RKBA-a dead issue?

[Old Fashioned]

I have been thinking about all of the arguments concerning keeping guns in the home, self defense, bearing arms, and all of the litigation. This is all nonsense. I read the 2nd amendment, thought about it, and read it again. Guess what, it doesn't say anything about self defense or keeping the arm in your home. All it says is that you have a right to keep and bear arms. I would think that a city or municipality would be perfectly legal in saying that you can own a firearm but it must be stored in a city armory or other designated place and you can draw it out once a month, for example, for the purpose of practice. Then it must be returned by the end of the day. After all, this is 2009, not 1809 or 1899. We (the US) are different from almost all other countries in the world. Maybe it is time for the US to catch up with the rest of the world. Self defense? Yes, the police cannot hold the hand of everyone 24/7. But, if you stay away from places that you are likely to encounter thugs you should not have a problem. Then, the legislators and attorneys could spend their time on more important issues.

[Chilo45]

The right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.

To me that says exactly the opposite of your position statement happens to be.

We have the right by law to have in our possession legal firearms and under certain permits the right to carry said weapon in a concealed manner.

To keep and bear arms - there cannot be any alternative meaning associated with that statement, as it is law and the rule of law is exactly as it is stated.

[Aguila Blanca]

After all, this is 2009, not 1809 or 1899. We (the US) are different from almost all other countries in the world. Maybe it is time for the US to catch up with the rest of the world.
Yes, this is 2009 ... which means that armed criminals carry weapons that "owlhoots" never even dreamed of back in 1809, or even 1899. But human nature has not changed. Some people will still rob and murder, for a few bucks or even a pair of expensive sneakers. (Yes, that's true, it has happened.)

I respectfully submit that taking away Americans' right to keep and bear arms is not "catching up" to anyone, it's reducing ourselves to someone else's level of servitude and passivity. Why would any free man (or woman) WANT to give up the right to possess the means to defend their very life?

Self defense? Yes, the police cannot hold the hand of everyone 24/7. But, if you stay away from places that you are likely to encounter thugs you should not have a problem. Then, the legislators and attorneys could spend their time on more important issues.
Keeping away from places where you are likely to encounter thugs is a GREAT idea. Please provide a list of the places I'll need to avoid. For starters, it has to include:

* Colleges and universites
* Suburban shopping malls
* Urban shopping malls
* Parking garages
* Courthouses
* City streets (Car jackings are rife in cities)
* Parking lots (car jackings again)
* Gas stations
* Parties where guests consume alcohol and/or partake of unlawful chemical substances
* Home (home invasions are on the rise ... again)

Golly -- what's left?

I can only hope that your post was not serious, and that you posted it only as an example of how "the other side" thinks. Otherwise, I hereby request that you resign your NRA membership. The legislators can stop trying to ignore the RKBA and focus on more important issues right now. We don't have to surrender our rights before the legislators stop trying to take them away.

[d90king]

I have been thinking about all of the arguments concerning keeping guns in the home, self defense, bearing arms, and all of the litigation. This is all nonsense. I read the 2nd amendment, thought about it, and read it again. Guess what, it doesn't say anything about self defense or keeping the arm in your home. All it says is that you have a right to keep and bear arms. I would think that a city or municipality would be perfectly legal in saying that you can own a firearm but it must be stored in a city armory or other designated place and you can draw it out once a month, for example, for the purpose of practice. Then it must be returned by the end of the day. After all, this is 2009, not 1809 or 1899. We (the US) are different from almost all other countries in the world. Maybe it is time for the US to catch up with the rest of the world. Self defense? Yes, the police cannot hold the hand of everyone 24/7. But, if you stay away from places that you are likely to encounter thugs you should not have a problem. Then, the legislators and attorneys could spend their time on more important issues.



I am not actually sure if this is a real post or just a late April fools joke.

