Guns, pros and cons!

[Jeff Young]

A couple of clarifications here (upfront -- I am an attorney, and have litigated several constitutional cases, mostly First and 14th Amendment).

The idea that the enumerated rights in the Constitution are somehow "unlimited" is incorrect. THey are always subject to reasonable amounts of regulation. Free speech? Sure, except if your speech is "fighting words" or, like yelling "fire" in a theater, likely to cause harm to others. Freedom of religion? Sure, but you can't use that as a shield to deny your kid necessary medical treatment.

Right to keep and bear arms? Sure, but the state has the right to engage in reasonable regulation of that right. Even inthe most recent DC case, the majority recognized that, for example, the state could completely prohibit the mentally ill and children from owning guns.

Second point. Yes, the Second Amendment could be changed and rewritten via the amendment process. Conceivably, if 2/3 of the states agreed and ratified it, we could pass an amendment that said: "No person spending more than 1 hour a day typing posts on the internet can keep and bear arms."

Just some clarifications.

Rights in the Constitution, unless you are requesting a rewrite, are inalienable. You might want to look that up. It means that they can NOT be taken away. Even if every single citizen, except you, wants to eliminate it..they can't. But that goes for the other Rights as well. Including freedom of speach. Which is kept that way with the other rights in coordination with each other. I have no King and will not bow down to one.

 

[Dave Wood]

Mike,

You bring up 100,000 heavally armed people storming the White House and complain that you are not as well armed as the government. It sounds to me like you think the people should be as well armed as the govenment.

Please tell us what weapons you feel you should have?

I feel that anyone should own the same weaponry as the government. There is the implication that somehow "the Government" is more "rational" than regular citizens. I don't believe it for a minute. Run for office ..just once...as somethimng other than a dem or rep. and you will see how STACKED the deck is in their favor. So changing the elected leaders isn't as simple as the founding fathers intended. Just look at all the political parties that were in the first 100 years of the country and then look at how those 2 parties have sewed it up for themselves as well as their greedy "investors"
I lived in several Southern states over the years and it wasn't uncommon for there to be old civil war cannons in peoples yards. They weren't there as decoration they were originally kept as a means of protection from overbearing politicians,etc. They are of course outdated now, but until sometime in the 60s you could purchase military equipment from surplus. It was the peoples money that purchased them to begin with and if they are now deemed obsolete, why should the citizens not be able to purchase them?
A fearful political establishment is an obedient one.

 

[Dave Wood]

A couple of clarifications here (upfront -- I am an attorney, and have litigated several constitutional cases, mostly First and 14th Amendment).

The idea that the enumerated rights in the Constitution are somehow "unlimited" is incorrect. THey are always subject to reasonable amounts of regulation. Free speech? Sure, except if your speech is "fighting words" or, like yelling "fire" in a theater, likely to cause harm to others. Freedom of religion? Sure, but you can't use that as a shield to deny your kid necessary medical treatment.

Right to keep and bear arms? Sure, but the state has the right to engage in reasonable regulation of that right. Even inthe most recent DC case, the majority recognized that, for example, the state could completely prohibit the mentally ill and children from owning guns.

Second point. Yes, the Second Amendment could be changed and rewritten via the amendment process. Conceivably, if 2/3 of the states agreed and ratified it, we could pass an amendment that said: "No person spending more than 1 hour a day typing posts on the internet can keep and bear arms."

Just some clarifications.

Inalienable is just that. Now reasonable regulation is NOT taking away that right. Reasonable is also nebulous. Depending one who is hearing that, would depend on what "reasonable" is. But the Bill of Rights as stated within the wording of the Constitution itself are INALIENABLE. I know that lawyers like to dance around words. That's why so many are unliked and also why so many of our elected are in that profession. Words are just something to find another meaning for.
I understand the amendment process, but I seriously doubt that applies to the Bill of Rights.

