Does government have right to enact gun control policy

[Omnipotent]

IMHO the only way this comes to an end is when We the people stop letting the government push us around. A revolution, war, whatever you want to call it is the only way this will stop. It will never stop with the government the way it is and as corrupt as it is. One day the time will come.....some group will take a stand. Then we will have to decide to rally behind them or stay in our houses and hide. I know what side I'll be on when the time comes.

 

[aireyc]

I honestly don't like the whole "we have a right," pro-2A argument simply due to the fact that the Constitution can be amended. If we continue on the current course, it is very possible that the Second Amendment will be repealed within the next fifty years, and then our arguments don't hold any water. There will be no basis for "we have a right to defend ourselves" outside of logical reasoning. So why not defer to logical reasoning now instead of waiting until that's a last resort? The 2A is a great defense in the interim via the courts, but I will never argue that I should be able to own a gun just because the Second Amendment says so.

As such I think it's imperative we attack this debate under the premise of guns in and of themselves aren't a threat, and we're sick and tired of lawmakers dictating how we conduct our own affairs. Any gun I own or possess will cause less harm to others than even those large cups of soda Bloomberg banned.

 

[kwaters4]

God given right not government provided. As long as a man has two hands he will seek weapons to defend himself and others with... With or with out government approval. Besides when we no longer are armed, we no longer have to debate this... The answers will be provided to you by the people who you depend on for protection, and when that happens, it doesn't matter if you like the answer or not.

 

[Dogabutila]

What it comes down to is the social contract we make with the government that gives it the power to govern. We give it specific powers, for specific purposes. These are all outlined in the constitution. Tyranny is bad be it by a single person or by a majority of people (if they disagree ask if it's okay for the majority to repress gay people). By nature, people have Rights. Natural Rights are those that are inherent upon life. That is, what you have if left alone. You have the right to be alive. The right to own things. And the right to be free to make your own choices. All other rights stem from these. Other rights (little r rights) stem from the contract we make with government. Things that we expect the government to do for us. These are not strictly true Rights because they require other people to do things to enable them. Think voting or perhaps basic healthcare. These types of rights exist because people delegate to the government power so long as the government ensures that these rights exist. They can cease to exist if people decide they don't care about or want them.

So really, you have rights that people are born with and rights that the government should guarantee. If you are born with the natural right to life, you are born with the right to defend your life. Tools to do so should be protected as well. Remember, if left alone by other people you would be perfectly fine.

So, even IF the right to own guns is GRANTED by 2A, and not a Natural Right (I disagree obviously) the (little r) right must still be guaranteed by the government because it is a specifically listed right that the people demand in order for the government to have legitimate authority to govern. If you hold the view that the right to keep and bear is GRANTED, you must still cede that until the 2A is removed from the BoR that any governmental restriction is in actuality illegal // should not have authority to be issued.

I honestly don't like the whole "we have a right," pro-2A argument simply due to the fact that the Constitution can be amended. If we continue on the current course, it is very possible that the Second Amendment will be repealed within the next fifty years, and then our arguments don't hold any water. There will be no basis for "we have a right to defend ourselves" outside of logical reasoning. So why not defer to logical reasoning now instead of waiting until that's a last resort? The 2A is a great defense in the interim via the courts, but I will never argue that I should be able to own a gun just because the Second Amendment says so.

As such I think it's imperative we attack this debate under the premise of guns in and of themselves aren't a threat, and we're sick and tired of lawmakers dictating how we conduct our own affairs. Any gun I own or possess will cause less harm to others than even those large cups of soda Bloomberg banned.

Bro, for the 2A to be repealed we would have already lost the war.

 

[jpk1md]

This is a simple Rights and Privs issue

Rights are Natural or God given......they cannot be taken away....they can only be infringed upon

Privileges are something that is granted TO and individual or group of individuals BY another individual/group of individuals

The Md Constitution in effect defers to the US Constitution on issues not explicitly addressed in Md Const

As such the Second Amendment is a prohibition on Gov INFRINGEMENT of the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

Lots of Demwits will protest mightily that Welfare/Social Security/Healthcare,<insert entitlement> are rights when in actuality they are privileges (ie requires to labor/private property of some other individual).

Lets be clear here, no one is making the argument for NO Gov....quite the opposite....we're arguing for the limitations/constraint of gov to its PROPER role......a role that defends liberty, freedom and private property rights rather than constantly infringing upon them

Liberty/Freedom are a product/function of the restraint of gov

PS....btw.....Gov does not have "Rights"........just in case that wasn't clear..........Gov is granted POWERS by all of us and needs to be mindful that it is fast approaching the point where it will lose the support of the governed

 

[lonevoiceofreason]

I honestly don't like the whole "we have a right," pro-2A argument simply due to the fact that the Constitution can be amended. If we continue on the current course, it is very possible that the Second Amendment will be repealed within the next fifty years, and then our arguments don't hold any water. There will be no basis for "we have a right to defend ourselves" outside of logical reasoning. So why not defer to logical reasoning now instead of waiting until that's a last resort? The 2A is a great defense in the interim via the courts, but I will never argue that I should be able to own a gun just because the Second Amendment says so.

As such I think it's imperative we attack this debate under the premise of guns in and of themselves aren't a threat, and we're sick and tired of lawmakers dictating how we conduct our own affairs. Any gun I own or possess will cause less harm to others than even those large cups of soda Bloomberg banned.

