The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[Radar]

Originally Posted by jinx

Kennedy wasn't a Libertarian either. Nor was he a founding father.

This is from Ron Paul's site - it explains the philosophy of liberty, not as colorfully as Radar does, but it gets the job done.

I used to have this animation as my signature in here. Ron Paul borrowed it from the ISIL (International Society for Individual Liberty)

They offer it in several languages: http://isil.org/resources/philosophy...rty-index.html

[Radar]

I especially like this part...

[classicman]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[spudcon]

Have to disagree. The founding fathers instituted a Republican Democracy. We elect representatives to govern, thus giving them the power to rule. The animation you showed says we're not allowed to do that, or we're lazy intellectually. Wrong! We are abiding by the Constitution. We don't live in anarchy, Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky notwithstanding.

[Radar]

The founders, much like Ron Paul, myself, and other libertarians instituted a government that derives limited powers from the consent of the governed. Government may only have those powers that we have as individuals, to grant to it. Governmental power may not exceed the rights of even a single individual.

In other words, if I don't have a right to do something, I can't grant that power to government. The animation shown by the ISIL says that we can ask others to defend us and our rights. This is why we elect people. We give them a limited number of powers that are derived from our rights. We say that we will allow the government to create a military to defend all of us, we elect a mayor and entrust him with creating a police force, etc.

The Constitution is a libertarian document, and our government is most certainly not abiding by it. Government was always meant to be very small and to only do a few things for us. It was never meant to be all things to all people. It was never meant to handle things like retirement, healthcare, education, charity, etc.

[TheMercenary]

Oh God, not another dissertation from our resident amateur know it all.

[TheMercenary]

Washington, D.C. City Council Ignoring Supreme Court Ruling
-- Discharge petition filed on gun ban repeal

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Monday, July 28, 2008


In open defiance of the Supreme Court's decision striking down the Washington D.C. gun control law, the City Council passed an "emergency" law that keeps in place almost all of the law that was ruled unconstitutional.

For example, though the Court ruled specifically that the city's ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment, most handguns still cannot be registered because D.C. bureaucrats classify semi-automatic pistols as "machine guns."

Even Dick Heller, who brought the case against Washington's gun ban, was rejected when he tried to register his handgun because any "bottom loading" firearm is a "machine gun"
according to the D.C.
police.

Similarly, while the Court found that "the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a "trigger lock" is unconstitutional, the city kept in place the "lock up your safety" law unless the resident is in immediate danger.

The D.C. Council is thus rendering the Supreme Court victory for gun rights meaningless, while leaving residents defenseless.

Congress needs to repeal the District's gun control law to ensure that the Supreme Court decision is not a hollow victory.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority and responsibility to govern the District. It can simply repeal the District's onerous gun law.

Not surprisingly, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has no intention of allowing the D.C. gun ban repeal legislation to come to the floor, even though it is cosponsored by more than half of the members of Congress.

To free the bill from the Speaker's death grip, Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) has filed a discharge petition to bring the bill directly to the floor. Rep. Souder needs 218 cosigners for the petition to be successful. There are currently 109 signers.

There are not many days left in this legislative session, so it is vital that the discharge petition moves quickly. Please contact your representative and urge him or her to support the repeal of the D.C. gun ban and to sign the Souder discharge petition. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Reps. the pre-written e-mail message below.


----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative,

The Washington, D.C. city council is making a mockery of the recent Supreme Court decision supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Though the Court ruled the city's handgun ban unconstitutional, DC is still making it illegal to own most handguns. The Court also ruled that the District's gun lock and gun storage law violates the Constitution, but under the city's new "emergency" gun law, firearms must be kept inoperable unless there is an immediate danger to residents.

Representative Mark Souder has filed a discharge petition to bring a bill to repeal the District's gun laws to the floor for a vote.

Please stand up for the Second Amendment and sign the Souder discharge petition.

Sincerely,


****************************

[glatt]

Washington, D.C. City Council Ignoring Supreme Court Ruling

Gee, that's not biased at all. [/sarcasm]


The Supreme Court ruled that handguns can't be banned. It specifically said they could be regulated but declined to say exactly how much they could be regulated. So the DC City Council, which would prefer to ban guns outright, is testing to see how far it can regulate them. It isn't ignoring anything. It's doing the exact opposite of ignoring. It's reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling. How can you be ignoring something when your actions are in direct response to that thing?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Gee, that's not biased at all. [/sarcasm]


The Supreme Court ruled that handguns can't be banned. It specifically said they could be regulated but declined to say exactly how much they could be regulated. So the DC City Council, which would prefer to ban guns outright, is testing to see how far it can regulate them. It isn't ignoring anything. It's doing the exact opposite of ignoring. It's reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling. How can you be ignoring something when your actions are in direct response to that thing?

I understand how you could try to make thier case for them but I doubt that anyone who has fought this action has any doubt about what they are trying to do. Do you really believe that any bottom loading magazine is a "machine gun" is a valid statement? Do you think that the intent of the DC council was to do anything other than to continue an outright ban and prevent people from having the means to protect themselves? please...

And people like to bitch and moan about how they have had rights taken away by the Bush admin. Talk about cherry picking.