 

[Jeff Young]

I agree with you the question always is (and the courts have devised various tests for it in various situations) what is reasonable.

Thanks for the digs on lawyers! lol....although I am used to it....

You understand, of course, that the Bill of Rights is simply the first ten amendments to the Constitution? They were, after great debate, added after the Constitution was ratified? And that, of course, they can be modifed, altered, changed and even deleted via the Amendment process, just like every other part of the Constitution?

Yes, if 2/3 of the states agreed, your right to bear arms could be revoked!

Inalienable is just that. Now reasonable regulation is NOT taking away that right. Reasonable is also nebulous. Depending one who is hearing that, would depend on what "reasonable" is. But the Bill of Rights as stated within the wording of the Constitution itself are INALIENABLE. I know that lawyers like to dance around words. That's why so many are unliked and also why so many of our elected are in that profession. Words are just something to find another meaning for.
I understand the amendment process, but I seriously doubt that applies to the Bill of Rights.

 

[Nick]

When you can see no difference between the sheepdogs’ rhetoric and arguments and that of the Wolves.

It’s time to leave the fields and seek a Sheppard,

 

[Dave Wood]

I agree with you the question always is (and the courts have devised various tests for it in various situations) what is reasonable.

Thanks for the digs on lawyers! lol....although I am used to it....

You understand, of course, that the Bill of Rights is simply the first ten amendments to the Constitution? They were, after great debate, added after the Constitution was ratified? And that, of course, they can be modifed, altered, changed and even deleted via the Amendment process, just like every other part of the Constitution?

Yes, if 2/3 of the states agreed, your right to bear arms could be revoked!

I definitely understand what the Bill of Rights is and why it is there. They were added to get all the states invloved at the time to come to an agreement that minimized the Federal powers.
I doubt that the first 10 could be removed even with a 90% vote. If it is attempted, I would think that you would have the defragmentation that was trying to be avoided when they were crafted.
Sorry about the lawyer "dig", it is more an observation. I have several Attorneys as friends.
But I do feel it is dangerous for any Government to have such a large percentage of those elected in a profession that employs such a small percentage of the population. It kind of makes me think that many of the laws created are just so they can have more work. I'm just saying...

 

[Jeff Young]

No problem on the dig, most of it is deserved...lol..

I agree with you we have far too many lawyers both as elected officials and in government in general. The idea of the citizen statesman is something that has been lost I think, and that is not good.

I do have to continue to work on you about the Bill of Rights. They absolutely could be changed/modified/deleted via the Amendment process, just like every other part of the Constitution. Really need to be clear about that. 2/3 of the states say so, and the 2nd Amendment is gone.

And, actually, the Bill of Rights was mostly about personal freedoms. In fact, there was a huge debate at the time. Many of the founders believed the enumerating personal freedoms in the Constitution via the Bill of RIghts was a bad idea because by listing them, those founders thought the implication would be that all other rights not so listed would be held by the government rather than the people or the states.

Hence the 9th and 10th Amendments, reserving all rights not given to the government, to the people and/or the states.

 

[Jeff Young]

I like that. A lot.

When you can see no difference between the sheepdogs’ rhetoric and arguments and that of the Wolves.

It’s time to leave the fields and seek a Sheppard,

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I wasn't aware that criminals and police/armed forces had any where near the same rhetoric and arguments. Do they speak to one another? A bit far fetched Nick.

 

[Mike]

I like that. A lot.

I would bet that Mr. Young ends up using that in front of a judge...or at the least to impress a client.

Too funny! If they only knew that he got that off a vintage car "replica" public automotive forum!?!

 

[Roark_John]

First of all...the US is NOT a democratic nation. It is a democratic-republic, so as to prevent any "majority" from inflicting its will on all the rest who must share the land. That is the point of electing leaders who do the best they are able, as needed...not as wanted. To prevent hijacking of the nation by any group that wants to advance their own personal cause. Because insanity can come from the left, right AND middle. The concept of a democratic-republic was to be a moderating force in politics.