If the anti-gunners seriously propose the repeal of the Second Amendment, the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and NAGR will double in membership with all the fence sitters. The anti-gunner strategy is "salami tactics" courtesy "Yes Prime Minister, they wish to take our rights slice by slice.

The government has no "rights." The sovereign body of this nation is the electorate, which is limited in what abilities that they can give to the bozos that are elected. The government can do whatever the electorate will stomach. The anti-gunners, people who pretend to care about murder when they don't propose anything that will reduce murder in places like Baltimore and continue to add more to the salami sandwich of our civil liberties after every tragedy, make a case out of perceived moral superiority. We have to fight the uphill battle of destroying, (within the general public, since it's too late for the 150% anti-gunners) their false belief that banning pieces of metal, wood, and polymer will end violence, and that the alternatives of giving up the human right of defense,which a semiautomatic firearm is the best tool for defense in the 21st Century (until the hand phaser or phaser rifle is invented), is as ridiculous as it is to any logically thinking human being.

 

[Robert Avery]

How can anything be done when we have a Illegal Alien in the office of President? Lawyer Tabis is being heard before the Supreme Court on Feb. 15 concerning this very matter. If she wins hopefully they will through Obama in jail!

 

[Hal3]

How can anything be done when we have a Illegal Alien in the office of President? Lawyer Tabis is being heard before the Supreme Court on Feb. 15 concerning this very matter. If she wins hopefully they will through Obama in jail!

Oh please, you know as well as anyone that the lawsuit wont go through and its all conjecture.

 

[Markp]

I honestly don't like the whole "we have a right," pro-2A argument simply due to the fact that the Constitution can be amended. If we continue on the current course, it is very possible that the Second Amendment will be repealed within the next fifty years, and then our arguments don't hold any water. There will be no basis for "we have a right to defend ourselves" outside of logical reasoning. So why not defer to logical reasoning now instead of waiting until that's a last resort? The 2A is a great defense in the interim via the courts, but I will never argue that I should be able to own a gun just because the Second Amendment says so.

As such I think it's imperative we attack this debate under the premise of guns in and of themselves aren't a threat, and we're sick and tired of lawmakers dictating how we conduct our own affairs. Any gun I own or possess will cause less harm to others than even those large cups of soda Bloomberg banned.

Well first of all, we don't have a "right" but rather the Government does not have the authority to strip us of our natural rights. Not only does it not have the right to deny us of out natural rights, it is expressly prohibited from doing so in ANY manner.

The Constitution does NOT define limits on our rights, but rather it defines limits on the authority granted the government. Unfortunately the government continues to grant itself more and more power through rather sketchy ruling in where they stated everything is interstate commerce and their power unending and omnipotent.

Until such time as we grow tired of the continued unrestricted growth of a government that refuses to limit itself. The government has appointed itself as our care taker, and we've all but allowed it to do so.

So, no, the government does NOT have the authority to enact ANY gun control. When will we realize that?

 

[Larry Gude]

I see it different.

You see a group of people begging that the remaining scraps of their rights be left alone.
I see a group of people begging our elected officials to choose a non violent resolution to this problem.



They're not raising taxes or closing a fire station. They're looking for control of your safety. They want to take away your best chance of defense. They want to take the choice from your hands. There are 4 boxes available to us right now. Passage of the bills before them leave only 1...and it ain't the ballot box.

Based on what I saw and heard in Annapolis, SB 281 should be lining bird cages as of now. It was soundly defeated on point after point after point. On facts, on reason, on the core issues it avoids addressing.

My point about begging for scraps is based on my concern that this mess is going to become law anyway. We, the people, are adamantly and fervently against this thing. Support for it amounted to a handful of government employees, a few interest group folks and one lady on the edge of hysteria. This is, easily, 1000:1 against.

So, if it is defeated, we can revisit where, we, the people stand in terms of whose government this is.

 

[Markp]

Based on what I saw and heard in Annapolis, SB 281 should be lining bird cages as of now. It was soundly defeated on point after point after point. On facts, on reason, on the core issues it avoids addressing.

My point about begging for scraps is based on my concern that this mess is going to become law anyway. We, the people, are adamantly and fervently against this thing. Support for it amounted to a handful of government employees, a few interest group folks and one lady on the edge of hysteria. This is, easily, 1000:1 against.

So, if it is defeated, we can revisit where, we, the people stand in terms of whose government this is.

But we haven't heard from the silent majority yet? They must be playing chess.

 

[sgt23preston]

Shall issue is still very much on the table. We are waiting for the Woullard decision.

I hear you Teratos, BUT, I honestly believe it's being purposely pushed "Under the Table" in the legislator while they figure out how to write new legislation to further restrict our ability to own the guns / rifles that we find attractive & useful...

Subterfuge is the term that comes to my mind...

Deceit used in order to achieve a goal.
An action resorted to in order to deceive.
evasion - ruse - trick - dodge

 

[teratos]

I hear you Teratos, BUT, I honestly believe it's being purposely pushed "Under the Table" in the legislator while they figure out how to write new legislation to further restrict our ability to own the guns / rifles that we find attractive & useful...

Subterfuge is the term that comes to my mind...

Deceit used in order to achieve a goal.
An action resorted to in order to deceive.
evasion - ruse - trick - dodge

It will never end. We will need to be forever vigilant.