If you are going to church, leave your gun in the car.Unalienable rights?
Going to the bank to cash a check? Leave your gun in the car....
[T]he law has a litany of places where weapons are not allowed. Schools, churches, hospitals, county commissioner meetings, bars, and jails are among some of the places where guns are not allowed...
Gov. Dave Heineman has announced he would sign LB 454 into law at a ceremony next week.
But don't bring your gun. Political events are gun-free, under the law.
"Shall not be infringed"?
That's the problem with you absolutist troublemakers. You just don't recognize incremental victories when you see them--along with the many examples from history where compromising essential rights and giving the state claim over them has produced enduring liberty.
Just stay out of our way and we'll make licensing and fees and prior restraints and limitations and restrictions and conditions and denials and revocations the benchmark for the trumpeting of gun lobby success. Infringements have become customary, expected, codified into existing gun laws, and you know who cries the loudest for enforcing those .
Good luck unraveling that Gordian knot. And woe unto you who just decide to bear arms on your own authority.
Yep, smells like victory to me. The only question is, whose?
28 comments:
David, I must congratulate you and tell you of my gratitude. I have been saying these things for years. Yet, the most common response when I point out these infringements and unalienable rights are reduced to rented privileges, is total incomprehension. I have watched eyes go dead blank at the thought that rights are exercised at the volition of the owner of those rights and that if you rent them as privileges, you have transferred possession of them to the state.
The American psyche has become so inured to constant and increasing government infringement that most Americans now feel it is their duty comply and extend the scope of those infringements.
I am glad to see you making this a constant theme. You could do nothing more important than to try to plant the seeds of liberty in our more docile brethren.
As much as I too would like to have our unfettered rights re-istated in full, it just ain't gonna happen that way. To be so self-righteously adamant that full recognition of our rights is the only change you'll accept is childish and short-sighted. Our fight isn't just against the hoplophobes, it's for the minds of the fence-straddlers, the people who don't know much and don't much care. The foaming-at-the-mouth Bradys of the world are totally lost, but which do you think will really sway those docile fence-sitters? Demanding that you be allowed to carry a weapon any god-freakin-damn place your hot hands can clutch one, or making improvements that you can later point to and show that the world didn't fall apart?
"Reasonable" got us here. I'm sick of reasonable.
Yes, anonymous--I demand my unfettered rights.
If you want people who will compromise, I submit the overwhelming majority of "Second Amendment" activists out there will give you what you're looking for.
I guess there's no room in the debate for those of us who believe in "shall not be infringed," is there? Those of us who do are "childish and short-sighted". On top of that, it's self-righteous!
"It just ain't gonna happen that way."
You're right. There are too many on "our side" preaching defeat rather than defiance.
Enjoy being mature and far-sighted, anonymous. But if you don't mind, and think there's any room for dissent, I'll continue planting seeds.
What is a "Right"?
So... We should be unhappy that Nebraska just went from a "no concealed-carry anywhere" law to a "concealed-carry most places" law? This is a step backwards?
If you want to carry everywhere you go, you're certainly free to do so - until you're caught by the police (who didn't pass the law) and convicted by a jury of your peers (who probably support the law) and your right to arms is legally stripped from you - after due process of the law.
Bitching that your fellow citizens don't understand the meaning of the Constitution doesn't help. Bitching at those who are working to reverse the last six decades of infringment of our liberties incrementally doesn't help.
You need to educate, not berate.
Yeah--and if they arrest me, all the compromisers will agree how I, of all people, should have known the law and obeyed it, and further agree that radical actions like that give all gun owners a bad name.
Sorry Kevin--the cost of your "incremental victories" is too high.
You are free to license yourself to do whatever you like. Just leave me out of it, because you are creating settled law--binding on me--in a land that makes its judicial decisions based on precedent and stare decisis.
My individual rights are not yours to bargain with, and I will oppose you or anyone else doing so every step of the way.
And as for educating people, sorry you don't see that's what I'm trying to do. I guess if you don't agree with my position, that makes me a bitcher? You're capable of better reasoning than that--especially since you haven't refuted one claim I have made. If more people were educated to demand their rights, this would be a moot discussion.
But don't feel bad that we're not in agreement here--I'm sure over 90% of the "pro gun" community will take your side in this.
David:
If you have not, I strongly suggest you get a copy of Clayton Cramer's For Defense of Themselves and the State. I think he still has a few, drop him an email. (Ordering it new from a bookstore is painfully expensive.) If you believe in the concept of "original understanding," I think a review of the court decisions in the period immediately following ratification of the Bill of Rights will be illuminating.
