Utah Wildlife Forum banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I imagine everybody's aware of the important case coming up in March in which the Supreme Court will visit the issue of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals or only state militias. How do you think this will go? Worried?

I'm worried. I've lost all trust and confidence in the federal government, regardless of party affiliations. They consistently show a love for playing games with words rather than living up to the values that those words express, and wording is exactly what this case hinges on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
I share your sentiments. I worry that this government is going to play this word game to our demise this time. They know that it implies individuals, I have read the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, words of the Founding Fathers, etc. many times and have yet to find any evidence that this is meant just for state militias. You cannot logically derive that to counter an oppressive government, you rely on that very government to supply the individuals with the means to do so. I dislike each party and am waiting for the day when we, as a collective body of citizens will stand up for our rights. I worry though that it may be just like the CCR song, "Someday Never Comes". :cry: :cry: :cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
I will have to ditto the first two responses to this thread. I personally am extremely worried that this ruling in March will be but a springboard for other and more restrictive rulings to come. Looking at a nice handgun? Got your eye on a fancy assault rifle? Well, you **** well better quit looking and start buying, because March is coming up pretty quick. I'm not kidding either. We are one of the last, if not the last, 1st world country that allows its citzens the right to bear arms.(With the exception of Isreal and Switzerland.) The UN has already made significant attempts to ban guns in our country, as well as many from BOTH political parties. While the NRA is powerful, it is not enough to stop this eventual tide. The day will come when we may truly have to "bear" our arms simply to preserve the rights deemed inaliable by our founding fathers. What a sad and horrific day that will be, but should it come I hope that we will all be ready to fight. I don't know about you, but I can not side with these political fatcats, because "it aint me, it aint me, I aint no Senator's Son." CCR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
Well, it's super awesome to see that all of the retarded calibur questions and reloading inquiries were addressed so thoroughly, but the one post about the Supreme Court voting on the very constitutionality of us citizens' right to bear arms has had two responses and is then brushed under the rug to be forgotten. That really shows we've got our priorities straight. Way to show us all what really counts guys. :evil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
Wow, five people responded out of 897. I wonder why our country is going down the crapper so fast? Hey everyone, do you like freedom? Yeah, I didn't think so. Well, luckily for you, you don't need to worry about that anymore, because it's being systematically taken away for you!!! Hoorah!!! :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
ScottyP said:
Yeah, I got about as much feedback when I started a thread about this issue awile back: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=753
I would have responded, but that was before I found the new site. Thanks for those who give a crap about freedom and the preservation thereof.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
J-bass said:
Wow, five people responded out of 897. I wonder why our country is going down the crapper so fast? Hey everyone, do you like freedom? Yeah, I didn't think so. Well, luckily for you, you don't need to worry about that anymore, because it's being systematically taken away for you!!! Hoorah!!! :roll:
This is my first venture into the Firearms, gear, equipment section, so sorry for not responding to this earlier. I am scared to death about this, the only hope we have is the Justices appointed by GWB, This is why I get ticked when people say there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, the Judges appointed DO make a major difference. I just hope Roberts, Sacilia, Thomas, and Alito can drag at least one other Justice over to respecting the 2nd Amendment.

PRO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
proutdoors said:
J-bass said:
Wow, five people responded out of 897. I wonder why our country is going down the crapper so fast? Hey everyone, do you like freedom? Yeah, I didn't think so. Well, luckily for you, you don't need to worry about that anymore, because it's being systematically taken away for you!!! Hoorah!!! :roll:
This is my first venture into the Firearms, gear, equipment section, so sorry for not responding to this earlier. I am scared to death about this, the only hope we have is the Justices appointed by GWB, This is why I get ticked when people say there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, the Judges appointed DO make a major difference. I just hope Roberts, Sacilia, Thomas, and Alito can drag at least one other Justice over to respecting the 2nd Amendment.

PRO
Thanks for the response pro. Maybe we should spread the word in the hunting forum to get awareness up a little bit. We all need to be calling, emailng and/or writing our congressmen to let them know how we feel. While not directly related to this at this time, congress and the president do have the authority to oversee the supreme court, so starting to let them know now how you feel on this issue is important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
599 Posts
J-bass said:
I will have to ditto the first two responses to this thread. I personally am extremely worried that this ruling in March will be but a springboard for other and more restrictive rulings to come. Looking at a nice handgun? Got your eye on a fancy assault rifle? Well, you **** well better quit looking and start buying, because March is coming up pretty quick. I'm not kidding either. We are one of the last, if not the last, 1st world country that allows its citzens the right to bear arms.(With the exception of Isreal and Switzerland.) The UN has already made significant attempts to ban guns in our country, as well as many from BOTH political parties. While the NRA is powerful, it is not enough to stop this eventual tide. The day will come when we may truly have to "bear" our arms simply to preserve the rights deemed inaliable by our founding fathers. What a sad and horrific day that will be, but should it come I hope that we will all be ready to fight. I don't know about you, but I can not side with these political fatcats, because "it aint me, it aint me, I aint no Senator's Son." CCR
Word.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Finnegan said:
I imagine everybody's aware of the important case coming up in March in which the Supreme Court will visit the issue of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals or only state militias. How do you think this will go? Worried?