The constitution is not what gave you the right to self preservation. Our forefathers believed that you were born with basic human rights and one of them was defending your life, your family and property. Those rights were not "appointed" or given to you by a government but they were assumed at birth as basic human rights.

Our forefathers escaped oppression from kings and churches where they were not even given simple basic human rights. They learned much from the country that they escaped from and in turn wanted to protect their new Republic from the evils that they had just come from.

The second amendment does not simply protect you from a deranged thug who prey's upon the weak. It was drafted to protect you from a tyrannical government. It was meant to keep the power in the hands of the people allowing them to revolt against a government who infringed upon their liberties and did not honor the spirit of the Republic and constitution. Remembering that a Republic is the purist form of government in existence -- it offers full protection to its citizens.

Your right to self preservation requires firearms because they are the true great equalizer. They make a 80 year old lady equal to a 18 year old thug. If you didn't have firearms, it would simply be survival of the fittest, eliminating human rights of the weak.

Why do you believe that they wanted their citizens to keep and bear arms and made it a point to put it in writing?

You would be incorrect in your analysis that states have the right to restrict your right to either keep (SCOTUS has agreed) or bear arms. If you were correct, it would have been done loooooong ago.

You must also remember that SCOTUS has ruled on more than one occasion that the police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT PRIVATE CITIZENS.

[d90king]

But, if you stay away from places that you are likely to encounter thugs you should not have a problem

On this particular item, there are no safe places anymore "its 2009".
Churches
Amish schools
A fellow members parents were murdered in their garage.
Malls
Banks
Gyms
Restaurants
Dry Cleaners
Work Places
Post offices
Pizza Shops
Police Stations
Parking Garages
The streets of any city in America
All places of worship
Your home
Your car
Roads
Schools
Colleges
Recruiting centers
National Parks
Municipalities Parks
Beaches
All of the above have proven to be very dangerous places.

It is your duty to protect yourself and your loved ones. People must start taking personal responsibility for their safety and their overall well being in general. It is the governments job to secure our borders, not our homes and day to day lives.

[Old Fashioned]

Do I detect some disagreement? :eb: :eb: :eb: :D :D :D

[Patriotic]

“We have the right by law to have in our possession legal firearms and under certain permits the right to carry said weapon in a concealed manner.”

I disagree with you on that point, I feel you have the right to own and carry firearms whenever and wherever you want, concealed or otherwise. Putting a restriction or a license requirement is infringement. Now, you must obey the law and you cannot use your firearm for any unlawful purpose.

[Old Fashioned]

Patriotic, your disagreement is noted and welcome. I am always willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint. I would like to point out, in a friendly manner, that there are 280 or 281 members of this site and an untold number of visitors each day. There have only been 4 people express any disagreement. That would seem to put your disagreement in the minority. Does that mean that I am right and you are wrong or does it mean that only 4 people disagreed enough to express their disagreement?

[Skytower]

I agree with Patriotic as well.
Anyone can be attacked, anywhere. I should be allowed to carry my firearm in any safe manner I choose. Laws stating that I can't carry here or there only disarm the law abiding citizen. I have no duty to follow that law anyway, it's unconstitutional.
It's my right. It shall not be infringed!

[Old Fashioned]

Welcome Skytower! I respect your opinion but that only makes 5 people in disagreement with what I said. That would seem to suggest that the vast majority are in agreement with me. :eb: :eb: :eb: :D :D :D

[Patriotic]

You are correct Old Fashioned, the 2nd Amendment does not say anything about self-defense but I point out our “inalienable rights” of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Property or Happiness. Your individual right to Life includes your right to protect your life and defend yourself, the same with Liberty and possessions. The founding fathers were very specific about your right to arms. Not only did they recognize arms to be a tool to provide food but also a need for protection from thieves, murderers and also the tyranny of the government. Additionally those with arms could also be called upon as a militia. The basic right was unquestionably to possess arms as a means to preserve your individual rights.

