Email discussion on constitutional rights

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Rockfish Dave, Apr 22, 2009.


  1. Rockfish Dave

    Rockfish Dave Monkey+++

    Email discussion between me and a friend living on the far left. It is surprising to me that even when he admits I am correct he still says we should have further restrictions on firearms…
    <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" />
    I have put these in chronological order:

    Re: Treaty with Mexico: INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION

    Hello All:

    I am unsure how many of you are gun owners or think that you might be in the future but what is proposed is actually bigger than our individual concerns. International treaties, as stated in the constitution, become the law of the land, pre-empting the constitution.

    What is proposed is in the new treaty with Mexico is: No modifications can be made without a license. In practical terms that means if you want to improve the trigger on your gun, you need a license.

    Want to go on that once in a lifetime hunt with your father or grandfather, well good luck taking your rifle across state lines.

    You want to reload (make your own ammo)? And why would anyone want to make their own? The manufacture of ammunition will also require licensing. Why make your own? Well the quality is greatly improved over retail ammunition at a lower cost. Practical reasons to restrict the manufacture? None, it is a time consuming and laborious undertaking that requires a substantial amount of knowledge... not the sort of thing that appeals to criminals.


    I also take issue with Mexico dictating what our laws will be. If you think gun control is the answer you only need to look south of the border. So how are the most restrictive gun laws working out for Mexico? Just made them a nation of victims. More murders along the border in one year than seven years and two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan).

    Please take a minute to write your elected officials regarding this matter.
    Link to find contact information for your elected officials:
    http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

    Dave

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    I'm still undecided on the ammo issue you have, but i see no reason why license should be required for manufacturing/assembling firearms. Plus, I'm sure no run-of-the-mill hunter or someone who own's a gun for safety are going to be arrested for disassembling/assembling their weapon while cleaning, or even making a small modification. I don't know guns, but if there's a mod to turn a semi-auto into a full-auto, then why shouldn't that require a license? Please explain the point of a full-auto to me. Also, the state line thing will only be an issue if you are traveling to a state with different restrictions...or most likely just if your credentials are bad.

    Stop whining about gun control. You already own more than you'll ever need...

    You remembered to wish your wife a happy birthday this morning, correct?

    Jim

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Hey Jim,

    Yes I did wish her a Happy Birthday, and Happy B-day to you too.

    So are we going to selectively uphold the constitution? That first amendment thing is such a pain, I think that should be done away with. It is sooo inconvenient when people protest against unpopular policies, express their faith, or assemble peacefully. That fourth amendment thing with the whole search and seizure limitations, what is the big deal if you don't have anything to hide?

    The second amendment is not about "sports" or "sporting uses" such as hunting or target shooting, it is actually about military grade weapons at the infantry/rifleman level. It also ensures that one can protect ones self, others, and personal property. Full auto, is not my thing, but it is protected. To modify a rifle from semi auto to full auto does require a license already by the way, although it does infringe upon the second amendment. Google class three weapons, it helps to be informed before regurgitating falsehoods.

    For how many guns? I heard this from Monika before she actually bothered to learn to shoot. The best analogy that I can come up with is it's like golf clubs. Each is designed for a very specific use. You would not shoot 500 rounds at the shooting range for practice at one sitting with a .308 WIN rifle. The recoil would be punishing and the cost of ammunition would be prohibitive, but you certainly can with a .22lr. Would I shoot an elk with a .22lr? No that would be inhumane. Would I try to shoot skeet with a deer rifle? That would be impossible and down right dangerous.

    As a practical concern, you can pass all the laws you want; criminals by definition do not obey the law. When access is restricted, you only target law-abiding individuals. There has been a recent spat of gun related violence in the US from the fringes of society, but that pales in comparison with Mexico and their draconian restrictions forced upon citizens owning firearms (there are some exceptions so it is not a 100% ban). Gun violence has actually increased in Great Britton and Australia after these countries severely restricted access to firearms for their respective citizens.

    The 90% statistic that keeps being reported. That was based on 2000 guns out of hundreds of thousands (this is from memory so take this as a generalization, I could google for you if you'd like). They only sent the guns that they thought could be traced. They literally have 100's of thousands of weapons with foreign markings from Israel, China, the Czech republic, Russia, Argentina, and Brazil that obviously originated elsewhere that they just lumped into that number. Plus, the Mexican gov't denied the request to provide the serial numbers (all recorded by law in the US) so that the claim can be independently verified.