Surely you understand this concept as a lawyer?

You have no place to claim my "mindset" is dangerous... legally, morally, ethically or otherwise. Remember the First Amendment? It doesn't just apply to those ideas you agree with. As a lawyer, surely you know that you must PROVE an accusation, not just lay one and let the accused suffer the consequences. That's what's so disheartening and disturbing about your own personal brand of rhetoric. You think I'm "dangerous" so I shouldn't be a "sheepdog" or leader, or whatever position you believe that I shouldn't be in. As if you were the only person who had a firm grasp on sanity, reality or reason. Tsk, tsk. We both know that an attempt to discredit another person without cause and proof is nothing more than a cheap distraction from an inability to make a well-reasoned, well-delivered case. Were you one of Johnny Cochrane's partners?

And NOT ONCE did I ever intimate that the "folks with guns" should run society. Far from it! I did mention elected officials and their duties, but you were too busy cherry-picking my post to FULLY READ and DIGEST what I actually wrote. Shame on you...

Weak sheepsauce? Please don't ever write an opening statement for me, if I ever need a legal team. Jesus! Talk about making shit up.

Take myself way too seriously? By what standard? Have you ever been in a war-zone, boots on the ground? When those bullets are whizzing past YOUR head, and shit is going pear-shaped all around you, then YOU can tell me what's "serious" or not. When you don't know if this villager or the next might be the one with ordinance strapped to their chest under their robes, is going to self-detonate as they pass by...or if you're going to take a round to the head as you bust down a door on the next sweep to weed out rebels and confiscate weapons. That's pretty damned serious, brother. I'm sure you've got a few sweat-stained Van Heusens from arguing before the court, but it's NOTHING like what you'll face when YOUR neck is actually on the line.

Other than taking THAT seriously, I don't let much bother me. If it can't kill me, it ain't worth getting worked up about.

His entire post seemed so anti-democractic I honestly couldn't tell if he was serious. Which is why I asked if he was kidding. If he was serious, I suppose I was trying to get a rise out of him. That's probably wrong, I agree.

But I find his entire mindset to be dangerous, which basically is our society should be run by folks with guns who "intimately know violence" and that everyone else are weak sheepsauce or something. Add in the fact that he takes himself way too seriously, and yes, honestly, he did need some ribbing.

 

[Jeff Young]

One last post and then I am done.

Again, thank you for your service. I this appreciated, whether you believe that or not.

However, I categorically and emphatically reject the notion that your decision to serve somehow gives "more" of say in society, politics and the law. It is that mindset that I find dangerous, and of the veterans I know (and there are many) the ones who seem to earn the most respect from me (and others) are not the ones who continually refer to that service to give more weight or credibility to the political positions they hold.

The concept of citizen soldier in American society is a noble one and one of the things that I think separates us from nearly all other countries in the world -- the notion that our military and in particular our officer corps fully and completely understands that under the Constitution, they are to follow the directions of the political process. It is amazing actually, that in our 200+ years of history we have never come close to a military coup (not true of nearly all other Western democracies) and that is a tribute to both our educated, professional military, and to the strength of our civilian political system.

The mindset that disturbs me in posts like yours runs counter to that idea, and that history.

That is all.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jeff,

Once again you have said things that need to be said. Please do not leave these discussions to the whack jobs. Without people like you putting things into perspective they seem to think what they post actually make sense.

 

[Nick]

We both know that an attempt to discredit another person without cause and proof is nothing more than a cheap distraction from an inability to make a well-reasoned, well-delivered case.

Originally Posted by WYLD
You can be cavalier with your "liberalism" if you so choose, but remember that the root word of liberal is LIBERTY...not mental retardism.


Originally Posted by WYLD
My grandfather had a quote that I am fond of using...