I question the movement to disarm American citizens. They have committed no crime. If they do break the law they should be held accountable. If they are law abiding then leave them alone. It is like a LEO walking up to a Corvette parked in a parking lot and writing a speeding ticket because he believes someone with that type of car will be a speeder. Thought police in my estimation.

[Old Fashioned]

I started this thread some days ago by making some outragous statements. Those statements do not reflect my views and beliefs but I made those statements for a reason. I was hoping to stimulate more involvement by members and I was also hoping that visitors to the site would read the statements and register as a member so they could post their disagreement. I was sadly mistaken. Only five people expressed their disagreement (including one new member). In this time of the Brady Compaign, Hand Gun Control, politicians that advocate gun control and ignore facts that indicate that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens equals less violent crime, it is critical that we express our opinions. A politician would look at this and conclude that only five out of 280+ disagreed, therefor, most are for more gun control. A good example of the need for us (voters) to express our opinion is the Cicero ordnance requiring total gun registration. Maybe it will get to the Supreme Court and maybe it will be ruled unconstitutional. It is up to the citizens in that town to let their governing body know that if they do not rescind that ordnance there will be a new governing body after the next election. We cannot sit quietly by, believing that the politicians "will not do that". Politicians and government will continually try to exert more control over us, including our right to keep and bear arms, if we let them.

[Patriotic]

Old Fashioned, at first I thought you had inhaled too many primer fumes but I do see where you are coming from. Gun owners are a complacent bunch, they are not the radicals the anti-gun people want the world to believe. It is unfortunate gun owners are not more vocal about their rights. The NRA seems to be the voice of gun owners but they need support by gun owners becoming members. I would suggest that every firearm sale should include a free 1 year membership to the NRA. I don’t think the $35 would mean much to the cost of the gun. If you are already a NRA member, the membership would extend your membership another year. If you are a lifetime member than you would have a credit toward NRA trinkets. Even if the gun dealer would split the cost with the purchaser it would benefit both.

We have the numbers to make our voices heard and also the numbers to influence the news media and their advertisers.

[Aguila Blanca]

NRA membership by itself means less than nothing. There are a great many NRA members who do not own handguns, do not have carry licenses, have no intention of ever carrying a handgun for self-defense, and who don't care about the 2nd Amendment as long as gun control laws don't affect their hunting rifles and shotguns.

THAT's the problem. And that's the chink that the antis continue to take advantage of with their incremental approach to gun control.

"We're not against your legal guns. We only want to control illegal guns."

"Now, how many guns can we make illegal NEXT year?"

[Patriotic]

AB, I see your point but you have to admit 4,000,000 members creates one big lobby. GOA is another organization that does lobbying but has only about 300,000 members. I think you will agree that one voice means nothing but more than one is heard.

Maybe I should amend my post to include one year membership to GOA, 2AF or the NRA.

[JNR]

While the NRA clearly leads in membership, I believe GOA does a better job of representing our RKBA. As is the case with all organizations (including voluntary ones like NRA), there is a point in their evolution when the primary objective is to perpetuate their existence without regard to whether it is actually fulfilling its stated purpose. I am of the opinion that the NRA passed this point in its evolution some time ago. Their communications are one way: I have never received a response from the NRA, NRA-ILA, or other segments of the organization; NRA continually asks me for more $$. It has become, understandably, much like our Congress, i.e., unresponsive and very paternal (i.e., telling its membership what the issues and solutions are instead of getting more input from the membership).

Regarding the NRA Membership numbers, I question what that number would be if only those who actually volunteer to join were included. For example, a local resident cannot join our shooting facility unless s/he is an NRA Member. Would that local resident join the NRA otherwise? I'm not sure and the point made about gun owners being complacent is all too accurate.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that the RKBA is an "unalienable right" with which we are endowed by our Creator (Declaration of Independence). Unalienable means you cannot give it up and its inclusion in the Bill of Rights was intended to insure that the USG recognized that one of its responsibilities was to secure that right.