OPEN carry was considered protected, but concealed carry was often prohibited. And much of the public believed this was OK. But I'm sure you knew that.
Much has changed. Protesting that 90% of your "allies" don't agree with you only means that you have an improper grasp on the concept of what a "right" is, from a practical, objective standpoint.
Hey, if you're willing to let Leviathan roll over you because you're standing on principle, I'll stand (off to one side) and salute you.
In the mean time I'll keep writing my Congresscritters and trying to convince them that, if they want to get re-elected, they really ought to vote the way I'm urging.
Wagging my finger in their faces and telling them they're un-American doesn't get the results I'm looking for.
But that's just me. You go right ahead.
Kevin, I had this debate with Clayton Cramer via private emails years ago. While his relation of legal decision is inarguable, I found nothing compelling in his arguments in re natural rights. I told him--and I'll tell you--that what you call compromise, I call rape.
You go ahead and continue believing that it's pragmatic to surrender rights to usurpers because there is some perceived incremental gain--just don't kid yourself--or others--by glossing over the costs. You are inviting the vampire over the threshhold.
Telling me my grasp is impractical is kinda curious though--you seem to be coming from some sort of Clintonesque all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is /"living Constitution" frame of reference--where words defining unalienable rights are plastic and malleable and shaped over time. "Shall not be infringed" is simply not that difficult.
But again, rather than address my points, you go with characterizations--"wagging my finger."
I'm sorry you don't like my opinion. But I put it down in my journal unvarnished. That's the way it's going to be.
Kevin, are you serious--there's no room in the 2A debate for "shall not be infringed" and anyone who does is inviting the authorities to roll over him? Are you telling me that your position is as far as the envelope should be pushed?
Nope. I want more people in the freedom movement who think like me.
The Kevins are the reason we have so much usurpation of our rights. It has ever been that the compromisers and the accomodaters have outnumbered the principled.
They like to claim pragmatism as a virtue when, in fact, it is neither a virtue nor pragmatic to surrender your citizenship for temporary safe passage through this life, when you leave behind you despotism and enslavement for your posterity.
If the Kevins of this world hadn't been so pragmatic, there would be no discussion about this. It would still be being done properly.
Since the Kevins of this world outnumber the men, it is not surprising that he thinks begging for consideration is the appropriate action to regain what he surrendered to state power.
Standing at the outset of violation of rights never occurs to the Kevins. They wait to see if others will do it. They wait to see if it will cost. They wait until all they know to do is beg those that robbed them for some small portion back.
I wish such beings no harm, but I have no respect for them and I damn sure am hostile that they would dare to be so arrogant as berate others who hold their citizenship dear, when they do not.
He may be fine material for a subject, but citizenship is beyond his moral and intellectual ability.
There are many places in the world where subjects must get permission for everything. These places do not have embodied in their foundations the rights of free men. The Kevins need to go to those places where they can be pragmatic as all Hell. Then perhaps we will no longer be outnumbered by inferior men and we can return to the principles of liberty, peacefully.
The big issue that everyone overlooks is that most of us constitutionalists are peaceful and have been patient trying to educate the Kevins. Patience has limits. We vote for our servants. There can be no vote on rights or the compromising thereof, unless done properly by the mechanisms in the constitution. Till that is done, nobody get to vote on what right I am allowed to exercise.
That is a hill I am willing to die on, but more importantly that is a hill I am willing to kill on.
We will return to those principles, it would be nice if we could do so peacefully, but either way, it will be done.
There must be a basis for every argument. If you give ANY of that base away, YOU LOSE. You automatically make it easier for further infringement. If you know your RIGHT and stand on it. Regardless of all prior infringements done. Is the ONLY way to make a stand. Anything else leaves you standing on faulty ground.
Any time you walk up to a bargaining table - you have already lost. Don't know if you saw the recent Amicus brief files by John Wolfgram. He takes the argument back to the Magna Carta of 1215. He reminded the supreme court, (lower case intentional), that the right of petition to redress is ultimately backed by the Second Amendment. If they refuse to listen, then the court leaves no alternative than for the people to forcibly take back their right(s). It was a brilliant legal point on his part.
David and SA both know my stance. SA and I are entirely in agreement that the right is unequivocal - no restrictions period. Whereas David has a faulty sticking point, that we won't go into right now ;) But, because of his redeeming value, it can be overlooked.
David can also point out, that not to long ago I had been in a somewhat limited mindset mode. Believing the government actually did have some authority on the issue. I've researched the matter THOROUGHLY and can honestly state, without reservation, that the present government position at all levels is false. More importantly, I CAN PROVE IT, instead of just offering contentions.