I'm worried. I've lost all trust and confidence in the federal government, regardless of party affiliations. They consistently show a love for playing games with words rather than living up to the values that those words express, and wording is exactly what this case hinges on.
I'm always worried about anything that comes up concerning these issues. Part of it is because there is always something I want to add to my collection, but mostly its because of the real issues at stake. Of course 99.9% of all the hype put into gun restrictions has to do with appearances and misleading interpretation. Those AR-15s and AK-47s look mean and scary so they must be bad. Well, you know what? A lot of power tools and motor vehicles look menacing too, but no one's looking to outlaw those. You could just as easily kill someone with a nail gun or a car as you could with a firearm.

People should be free to choose how to defend their families. If someone feels like a 911 call or kitchen knife is enough, then so be it. If someone feels like there is a real possibility they might have to fight off multiple armed invaders, then they should be able to have the means available to them to choose the tool that will best suit their needs. I'm not saying that I want to have a belt-fed machine gun, truth be told I do not have the training necessary to use one effectively, but why can't I have a handgun to defend myself with? Why does a gun with a pistol grip, detachable magazine, or threaded barrel have to be considered an "assault weapon"? Why can't I shoot an AR-15 at jackrabbits, or at the range, or in competition? As long as I am being safe and responsible then what harm am I causing anyone?

All this propaganda about "assault weapons" and such get me so upset because people are so ignorant or misinformed and start spouting off terms they hear politicians say even though they have no idea what they mean. They just want to sound smart. How can you be against something if you have no idea what things even mean? I had an incident with a girl I worked with a few months ago that got on her soapbox about her view on guns. I remember she said, "I don't think regular people should have semi-automatic guns". When I asked her if she knew what that term meant she told me that she did. What she actually thought was that both semi and fully-automatic were the same thing. "All you have to do is hold down the trigger and bullets fly everywhere". She was obviously just repeating jargon she heard on the news or whatever, but because of the way it gets warped in the media it got all misconstrued. I told her the difference and also told her that "regular people" don't have fully-automatic weapons because they are so expensive that hardly anyone can afford them, so there really isn't much of a threat of "regular people" buying up tons of machine guns when they cost as much as the family car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
fatbass said:
It's much more basic than an "assault weapons" ban. If the Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment allows guns ONLY in the hands of government controlled militia, then everyone else who is not National Guard, police or other military may not own weapons! A single shot .22 could become as illegal as a .50 BMG. This is truly the single most important Supreme Court decision of my lifetime- bigger than Roe v Wade.
I agree 100%.

Now tell me fellow GUN OWNERS who are you voting for next fall? And how many of you say there is little difference between the two party's? If there were two new Justices appointed by President Gore/Kerry we all know what the outcome would be, at least as of now we have a chance to keep out most basic right and ABILITY to remain a free nation. No guns, no freedom!

PRO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
I will vote for Ron Paul if he makes it. My second choice is Mitt and beyond that I don't like any of them. Why are you so worried about peoples trust in either party? I think the biggest concern should be that we keep our citizens informed enough to stand for the constitution regardless of who is in power and not leave blind faith in the party system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
In Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution it states:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So Bush has sworn to do this yet he has violated that very promise. The Patriot Act violates many parts of the constitution. One notable violation comes from Article 1 Section Nine. It states the legislative powers that congress has or does not have. In it we read;
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

So since the constitution grants the President the executive powers, why has he used them to violate the supreme law of the land? Why should we trust in the republicans or the democrats. My examples are just part of the big picture regarding violations from both sides.

When are we going to stop trying to be good republicans, or democrats, and start being good Americans?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
Amendment II of the Bill of Rights:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Reading the words of the Second Amendment, I read that if we as the people are ever going to be able to form our own militias to protect ourselves from tyranny, then our right to bear arms cannot be infringed.
Our rights our inalienable and God-given and cannot be taken from us. That is the spirit that the Founding Fathers wrote these documents like the Bill of Rights with.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Articles Nine and Ten tell me that even though some rights have been spelled out for us in the Bill of Rights, it is not all inclusive and there are rights such as life, liberty, and happiness that even though they have not been enumerated in an ammendment, still belong to the people. So even if some want to deny us of rights because it is not expressly written in the Bill of Rights, they are still our rights. To adequately maintain our freedom, and liberty, we need to be able to protect our homes and our families and no law can disparage this.