[Aguila Blanca]

Membership numbers are part of the picture, but an organization is truly effective in influencing the direction of government and legislation only when the organization can "loose the dogs of war" and generate an overwhelming write-in/call-in campaign on issues of importance. The NRA does not do this. First, rather than bring things to the attention of the members and ask the members to write or call, the NRA sends out a plea for money and says they'll make the calls. That (a) alienates members, and (b) does not result in congresscritters' mailboxes and phone systems getting filled up with a coherent message of "Hands off our guns?"

Second, because of the internal lack of agreement within the NRA membership, far too many members would NEVER bother to write or call a congresscritter ... unless the issue affects their hunting rifle or shotgun. It's complacency, and it's also elitism. They view those of us who actually carry guns on a daily basis as ruffians, commandos, and/or wannabe LEOs. They simply are too lazy to pay attention to history and recognize that the nature of creeping incrementalism is that it contibues to creep, inexorably, until all in its path has been subsumed.

For that reason, in terms of protecting the 2nd Amendment, the effective membership of the NRA is far less than the number on paper. I have no way to put an actual percentage on it, but I'm sure "we" represent less than half the overall NRA membership, and it may well be as low as 33% or 25%. Professional political operatives are pretty venal beasts, but they aren't stupid. The NRA likes to tell us that they make a difference because of their membership, but the professional political advisors certainly know that the NRA can actually mobilize only a small fraction of its membership on 2nd Amendment issues, so unless there happens to be a congresscritter in a tight race in a vulnerable district ... in reality the NRA doesn't count for anything, because the professionals already know that only a tiny percentage of NRA members are truly single-issue voters on the issue of the 2nd Amendment.

[bugman53]

I joned for this post!!!!!

[jman527]

Just to keep stirring this pot, you have a point. The words are not there as far as i can find. You have to interpret the words that are there. That is a very challanging task, everyone will come up with a diferent view. Even the 280ish people on this forum couldn't come up with the same interpretation if we tried. We'd be close but registration, regulation and so on would create separations in our little group. This interpretation is left to government people. Now there lies a problem. Slowly that right will erode away as the government tries to "protect" it's citizens. It's hard to protect something you can't control. That interpretation will slowly bend to allow that control to make that "protection" easier or more complete. "Reasonable" bans will happen. It will start with assault weapons. Then move to hand guns, on to rifles and shotguns, to knives... Will it stop?Only if enough voices are heard where it matters. That train is rolling and it is an awefully heavy one to stop.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

After all, this is 2009, not 1809 or 1899. We (the US) are different from almost all other countries in the world. Maybe it is time for the US to catch up with the rest of the world.
Catch up? Seems to me like we're in the lead, though tyrants domestic and foreign are doing their best to squander that lead. And IMHO they already HAVE issues to attend to that are within the jurisdiction of their elected offices and they don't do anything about those things now. Why would they begin to do so after further infringing on this key civil right?

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Do I detect some disagreement? :eb: :eb: :eb: :D :D :D
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." -- William Jefferson Clinton

People with these kind of "thought" patterns are those who oppose our rights. Think how the word "right" is interpreted so differently when applied to arms as opposed to any other Constitutional context. First amendment "rights" are considered violated if one has to obtain a license or pay a fee to exercise them. The "right" to legal counsel has been interpreted [wrongly] to mean that society must provide it free of cost for indigent accused. Yet the verbiage acknowledging those "rights" is more equivocal than that in the Second Amendment. Why the disparity?