"An open mind is a great thing, so long as all the common sense hasn't leaked out."

You sir, are a prime example of why this saying exists.



Originally Posted by WYLD
You and your ilk are traitors...morally and ethically.

 

[Roark_John]

One last post and then I am done.

Again, thank you for your service. I this appreciated, whether you believe that or not.

However, I categorically and emphatically reject the notion that your decision to serve somehow gives "more" of say in society, politics and the law. It is that mindset that I find dangerous, and of the veterans I know (and there are many) the ones who seem to earn the most respect from me (and others) are not the ones who continually refer to that service to give more weight or credibility to the political positions they hold.

Again...where did I say my soldiery should give me "more" say in society? What post, what line? This "dangerous" mindset that you continue attributing to ME is not MINE. Do I think I should have more say in what our politicians do on OUR dime? You betcha. Do I think I should have more say about where/what conflicts we start, get involved in and get sent to? You betcha. And if more Americans weren't asleep at the wheel, you would to!

The concept of citizen soldier in American society is a noble one and one of the things that I think separates us from nearly all other countries in the world -- the notion that our military and in particular our officer corps fully and completely understands that under the Constitution, they are to follow the directions of the political process. It is amazing actually, that in our 200+ years of history we have never come close to a military coup (not true of nearly all other Western democracies) and that is a tribute to both our educated, professional military, and to the strength of our civilian political system.

The mindset that disturbs me in posts like yours runs counter to that idea, and that history.

HOLY FUCK, you are an insistent though incorrect bastard, aren't you? At NO time did I suggest anything along the lines of a coup d'etat!!! Stop putting words in my mouth, stop telling me what I believe and think, stop using your First Amendment rights to slander me and paint me with the wrong paintbrush! Your rights do not extend to abusing me. Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ on a Stripper Pole, wrap your mind around WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID, NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE I SAID!!!

That is all.

That is not ALL. Words have meanings, that is how verbal and written communication is able to be achieved. We have all heard the childhood rhyme, that Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Never Hurt Me. We also know just how false this statement is. Everybody who loves bullies raise their hand...any takers? Everybody who loves liars raise their hand...any takers?

Simply saying something neither makes it true, nor makes it right. Some of the worst atrocities in history have been carried out on nothing more than the WORD of a leader. Freedom of Speech is a blade that cuts both ways. Not only do you have the RIGHT to speak your mind, but you must also bear the RESPONSIBILITY of those words!

At one point in history we took slander, libel and defamation of character SERIOUSLY...because we all know that gossip, rumor and lies can damage people's lives. And yet now, we have a freakin' LAWYER putting his personal opinon about ME out there as if he were the Lord God Almighty, and his (mis)interpretation of what I said, gives him ground to make baseless claims about my mentality! What a fucking joke, Jeff! I don't care if you are black, white, male, female, young, old, Christian, atheist, disabled or able-bodied, your rights don't come before mine or above mine. We are on equal footing. If you want YOUR rights to be upheld, you must uphold anothers.

Read EXACTLY what I wrote and don't put ANYTHING else into it. Your reading comprehension and reasoning abilities are sorely fucking lacking. How in the fuck can you be a fascimile of a successful attorney?!? I know lawyers love to hear themselves talk and bend, stretch, and just plain wear out the definition of a word, but I have never heard someone making up shit as an alternative to truth or fact!

 

[Roark_John]

Originally Posted by WYLD
You can be cavalier with your "liberalism" if you so choose, but remember that the root word of liberal is LIBERTY...not mental retardism.

Point in fact, liberal is derived from liberty. Only if one is slow or backwards would they think that liberal means denying others' rights.

Originally Posted by WYLD
My grandfather had a quote that I am fond of using...

"An open mind is a great thing, so long as all the common sense hasn't leaked out."

You sir, are a prime example of why this saying exists.

You have yet to prove that I was wrong...

Originally Posted by WYLD
You and your ilk are traitors...morally and ethically.