In The Declaration of Independence, it lists as one of the injustices of the King of England was that:
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

How can government controlled militias even hold up to this statement. They absolutely render the military, and its powers as superior to its citizens. How is this power derived you say. It is in the bearing of arms. This is our right. Our government has an obligation to uphold the constitution and not try to interpret it. I will end this with a quote from Thomas Jefferson that is pertinent to this upcoming Supreme Court ruling.
Thomas Jefferson didn't believe that the Constitution should be interpreted, as he indicated when he said, "On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
When are we going to stop trying to be good republicans, or democrats, and start being good Americans?
If you think there is no difference in what type of Justices will be appointed by whomever is the Democrat and whomever is the Republican candidates, you are seriously naive.

Ron Paul has NO chance of being the Republican nominee, NONE! My point that you are missing is that ANY of the Republicans will nominate more gun-friendly Judges than ANY of the Democrats. And, EVERY 'third party' candidate is irrelevant and would be a wasted vote for one of them. The biggest difference between Republicans on the national level and Democrats is the appointment of judges. No other issue directly affects us in out daily lives. To cast a vote for a Democrat at the national level puts our gun-ownership at risk, if this seems wise to you, please explain.

PRO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
proutdoors said:
When are we going to stop trying to be good republicans, or democrats, and start being good Americans?
If you think there is no difference in what type of Justices will be appointed by whomever is the Democrat and whomever is the Republican candidates, you are seriously naive.

Ron Paul has NO chance of being the Republican nominee, NONE! My point that you are missing is that ANY of the Republicans will nominate more gun-friendly Judges than ANY of the Democrats. And, EVERY 'third party' candidate is irrelevant and would be a wasted vote for one of them. The biggest difference between Republicans on the national level and Democrats is the appointment of judges. No other issue directly affects us in out daily lives. To cast a vote for a Democrat at the national level puts our gun-ownership at risk, if this seems wise to you, please explain.

PRO
I will explain that to you, when you explain to me where I ever said I would vote for a democrat.
You say no other issue affects our daily lives. That is absurd, and you call me niave? Pull your head out of your ass. The sooner the better.
You simply do not know that Ron Paul stands no chance. You are obviously going with the opinions of biased sources like Faux News who want us to believe that in order to dissuade us from that.
You call me niave, who the hell are you? Stick with your republicans and take their word for it if you must. Please tell my why Bush has not tried to stop the upcomming legislation to ban firearms. Tell me why the republicans have been so silent about it. Before you call me naive, prove your own mettle. Guiding hunts doesn't make you any more credible than me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
The entire purpose of having thee branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial), is to separate the powers, and to provide checks and balances to keep one branch from overpowering any of the others. When PRO talks about selecting Republicans in the upcoming election, he isn't just talking about the President, but also the Senate. When a judicial appointment is made to the Supreme Court (a lifetime appointment), it begins with a nomination by the executive, and then proceeds to a confirmation hearing by the Senate. One of the most important, long lasting things that a President will ever do is to place a Justice on the Supreme Court. Many Presidents have never had that opportunity; President Bush placed two! When the ruling on the 2nd Amendment comes around, pray that the two Justices placed by the Republican President and Senate, will carry some weight and influence on the outcome. PRO is right, that Kerry or Gore would have selected a different minded type of Justice, but this does not mean that the Senate would have confirmed those nominations necessarily. Anyway, there is little (that I'm aware of) President Bush can do Constitutionally to influence the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling. This goes to separation of powers / checks and balances. As long as we are on Constitutional issues, it is a shame that we have political parties, as there is no mention of them in the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers actually hoped to avoid political parties altogether, as they had seen the problems of party politics in England.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
That is true CC. I knew that is what he meant, but after taking the time to analyse and post what I did, to be called naive over a tangent issue just infuriates me.
My point is that if the citizens do not keep tabs on their government, it doesn't matter what party they are from, there will always be deciet and abuse of power going on. If we could all focus on the big 3 three documents(Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence), and keep others educated and active towards these ends, than it won't matter what party they represent, they will have to follow the constitution, because we will make sure of it. I wish people better understood that it is their dutie to overthrow any government which becomes a tyrant in their lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
fatbass said:
It's much more basic than an "assault weapons" ban. If the Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment allows guns ONLY in the hands of government controlled militia, then everyone else who is not National Guard, police or other military may not own weapons! A single shot .22 could become as illegal as a .50 BMG. This is truly the single most important Supreme Court decision of my lifetime- bigger than Roe v Wade.
I agree. I was just citing a few examples of things that have bothered me with other bills and acts of legislation. I reread my post and realized I could have been more clear. It does sound like I am only talking about AWB and hi-cap issues instead of the right to bear arms in its entirety. My bad.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top