"By gnawing through a dike, even a rat may drown a nation" - Edmund Burke
Build your house on the sand, what happens when the wind and waters come? (Here's a hint, talk w/the folks in New Orleans and they'll provide the answer).
Build your house on the rock and the wind and waters will come and
- IT SHALL STILL STAND.
This is the MOST CONSTITUTIONALLY GROUNDED legal opinion that I'm aware of:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without ANY qualification as to their condition or degree..."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
That is the SOLID foundation we need to stand on. Anything else is faulty, repugnant and a compromise.
compromise = infringement = ultimate slavery and destruction.
BTW - These are the FACTS:
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/TheRight.html
I started to respond directly but it rapidly reached dissertation length.
I posted my response on my blog if anyone is interested.
e.david said: "Whereas David has a faulty sticking point, that we won't go into right now ;) But, because of his redeeming value, it can be overlooked."
What? You mean we aren't monolithic? You mean we debate and research and all came to the same general conclusion? You don't mean we can disagree with our brother's opinion? Even though he is wrong on that issue. :D, sorry David C. I couldn't help it.
The shot was so cheap I couldn't afford not to take it. Either that or I was just being tacky. ;)
If this wasn't so critical to freedom it would be humorous to see how some reach their opinion by measuring the cost of liberty against the dost of inconvenience or even punishment, but never measure that cost against the cost of slavery. Which is the inevitable destiny of compromiser of his rights.
You would think if one learned nothing else from history, this lesson would be indelibly printed in the brain. It is a rule without exception.
David and StraightArrow,
I agree with your reading of the Constitution (it is plain english after all), but, the goal of shall not be infringed is strategy not tactics.
Look at the map of shall issue vs may issue states over the last 20 years. Surely you will concede that shall issue states = more educated gun owners. Such people smell the crap the GFWs are shoveling as truth and vote accordingly.
The chance of getting back to "shall not be infringed" is better with more educated gun owners around than without.
These people establish in indisputable fact that gun owners are largely law abiding responsible citizens, and being criminal has nothing to do with being armed.
We ALL want to get back to shall not be infringed.
Having said all that, if my Wife and I had to get licensed for CCW to be legal in MA we were willing (though unhappy) to do it, and I will be happy to burn that license as soon as I can.
Sailorcurt,
Well said (your blog response to this string, that is) Your WWII anology is apt.
I too believe that the RTKBA movement is really starting to hit its stride. Effective tactics are being employed in spite of the best mud the GFW MSM can fling, and it is driving them NUTS!
The nuttier the GFWs get the more wacko and bizarre their arguments get. This is a PR campaign we are winning incrementally.
The best weapon the GFWs have left is the "lone gunman" these nut jobs still instill fear in the average citizen and fuel occasional bouts of gun ban fever.
Fortunately like most illness gun ban fever is a short term affliction in the general population, though it can be chronic in some urban populations ;-)
Mornin' StraightArrow!
- "If this wasn't so critical to freedom it would be humorous to see how some reach their opinion by measuring the cost of liberty against the dost of inconvenience or even punishment, but never measure that cost against the cost of slavery"...
You bring up a VITAL point on which I've been fixating on of late. That point being that of 'CRITICAL to Freedom'. Sense that our mutual friend David has picked up on it as well. As his writing seems to indicate this new sense of urgency, to me anyways.
Am convinced we are at a critical juncture in the fight for our Right. And if we don't make huge gains in the next 2 years, we are screwed. If the dems seize control again, this year and in 2008 - it's over.
Just read somewhere that Hitlery is ready to jump on the Usurpation train again. (Worth following up on, considering her/Bill's track record). She is a definate Comm/Nazi and a clear and present danger. (Not to be misconstrued as meaning that most of the other politicians aren't).
In my way of thinking. With the 2nd Amendment Right being so clear in its meaning. There should be at least ONE politician standing up and DEMANDING a return to Constitutional law. That we are not seeing this, is indication that it is a long-running, well organized conspiracy. And the truth is being deliberately squelched.
Have a friend that thinks they are just tossing us bones. And this just to keep us soothed until they have the stage all set up, and lower the big boom.
The real bad part about this. Is that my friend is almost always right. He has the best track record, I've yet witnessed, in calling a spade a spade before the card is even turned.
Since our supposed representatives aren't doing their duty and warning us of the danger. We must pick up the ball and make sure the message gets out. That's my take anyways.
p.s. - "You don't mean we can disagree with our brother's opinion?"