I still stand by this one. Empowering the enemy to propagate and erode your power-base, while denying your countrymen the right to defend their way of life is traitorous. Prove me otherwise.

 

[Jeff Young]

I had one of those "I will try to be a better person" moments today, centered around less discussion with folks aobut politics on the internet. Funny, I never really discussed politics much at all until these car forums I visited just seemed to fill up with this stuff.

In any event, Mr. Wyld, I wish you a good evening and a great future. Just remember that there are good, hard workin patriotic Americans who disagree -- vehmently -- with some of the things you say and do.

That is all.

 

[Roark_John]

Being a better person doesn't consist of stomping your foot and taking your toys home, when you get called on what you said about something/someone and couldn't man-up to your personal flawed assessment of the situation.

Good, hard-working Americans likely DON'T disagree with me, vehemently or otherwise. Trampling ANY of our rights is a good way to get on our bad side. And since "conservatives" are gun-toting crazies with a propensity for violence (as you seem to think) that means that "liberals" will get their asses handed to them if they cross the line from talk to action.

Crazy that we are willing to talk about the situation, but because we are the only ones being asked to give up something, and we don't want to, you feel we are unreasonable! We aren't asking anyone to give up anything, other than an entitlement view to stick your nose in our business, stick your hands in our pockets, or stick your heads up your asses and run around like you're running shit.

I think we win ANY argument, ANY day of the week, when it comes to this type of mentality. At the end of the day, this is why "liberal" policy doesn't work...it always comes out as a loss for the people who are providing for the ones doing the asking and taking! What insanity is that? Of course we aren't going to willingly enslave ourselves to a "liberal" experiment. You would likely have been anti-slavery in the mid-19th century, but you have no qualms with placing the yoke on "conservative" necks...because everybody knows "liberals" do no wrong and have no sins to pay for. What a fucking joke!

I had one of those "I will try to be a better person" moments today, centered around less discussion with folks aobut politics on the internet. Funny, I never really discussed politics much at all until these car forums I visited just seemed to fill up with this stuff.

In any event, Mr. Wyld, I wish you a good evening and a great future. Just remember that there are good, hard workin patriotic Americans who disagree -- vehmently -- with some of the things you say and do.

That is all.

 

[Nick]

Originally Posted by WYLD

You can be cavalier with your "liberalism" if you so choose, but remember that the root word of liberal is LIBERTY...not mental retardism.

Point in fact, liberal is derived from liberty. Only if one is slow or backwards would they think that liberal means denying others' rights. ..

John I am average IQ so I am not retarded slow or backwards so you are wrong on that one.

Please do not insult my intelligence by trying to pretend the comments about mental retardism slow and backwards were not meant for me implied or otherwise.

"An open mind is a great thing, so long as all the common sense hasn't leaked out."

You sir, are a prime example of why this saying exists.

You have yet to prove that I was wrong... ..

Pure conjecture unless you have found a machine to measure common sense. Even then one mans common sense is another mans insanity.

Originally Posted by WYLD
You and your ilk are traitors...morally and ethical


I still stand by this one. Empowering the enemy to propagate and erode your power-base, while denying your countrymen the right to defend their way of life is traitorous. Prove me otherwise.

Definition of treason

Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

I'd defend that one in any court in this land, my dear departed Dad, was an old school lawyer, so I know a little about the law.

I don't wish to sound offensive but you would be laughed out of court, if you tried to stick that one on me.

I had one of those "I will try to be a better person" moments today, centered around less discussion with folks aobut politics on the internet. Funny, I never really discussed politics much at all until these car forums I visited just seemed to fill up with this stuff.

In any event, Mr. Wyld, I wish you a good evening and a great future. Just remember that there are good, hard workin patriotic Americans who disagree -- vehmently -- with some of the things you say and do.

That is all.

I'm with Jeff on this one.

