving Idiocracy.
Just as Washington now goes to war without ever
declaring war, so do they circumvent the Amendment
process to bypass the Constitution via "regulations."
Maybe the problem is too many people believe the
right to keep and bear arms is actually a privilege.
It is a right conferred by the 2d amendment to the constitution.
It is a pre-existing right *recognized* by the 2nd
Amendment. Anyway, according to Thomas Jefferson.
(Though Ben Franklin had quite a bit of input as well.)
That amendment can be modifed, nullified or repealed by a subsequent
amendment.
Theoretically... but if you really want to see an
uprising, that'd be a certain trigger.
Probably so.
No, the pols wil continue to try and chip away one
city, one state, one "reasonable" restriction at a time
or they'll create a situation so terrifying as to make
extreme controls "necessary to national security." By
the time the Idiocracy is here, nobody will care anyway.
If the people of our country were to become sufficiently offended by
damned fools offensively abusing their 2d amendment rights, those rights
could be curtailed or eliminated.
Not lawfully... though as Hitler amply demonstrated,
anything can be done legally. All it takes is to pass
a law to legalize it. (Does that invoke Godwin?)
It definitely invokes Godwin.
Uh oh. I think that means you're not allowed to
reply to this post then. ;-)
You may interpret his "statement" differently in Arizona.
I personally wouldn't interpret it as defiance
unless it was something approaching civil disobediance.
Just a manner of dress so to speak? Some guys have body piercings,
others tattoos, a few adorn themselves with AR-15's? "Oh, Guy, that
rifle is so YOU!" I think you're right, I gotta come visit Arizona.
I might like it.
Then again, you might not. Last we lived in AZ was
'05. Anyway, I never really had any burning desire
to move back. Every place has its advantages and
disadvantages. On balance, AZ isn't the best place
for us.
Yes indeed. The event/act may well have been yawnably unremarkable in
Arizona to Arizonians.
Actually I consider myself more Minnesotan than
Arizonian... My mother was born and raised in Ramsey,
back when it was still Anoka. My wife and I lived in
Cass Lake for a year... well, close enough that we
had PO Boxes in both Cass Lake and Bemidji.
Brrrr!
Does outstate actually qualify as Minnesotan? The Chrysler
Cold Test Facility was there when we were. No
telling if it's still there with all the upheaval.
I have an uncle in Bradford who I forwarded one of
your range stories to:
"Quality time with a son -- metal content"
Matter of fact, you may have seen him.
I just might have! I am a member of the Isanti County Sportsman's
Club just outside of Cambridge and no more than a couple of miles from
Bradford Twp. I go up there to shoot rifles and handguns during nice
weather.
He's that hard to miss. He drove an old... don't remember the
make and model, but it had a aircraft drop tank attached
made to look like a missile. Something about Saddam
Hussein or the Ayatolah on it. You might also have
seen him riding his bike with an almost man-size
stuffed monkey on his back.
He is not shy at all about his politics, and I bet
THAT Minnesotan would have no problem with an AR at
a political rally! ;-)
I think most rural Minnesotans understand the purposes and utility of
firearms. It's the second and third generation citydwellers that are
irrationally frightened by objects they've seen only on TV.
So why should anybody in AZ cares what various dainty urbanites in NJ
or MN might think? Well, said DU's are also U.S. citizens who can
propose amendments and vote for them,
Citizens don't propose amendments or vote for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution
I stand corrected. Politicians propose them and vote on them.
Shudder!