At the risk of starting the war again, (which I REALLY hope that it does). For I've located some IRREFUTABLE info. which utterly will shread any contention to the contrary, (gauntlet duly tossed).
I'm trying to prepare our friend David for the inevitable deflation. Which may be so damaging to his belief system, that he may go comatose. (Like when he was told there was NO Santa).
I cannot bear the burden of the harm it will cause our friend. By inflicting such a debilitating blow without warning.
1894C, don't be misled. I think what has been accomplished in the last few years is better than what we had. However, it still does no constitute the exercise of a right.
The best that can be said of it is that it is a rented privilege that may be revoked by its owners at any time. When a privilege is rented the right belongs to lessor not the lessee.
What part of "...shall not be infringed." does this satisfy?
OK. To David, Straightarrow and E. David:
This is where the rubber meets the road: I completely support your goal of a free and unfettered right to keep and bear arms.
I am a soldier in your army.
What's the plan? Give me my marching orders. What do WE do?
Sailorcurt - Do what were doing right now. Utilize the First Amendment while we are still able. Be wise as a serpant and gentle as a dove. Shoot down any falsehood immediately. Let nothing go by unchecked. Counter, repulse, attack, attack, attack....
That's actually a pretty interesting proposition, sailorcurt, and should provide for some interesting dialog. Of course, it's much bigger than 2A--the saying is right--it's not about guns, it's about freedom--so you can't just fix one element.
It's a monumental task--I could give you some platitudes here--each subject to challenge and debate and spinoffs, and it would all end up being pretty disjointed and going nowhere--plus, this thread will get older and buried, and it will pretty much be only a few of us putting in a lot of time and effort with no real payback in terms of others witnessing and joining the fray. So we probably ought to first devise a forum where we can address this on an ongoing basis. Perhaps I can start a new post, refer the readers back to this one and these comments--and we can add new posts on a regular basis--maybe have some kind of unifying title so all threads can be linked from each new post...
And, of course, we can't put all the burden on my position--that rights are unalienable, that shall not be infringed means just that--and my premise that America will be better served by more--not fewer citizens becoming radicalized and jealous about their rights, and unwilling to compromise them to usurpers. We also need to be able to examine your position--that incrementalism will produce liberty. Is that conclusion based on historical precedent, documented progress, or faith? In other words, if I become a soldier in your army, what are YOUR marching orders? We ought to be able to compare contentions about which method will likely produce desired outcomes, don't you agree?
One other complication--and I'm not cheesing out--I think this will be fun, instructive, and we can all learn from each other--but you'll recall a few days ago I mentioned how I was going to be slowing down a tad because I'm working 7 days a week and many evenings, and will be through August? That still holds true. And because I worked this weekend and last night, I have an article I need to write for the magazine over the next two nights.
Also, I do this blog for me. I like that some people find value in coming here, but I'm really the only audience I ever consider when I espress my thoughts. If I'm happy with it, that's good enough for me. So I'm not necessarily eager to turn over what is, in essence, my journal, to a project just to satisfy someone else's objections to my views. I suspect those of you who comment and blog are pretty much of the same mindset, so if it becomes a chore or tedious, the incentive for continued participation goes away. And it goes without saying--and we've proven it before during spirited debates here--that name-calling and vulgarities are unwelcome. I won't play if it devolves into that.
So what I'm saying is, be patient. There will be no magical incantation, no E-mc2 equation where all will become clear and end of discussion. We may still be arguing months from now.
I believe, sailorcurt, that the solution is for more, not fewere of us to become educated and radicalized. I don't necessarily believe that things will be resolved without tremendous conflict--in fact, I stipulate I doubt Americans in general, nor gun owners in particular--will be motivated to take any different course of action from the status quo without something forcing the issue.
More later.
What do you think of the idea to continue exploring this in new, related posts?
Good Evening David,
Glad to see your return! Your words ring true. A thought has occured to me. What does everyone think of starting a group Blog? I'll be more than willing to get it started. We can have multiple administrators. A joint strategic command you might say.
It will be purely related to the Second Amendment RKBA.
I know StraightArrow has been interested in doing something on the web. Perhaps this would be the answer which he seeks? SA?
Thoughts?
Start posting:
http://amendmentii.blogspot.com/
We can change the format or whatever else we can agree to. But, it is up and going.
That's actually a pretty interesting proposition, sailorcurt, and should provide for some interesting dialog. Of course, it's much bigger than 2A--the saying is right--it's not about guns, it's about freedom--so you can't just fix one element.