The thred is about the pros and cons of guns but you end up defending yourself against ridiculous accusations and implications of being retarded, slow or backwards, being a traitor and having no common sense. With the accuser being judge jury and executioner, not that any of it really matters in the big picture

It's a bit like driving down the freeway when there is a crash on the other side. You know you shouldn't look but you just can't help yourself.

My wife points out I got involved in local politics years ago, stood for election in a very Conservative area as a Liberal and won, so I've been there done that, got the bubble gum card, time to move on.

As I have said before, she thinks I should get a life, get of this type of thread and get some decorating done. This time I need to stay away especially as some of your rhetoric with the fact that you most likely have access to guns, genuinely makes her fear for my personnel safety. Wether you think that is logical or not you fighten her.

So common sense says Nick do what you do on the freeway and deliberatelly look straight ahead when there is a crash, get back in the shed and concentrate your time more constructively by getting that 40 built. Oh and do a bit of decorating now and again, just to keep the peace.

Au revoir

 

[Roark_John]

John I am average IQ so I am not retarded slow or backwards so you are wrong on that one.

Please do not insult my intelligence by trying to pretend the comments about mental retardism slow and backwards were not meant for me implied or otherwise.

I don't have to insult your intelligence...you are busy doing it for me. Obviously too blind to see that being truly liberal means not denying others their liberty! Does your brain ache when you say something stupid, or are you just used to the pain by now?

Pure conjecture unless you have found a machine to measure common sense. Even then one mans common sense is another mans insanity.

HOLY FUCK...you need a MACHINE to measure common sense?!? It's not a torque-wrench snugging down a bolt! Common sense is the concept that common experiences relate to common knowledge. Can you wrap your (slow, backwards) mind around that one?

Definition of treason

Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

I'd defend that one in any court in this land, my dear departed Dad, was an old school lawyer, so I know a little about the law.

I don't wish to sound offensive but you would be laughed out of court, if you tried to stick that one on me.

By the definition you supplied, you WOULD be a traitor...by consciously and purposely acting to aid it's enemies. That would be the fucking Muslims and PC windsocks you idolize so much!


I'm with Jeff on this one.

That's some company to be proud of...

The thred is about the pros and cons of guns but you end up defending yourself against ridiculous accusations and implications of being retarded, slow or backwards, being a traitor and having no common sense. With the accuser being judge jury and executioner, not that any of it really matters in the big picture

It's a bit like driving down the freeway when there is a crash on the other side. You know you shouldn't look but you just can't help yourself.

My wife points out I got involved in local politics years ago, stood for election in a very Conservative area as a Liberal and won, so I've been there done that, got the bubble gum card, time to move on.

As I have said before, she thinks I should get a life, get of this type of thread and get some decorating done. This time I need to stay away especially as some of your rhetoric with the fact that you most likely have access to guns, genuinely makes her fear for my personnel safety. Wether you think that is logical or not you fighten her.

So common sense says Nick do what you do on the freeway and deliberatelly look straight ahead when there is a crash, get back in the shed and concentrate your time more constructively by getting that 40 built. Oh and do a bit of decorating now and again, just to keep the peace.

Au revoir

Holy fuck, you and the wife are both batshit crazy! Fear for your safety because I have access to guns...and disagree with you about your right to deny them to other citizens, on an internet car enthusiast forum? What the fuck pink bubblegum cloud did you just fall off, sugar-britches?

First of all, I love my freedom...ergo, I won't risk that freedom to engage in some act of lunacy like you are suggesting.

Secondly, I serve in the military to protect dink-fucks like yourself from people who would harm you...ergo, I won't risk my life abroad for an idea like freedom and liberty, simply to come home and trash it.

Thirdly, I find it frightening that people like yourself, who are prone to paranoia and delusion are able to access the internet and post their drivel...but it still doesn't mean that I would ever entertain the thought of killing an innocent person, let alone act on it!