    How would you get military grade weapons illegally? For starters how about Columbia, Nicaragua, Honduras with their past civil wars and ongoing organized criminal element? The Mexican governments corruption also has allowed for weapons provided by the US gov't to the Mexican military and police to be sold on the black market. So where in the USA today can one buy military grade weapons in bulk, that cannot be traced, or go through the hassle of going through a back ground check, paying retail, all the while risking discovery when smuggling it across to Mexico? Not to mention arms dealing is heavily regulated already. Again since the sale of arms to outside the United States is extremely regulated, this is targeted at the law abiding individuals, not dealing with the criminals with laws already in force.

    The constitution guarantees liberties, protection and justice for everyone, not just for those who think they know better than those who laid the foundations for what has become one of the greatest countries in the word since it's inception. I say this with conviction, that conviction and belief is backed up with my choice serve this country, not just provide lip service from the sideline. My only regret was not being able to take a more active role.

    So back to you, how is this treaty anything other than an attempt to subvert the constitution and the rights that it protects?

    Dave

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    The treaty doesn't say anything about taking guns away from people who are licensed, right? And I didn't either. If you wanna own guns and you are legally licensed, great. I understand the studies that show areas w/ higher licensed gun ownership usually have a lower murder rate as well. That makes sense. I don't see how requiring licensing for manufacturing of ammunition and working on guns is going against anything in the 2nd amendment, unless you're saying that having these different requirements is against the 2nd amendment (which i don't think you're saying). Where's the problem here?

    Yeah, criminals will always find a way to get illegal things. This will never stop - ever - no matter what. But that doesn't seem like a good reason to *not* place restrictions on things, right?

    Do you not have a lot of work to do?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Jim,

    There are no licenses in the state of Texas for gun ownership or modifying weapons (excluding: Concealed Carry Permits, Short barreled rifles <16", and rate of fire/auto). It is a right that specifically says should not be infringed. There are only three states that I know off of the top of my head that require licensing, and those are being contested.

    Licensing the manufacturing of ammunition is akin to the 500% tax increase that Barrack Obama had proposed while as a Senator. It is just another means to control and limit access to the right. So what will the licensing requirements be? What will the fees be? Why have licensing? We have functioned for hundreds of years as a successful Republic without any licensing. What utility will licensing have (other than a restriction)? I challenge for you to find ONE example of a crime, any crime in which reloaded ammo was utilized. This is not a loaded question, pardon the pun, I just do not believe it has ever been a issue. Yet you say it should be regulated...

    By your own volition you admit that restrictions will have no impact on criminals yet you say have them anyways. It will only restrict the law-abiding citizens. Where is the up side of this or net social benefit (ignoring what our country was founded upon, and a right that shall not be infringed)?

    I also will go a step further people who have been convicted of felonies should not be banned from legally owning firearms. Here is why: If they have successfully fulfilled the terms of their sentence they should no longer be punished and penalized. If they are such a threat, or untrustworthy (in employment circumstances), they should not be re-released into society. All others, having paid their debt to society should have the same opportunities and rights as everyone else, since they paid their debt. For those that are too untrustworthy or dangerous, they should not be released back into society in the first place since they will break the law anyways. So we should be dealing with the problem rather than passing silly legislation that makes us feel better but does nothing to actually make us safer. Heck after the Civil war the confederates were given their rifles and horses back.

    Yes, I have lots of work to do, but when false hoods and lies are being perpetuated I have difficulty just accepting it. It's the whole personality flaw of mine of being able to discern right from wrong, ethics, personal conviction and such and doing something about it.

    I do have a parting question(s): At what point will any of this matter to you? When your right to free speech is taken away? Your rights choose how and where you live, or work is taken away? For the rights that you care about there are others that feel they have little or no value. Does that make the rights that you cherish any less valid?

    Dave



















     
  2. dragonfly

    dragonfly Monkey+++

    Interesting to say the very least!
    Some don't get it, and most never will!
    When WE as a nation, become disarmed, and unable to assemble, or to speak out against tyranny, or freely on any subject....maybe by then, some will wake up one day and say: "how did this happen"?
    But, it won't matter then......It will be TOO late!
    I for one, will not stand by and watch as "OUR" constitutional rights are being destroyed by anyone, or any group.....period.
     
  3. Cephus

    Cephus Monkey+++ Founding Member

    What did Ben Franklin say about liberties and safety .
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7