I agree with you there, that's why my blog isn't a single issue blog. I'm primarily about gun rights...because that is the conservator of all the others, but that's not the only issue that concerns me.
In other words, if I become a soldier in your army, what are YOUR marching orders?
I don't give marching orders. The title of my Blog says it all: I'm the Captain of a Crew of One.
But I can tell you what I do:
First. I'm a life member of the NRA. No, it's not perfect...in fact, it leaves A LOT to be desired. But it is the largest and most influential gun lobby in the country. When I don't agree with their policies, I tell them so and I tell them why. They always respond...sometimes with thanks for the input, sometimes with excuses, sometimes with politically correct nonsense...but as a member I have a voice. I also only vote for board members that I am convinced support the Second Amendment fully. How do I find out? I ask them. If I dont' like their answers (or if they don't answer me) I don't vote for them.
If enough of the 2nd Amendment purists out there who dislike the NRA and it's compromises would join anyway and make their voice heard, we might actually have a chance at moving the NRA more toward our position. Staying out of it only enables them to continue on their current path under the mistaken assumption that they are representing the majority of gun owners.
Next, I am a member of the Virginia Citizen's Defense League and it's affiliated national organization, Gun Owners of America.
As a member, I go to virtually every gun show in this area and work the VCDL table. We recruit new members and sign people up for our e-mail alerts as well as simply spread the word about gun rights and the battle for same.
I also attend legislative sessions when I can, I attend political rallies and local city council meetings. I write letters to the editor, I write letters to local, State and Federal legislators regularly. The best of these letters (in my humble opinion) I post on my blog.
I pay attention to the bills that are before the state legislature and congress, I support good ones and I oppose bad ones and I let my employees in the local, state and federal government know which ones I support and oppose and why.
Every time I support a bill, I don't "beg" legislators for permission to exercise my rights. I tell them that the Second Amendment and the State Constitution guarantee me those rights, that the current laws infringe upon those rights and that the proposed legislation would provide one more small step towards removing governmental restrictions on those rights.
On a more personal level, I talk to people. I explain how our rights are being infringed and why they are important. I take people to the range and introduce them to firearms and their safe and effective use. I have an open invitation on my blog for first time shooters that want to accompany me to the range and I'll even pay for everything they need. I've introduced several new shooters to the practial use of firearms including my current wife, my daughter in law and quite a few casual acquaintences. Those new shooters are the ones that will become soldiers in the battle for restoring our rights. The more people we introduce to shooting and firearms, the more people that realize that guns are not evil and are just a tool that can empower them and free them from dependence on the government for their safety, the more people we will have on our side.
These are the things that I do. And I applaud the efforts of the grassroots organizations in Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska and others that have recently made strides toward restoring their rights. Their progress and the progress we have made in Virginia is what leads me to believe that we can ultimately prevail in this battle. We have the power of truth on our side. It is only a matter of time and effort.
I like your idea of a blog dedicated to this discussion. Will we all be contributors? I think the first step would be to transfer this thread there. I guess you'd just have to copy and paste it over. I can copy over the related thread on my blog as well and we can go from there.
I just visited amendmentii.blogspot.com.
Man, do I hate that color scheme. It hurts my eyes. That's the reason that I'll only read Xavier's and the Anarchangel's blogs through my RSS feed reader. I can't handle the contrast of the light on dark color scheme.
Sailorcurt: I just read your comment on what you do. I am impressed, nay, humbled.
The truth is our greatest ally. Yet most of our children never hear it, unless at home. Since this is the second or third generation of school children being taught, either falsely or incompletely, most of the parents of our young do not know the truth with which to counter the drivel that passes for civics in shools today.
If everyone did as you do, the fight would be much shorter.
I also never let a false statement pass, even if I must engage strangers who weren't speaking to me. I especially concentrate on school age children, most of which are known to me as grandchildren.
I think I will borrow from the USMC, Semper Fi
Mile-high reply:
http://www.striderweb.com/blog/240
You're right. There are too many on "our side" preaching defeat rather than defiance.
Kudos David.
I am so sick of hearing "that's the way it is".
Let me tell you, "the way it is" is what you make it. If you don't want a righteous position to look "extreme", endorse it.
Don't be afraid to stand up for what is right in fear of the wailings of your enemy. An enemy that wants you destroyed entirely. Trying to appease them, or adjust your stance to look less extreme by your enemy's standards is a sure way to loose.
Doing the right thing is not determined by win or loose. You just do it. Otherwise, you will be constantly adjusting your principles to fit "the way it is".
Thanks for standing tall.
Sincerely, C.H.
Post a Comment