“Long Gun Qual License Dead”

Occam said:

A non-religious person can still get behind this concept, because it essentially means "a right that exists by virtue of your existence." Meaning, something like the right to self defense can be rationally derived from the very nature of our existence - whether you attribute that existence to natural or supernatural circumstances.



Not to pick nits, but it's a right recognized as being universal and doggedly protected by our founders - not given. I know we're just talking among friends here, but it's a good habit to practice always referring to such rights as being universal, and not given by government. We don't want to use language that even flirts with that concept, because it lends power to those who consider a thing "given" by government to be thus at the whim of government. And it takes most of the states in the union to agree that such a change needs to happen. We're a LONG way from 37+ states thinking the protection of these rights needs to go away.



Yes, indeed. In Maryland, for example, I think there is more power in being realistic. Realistic about the demographics of the financial power and voting blocks in the state. Realistic about the left's inertia on so many fronts. Being realistic about those things means being able to have a sober, rational analysis of where our side's finite resources and energy are spent. For us, it's all about the courts. Which is NOT to diminish the philosophical importance of telling these people to their faces that they're wrong ... because if nothing else, that will make the "I told you so" moments that will come with court victories so much more gratifying.

My dollars are going to those who are fighting to win these issues for us both in the state and nationally. And I'll do everything I can to make sure that we get more friendly federal judges and justices by keeping the Dems from running the Senate or taking over the White House. That entire area of work will trickle down to individual statutes here in MD, eventually. It's a good thing I've learned more patience as I've become grumpier and grayer.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

How will your liberty be doing if they pass these laws, you do not comply, and they toss you in prison? How will liberty be going then?

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

If they really did not care whatsoever, they would have passed everything the way it was written initially. Those abortions of bills would have been passed. They would not have listened to Hough, Pennak, Doherty, and others that testified competently and civilly and changed what has been changed to something way more reasonable and dare I say, common sense. The entire "transfer" bill is spot on with regard to the issue that Chow presented. It was scaled back to address the issue with criminals and how criminal defense attorneys had been getting their clients off from "loaning" firearms to other criminals.

I think the people in Annapolis are willing to listen IF we can present good reasons why certain laws suck. The shell casing law went away a couple years ago. The HQL law could also go away at some point since it does not appear to be making any difference as far as crimes are concerned. At some point, Maryland will have to do a 180 and try something a lot different than the gun control it has been attempting for 40+ years. Kind of like how illicit drug control has not been working, kind of like how prohibition did not work.

It just takes time for reasonable people to see and admit that their long term plan is NOT working out in the long term.

Click to expand...

Malleovic said:

We all stand in reality, whether we like to admit it or not. At the end of the day the constitution is a very old piece of paper, given meaningful weight only so long as actual, living human beings care to abide by it. There should be no illusion about this.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Exactly. Once a majority, or a super majority, decides the Constitution is a rag, then it is over. Once China invades, then it is over.

God given, unalienable what? Right to own a gun? Right to self defense, with hands and fists?

Click to expand...

danb said:

I prefer the term "natural" rights. If there is no god, all we have is natural selection. Predator with the biggest teeth usually wins. Nothing says "select me" more than a 357 magnum, except 300 BLK.

Click to expand...

PowPow said:

And you will be there to watch it all happen and write long posts about it until this forum is no more.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

So, if they are God given or unalienable, then how is it that they have passed so much gun control? Being that all men are created equal, which I disagree with, but that is a debate to wax philosophical on another day, then how is it that some countries expressly forbid people from owning firearms? If the ability to own a firearm is God given, God being all powerful, or it is unalienable, then how can this travesty occur in other countries and to a much lesser degree here in America.

I agree that we have the natural right to defend ourselves. No doubt about that. The question ends up being what our society will allow us to defend ourselves with. Why can't I buy a fully functional tank and the rounds to fire it? Why can't I drive that tank on the road. More likely to die in an auto accident than by gun fire.

We can discuss this for hours on end. The phrase "God given, unalienable right" is about as brilliant as "common sense".

Click to expand...

Boondock Saint said:

That phrase appears in the Declaration, touching upon unalienable rights. Unalienable rights! Rights that cannot be separated from the individual. Pieces of paper with text on them mean absolutely nothing when compared to unalienable rights. The phrase "pursuit of happiness" doesn't appear in the Constitution, only in the Declaration, but your point is nevertheless germane.

As far as Constitutional protection goes, the Constitution is a negative document. It spells out that which government may permissibly do, the rest defaults to the state/individual. This much is actually spelled out in the 10A. Our right to keep and bear arms isn't granted to us by the Constitution; the Constitution merely acknowledges the preexisting, unalienable right. Congress and the 50 states can unanimously pass laws and constitutional amendments that ban private firearm ownership, but that would do nothing to separate the unalienable right from us.

This is actually a great example that demonstrates that which is criminal isn't necessarily immoral, and vice versa. In the above world where every politician has, in simultaneous strokes of pens declared us all criminals, we are now breaking the law. We are criminals by definition. Are we now somehow immoral for owning firearms? Do we deserve to go to jail because a relatively small number of individuals say we're criminals? Hardly. This is why we are a republic and not a democracy.

A number of the Founders expressed concern that a Bill of Rights would lead to certain people thinking that only the rights mentioned therein were important, the others less so, or even nonexistent. Somehow, we live in a world where certain people think it's perfectly fine for someone to be jailed for putting something in their own body. Utter nonsense. Individual freedom requires responsibility. Restricting someone's personal freedom based on someone else's feelings/morals or lackthereof is ********.

I've occasionally linked to this thread in the past, and it's generally good when the subject of personal drug use comes up: https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=174901

Long story short: what I put into my body is my own business. What you put into your body is your business. It's really that simple.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

44 magnum, 50 S&W, 20mm, A1Abrams, F-35, ICBM

We can do a lot better than 357 magnum or 300 BLK

Click to expand...

Malleovic said:

Looks like we lost some posts.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Yeah, we broke the board and/or admin decided that stuff was garbage. So be it. I saw what others wrote, and that is good enough for me.

Hopefully, others saw what I wrote.

Click to expand...

Boondock Saint said:

I pulled a post from another thread that I think fits here:



Otherwise good and law abiding men continue to abide by gun control laws because they estimate that such a situation is more tolerable than the alternative. Once the opposite is true, I expect the situation will change, violently.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Yeah, we broke the board and/or admin decided that stuff was garbage. So be it. I saw what others wrote, and that is good enough for me.

Hopefully, others saw what I wrote.

Click to expand...

scjamesm said:

What was written?

Click to expand...

PowPow said:

Unfortunately, we did.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Yeah, we broke the board and/or admin decided that stuff was garbage. So be it. I saw what others wrote, and that is good enough for me.

Hopefully, others saw what I wrote.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

So, if they are God given or unalienable, then how is it that they have passed so much gun control? Being that all men are created equal, which I disagree with, but that is a debate to wax philosophical on another day, then how is it that some countries expressly forbid people from owning firearms? If the ability to own a firearm is God given, God being all powerful, or it is unalienable, then how can this travesty occur in other countries and to a much lesser degree here in America.

I agree that we have the natural right to defend ourselves. No doubt about that. The question ends up being what our society will allow us to defend ourselves with. Why can't I buy a fully functional tank and the rounds to fire it? Why can't I drive that tank on the road. More likely to die in an auto accident than by gun fire.

We can discuss this for hours on end. The phrase "God given, unalienable right" is about as brilliant as "common sense".

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

And others would write "fortunately". All a matter of perspective.

Click to expand...