[glatt]

The DC City Council has made no attempt to hide the fact that they want to ban guns. But they can't ban guns anymore. So instead they are trying to have the strictest regulations possible. The courts will rule and will decide if they are too strict. There's a lawsuit already.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by glatt

Gee, that's not biased at all. [/sarcasm]


The Supreme Court ruled that handguns can't be banned. It specifically said they could be regulated but declined to say exactly how much they could be regulated. So the DC City Council, which would prefer to ban guns outright, is testing to see how far it can regulate them. It isn't ignoring anything. It's doing the exact opposite of ignoring. It's reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling. How can you be ignoring something when your actions are in direct response to that thing?

1. Our rights can't be regulated by government. Government has zero authority to define or limit our rights.

2. The Supreme court didn't say keeping bearing "handguns" was an individual right, it said "guns".

3. You are right. They aren't ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling, they are defying it.

4. All gun regulation whether it's simple registration or banning a particular type of gun is unconstitutional and a violation of our RIGHT to keep and bear any number, of any type of gun we choose.

5. A right is something you don't require permission to do. A privilege may be regulated and revoked at any time. A right can not.

[Shawnee123]

Hey all you constitution scholars (hereafter known as CS): I have a question regarding what is being said here.

Radar, you say that a right cannot be regulated or revoked, while a privelege can be. However, what about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? What I mean is don't CS people say those are human rights? Now, when somone kills someone we put them in jail...we have revoked their liberty, have we not?

So (I'm really just trying to learn here) what exactly are rights as opposed to priveleges?

[TheMercenary]

Senate Vote Is Good News For Gun Rights
-- GOA thanks activists for sending thousands of e-mails to the Senate prior to vote

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, July 30, 2008


Gun owners won an important vote in the U.S. Senate this week, when more than three dozen senators stood with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma in his battle against Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Reid fell eight votes short on Monday of stopping Coburn, who has been using parliamentary maneuvers to keep anti-gun legislation (and pork) from coming to the Senate floor for votes.

Sen. Coburn has placed a "hold" on more than 80 bills since January of last year -- including the bill which recently extended the National Parks gun ban to the Washington-Rochambeau trail.

Under the rules, one senator may block the progress of an objectionable bill by issuing a "hold" -- a maneuver which prevents a bill from speedily moving through the legislative process.

The frustrated dictator of the Senate (a.k.a. Reid) combined 36 of the bills which have come under Coburn's ire into a big omnibus bill and added all kinds of pork to entice senators into supporting the measure. Nevertheless, Reid still fell eight votes short of what was needed to defeat Coburn's holds.

GOA wants to thank all of you who took the time during the last week to urge your senators to stand with Coburn!

VETERANS DISARMAMENT UPDATE

In other Senate news, Richard Burr's bill to repeal large parts of the Veterans Disarmament Act is gaining steam. The Republican senator from North Carolina introduced the Veterans Protection Act (S. 3167) after President Bush signed a gun ban into law this year -- a law which, among other things, disarms military veterans who have been diagnosed with PTSD.
The Burr bill, which now has 18 cosponsors, would protect the rights of military veterans and make it more difficult for the Veterans Affairs to deny them their Second Amendment rights.

GOA members should have received their latest newsletter by now. This issue contains a key update on the Veterans Protection Act in the House (introduced by Rep. Virgil Goode) and answers frequently asked questions by gun owners such as: what should I do when I'm denied by the Brady Check and can I run a NICS check on myself?

If you're not receiving the GOA newsletter, please go to http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm to get your members-only subscription today!

ACTION:

1. Continue asking your two senators to stand with Sen. Coburn in defying the strong-arm tactics of Majority Leader Reid. Further to that, urge them to cosponsor Coburn's bill (S. 2807) repealing the gun ban in the National Parks. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

2. Make sure you check out the latest GOA newsletter and mail the enclosed postcards in support of the Veterans Protection Act if you have not already done so. Thank you!

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Hey all you constitution scholars (hereafter known as CS): I have a question regarding what is being said here.

Radar, you say that a right cannot be regulated or revoked, while a privelege can be. However, what about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? What I mean is don't CS people say those are human rights? Now, when somone kills someone we put them in jail...we have revoked their liberty, have we not?

So (I'm really just trying to learn here) what exactly are rights as opposed to priveleges?

A right may not be regulated or revoked, but a privilege can be. When someone performs an act that violates the person, property, or rights of others it is a crime and not otherwise. If you violate someone's rights by killing them you have not taken away their right to live, you've merely violated that right. When you do this, you have FORFEITED your right to liberty until such time as you have been punished accordingly whether that punishment is house arrest, imprisonment, or death. By locking someone up for a genuine crime, you are not violating or infringing on their rights.


Here are a few videos explaining the difference between rights and privileges.

[Shawnee123]

I watched bits of the video but just don't have that kind of time because my access is at work and I'm a popper. But I thank you for your response.

I think what you're saying, though, is that your rights cannot be taken away from you but you can forfeit them.

So, a person in prison has forfeited their right to liberty. They've done something that society has deemed worthy of the loss of that right.

But doesn't the same thing happen with privileges? Driving a car is a privilege...screw it up and you lose that privilege. So what is the difference between losing a right and losing a privilege?