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I started this thread some days ago by making some outragous statements. Those statements do not reflect my views and beliefs but I made those statements for a reason. I was hoping to stimulate more involvement by members and I was also hoping that visitors to the site would read the statements and register as a member so they could post their disagreement. I was sadly mistaken. Only five people expressed their disagreement (including one new member). In this time of the Brady Compaign, Hand Gun Control, politicians that advocate gun control and ignore facts that indicate that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens equals less violent crime, it is critical that we express our opinions. A politician would look at this and conclude that only five out of 280+ disagreed, therefor, most are for more gun control. A good example of the need for us (voters) to express our opinion is the Cicero ordnance requiring total gun registration. Maybe it will get to the Supreme Court and maybe it will be ruled unconstitutional. It is up to the citizens in that town to let their governing body know that if they do not rescind that ordnance there will be a new governing body after the next election. We cannot sit quietly by, believing that the politicians "will not do that". Politicians and government will continually try to exert more control over us, including our right to keep and bear arms, if we let them.
Geez, you gotta warn a fella when you do stuff like that. I have to go take a BP pill and lay down for half an hour, and it's your fault!

[Old Fashioned]

Dial 1911 for Help, welcome, and welcome to all of the other new members. Well, things were getting kind of quiet on the forum so I thought I would stir the pot a little by creating some controversy. One of our members requested that I resign from the NRA. The point that I was trying to make is that as gunowners, we have to be vigilant and wary of the politicians, and we have express our views strongly to those politiciansI am not suggesting violence or disobeying the law but we have to let the politicians know we are serious and watching them. Above all, we have to support each other. It doesn't matter if you are a handgun owner, ccw permit holder, rifleman, shotgunner, hunter, or target shooter. United, we are a strong block of voters. Divided, the gun control advocates and politicians can do as they please. Anyone reading this, make no mistake about it, if you assume that they are not after "your gun", it will only be a matter of time before they are after "your gun" or "your sport".

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Dial 1911 for Help, welcome, and welcome to all of the other new members. Well, things were getting kind of quiet on the forum so I thought I would stir the pot a little by creating some controversy. One of our members requested that I resign from the NRA. The point that I was trying to make is that as gunowners, we have to be vigilant and wary of the politicians, and we have express our views strongly to those politiciansI am not suggesting violence or disobeying the law but we have to let the politicians know we are serious and watching them. Above all, we have to support each other. It doesn't matter if you are a handgun owner, ccw permit holder, rifleman, shotgunner, hunter, or target shooter. United, we are a strong block of voters. Divided, the gun control advocates and politicians can do as they please. Anyone reading this, make no mistake about it, if you assume that they are not after "your gun", it will only be a matter of time before they are after "your gun" or "your sport".
Old Fashioned, you and I are completely in agreement with one another. If you sensed me getting my Irish up, it was because I took your earlier posts literally. But then I see that's what you wanted -- to demonstrate the passion with which people value their 2A rights.

[Old Fashioned]

Dial 1911 for Help, Your right, that's what I wanted. Your comment about the BP pill had me laughing. On a serious note, if someone disagrees with me I don't get upset or mad. I welcome everyone's opinion. If I am incorrect about something and someone corrects me, I figure I learned something. We as gun owners are going to have disagreements among ourselves about different things. That's alright. We can disagree in a friendly manner as long as we present a united front against those that would infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Dial 1911 for Help, Your right, that's what I wanted. Your comment about the BP pill had me laughing. On a serious note, if someone disagrees with me I don't get upset or mad. I welcome everyone's opinion. If I am incorrect about something and someone corrects me, I figure I learned something. We as gun owners are going to have disagreements among ourselves about different things. That's alright. We can disagree in a friendly manner as long as we present a united front against those that would infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights.
Well, you have to admit that despite the elevated BP, I tried to be as rational and kind as I could while trying to show you the error of your ways!

[Skytower]

Old fashioned,
I joined because of this post as well. After replying to your post and reading some of your other posts, I see I was caught by your hook. However, your logic has a flaw. It can be reversed; if there's no one who agrees with you, they must agree with me;)

Too bad you couldn't hook anyone on that side of the arguement. They must know their logic is deeply flawed, if nonexistant!

Regards,
Dave

[Old Fashioned]

Skytower, I have to admit, you have me there.