Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I threw up a little in my mouth reading the paper this morning...

http://www.macon.com/mld/telegraph/news ... 163434.htm

Evil gun laws

Recently Virginia's U.S. Sen. George Allen introduced in Congress a bill that would allow the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks. His logic was that national park regulations deny visitors "a right they may enjoy outside the parks." The Second Amendment ensures "a collective right to bear arms...." But in recent times this has been wrongly translated and confused as a law guaranteeing an individual's right to carry a weapon in public. Now our public safety is in danger with this misguided thinking, which is promoted by the National Rifle Association in its ideal state of "armed paranoia." This only makes the public more endangered, not safer.

In the past year 15 states, including Georgia, have passed laws allowing victims of crimes to shoot someone who threatens them without fear of prosecution for murder. These new laws are nothing but "get-out-of-jail-free" cards for the trigger-happy gun owner. Their rewards are almost automatic immunity from prosecution and civil lawsuits. This is insanity.

Our society already has laws and court precedent for legitimate kill-or-be-killed situations that are defensible in court. There never has been an urgent need for a law that enshrines the right to maim or kill in response to a perceived threat. These laws are both unnecessary and evil.

Frank W. Gadbois
Warner Robins
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Wow, talk about knee jerk reaction to gun laws.

Even IF the 2nd was a "collective right" (which it is not), then how can a federal law ban carry in places inside the state from those people the state has certified as allowed to carry?

Either way you slice it, individual right or state/collective right, a federal ban on property inside the state is not allowed. It is either a collective/state right and only the state can restrict carry or it is an individual right and neither state nor federal can restrict carry.

Yes, I think that applies to other federal laws currently on the books.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I strated to write up a response, using Eugene Volokh..."The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. These rights are clearly individual -- they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person".

But, then again I figured what's the point, it would be like trying to reason with a tree stump. What part of "right of the people" don't they understand?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,215 Posts
My response to this same logic from an anti on another forum I belong to...

If you think the Second Amendment is a group right and not an individual right, explain to me why EVERY other Amendment in the Bill of Rights should not be viewed the same way. Lets see...

First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " OK you can have freedom of speech and religion BUT ONLY AS PART OF A GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED AND ORGANIZED CHURCH OR NEWS AGENCY

Third Amendment - "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." But the Gov has imminent domain so you don't actually own your house so they can quarter troops there all they want!

Fourth Amendment - " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " We already violate the heck outta this one. No knock warrants based on the word of "reliable sources" who are actually criminals trying to work the system for their own benefit. But say its a group right then they can come search your individual house all they want, they just cant search your whole block at one time.

Fifth Amendment - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " A lot of different pieces to this one. Can't be convicted twice for same crime, ok, only if you committed the crime as part of an organized crime group sanctioned by the Gov.... etc.

Sixth Amendment - "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. " As before, only if the accused was part of an organized Gov sanctioned Crime group.

Seventh Amendment - "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Sure you can have a speedy trial by jury as long as you are a member of the American Bar Association....

Eighth Amendment - " Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." See above

Ninth Amendment - " The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." As a whole, not individually. You have no individual rights.

Tenth Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " You get the idea by now I hope.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide the people a means to protect their rights from an oppressive Government! The Second Amendment protects all the others! The first thing an oppressive government does is disarm the people. Hitler did it in Germany in 1939, Castro did it in Cuba, the list goes on and on. So you say that the Second Amendment means the National Guard? Who do you think controls them?

OK, lets just say that were not worried about the Gov getting out of control. What about the basic human right to protect yourself and your loved ones. No law in the world is going to keep criminals from getting weapons. Gun control laws only keep law abiding citizens from having the means to defend themselves!
__________________
Semper Fi,
The Gunns

When it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed overnight... US Marines!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
You could spend 200 words attacking any one of the several fallacies in that letter to the editor.

Basically the rant boils down to: trust me, the NRA and all laws they support are wrong, I don't have the knowledge or the ability to explain why.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,451 Posts
my letter

MY LETTER TO THE MACON TELEGRAPH:

Frank Gadbois' recent letter here announced his opposition to a proposed change in federal law that would allow firearms to be possessed in national parks. Mr. Gadbois' argument and rhetoric, however, was no more than a rally against the NRA and against the practice of carrying firearms generally. Nothing in his letter was specific to the issue of federal property, or national parks.

I say that the issue of whether civilians should be allowed to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon for their personal defense has long ago been answered in the affirmative, though Mr. Gadbois would wish it otherwise. So the only question that is before us to answer now is a more narrow one: What is special about national parks that should invalidate properly-issued state gun carry permits?

Are national parks places that are so heavily guarded and well-secured, like courthouses, that visitors there would be unreasonable to be concerned about personal safety? Or are these parks places where criminals and psychopaths sometimes take innocent lives, especially the lives of female park visitors traveling or exercising alone? Are these parks places where help is just a shout and a couple seconds away, or are these parks often desolate places where people are a long way from civilization, and a long way from the nearest police station, and where many people's wireless phones won't even pick up a signal?

I say that it makes no sense to say to a law-abiding citizen with a valid state-issued gun carry permit "you can carry your firearm with you almost anywhere in this state, but not in a park." There is no logical reason for parks to be off-limits to firearms generally. Other laws related to illegal use of firearms (hunting where forbidden, discharging a firearm along a public road) or the use of firearms in a way that is unsafe or creates a noise nusiance for other park visitors, can and should remain in effect.

Finally, even people who don't desire to have a gun available for their protection in a national park, but might want to have their gun with them at other times and under other circumstances during this same trip or vacation, have a dilemma when it comes to parks. Why should they be forced to leave the gun at home, and be without it in every place they travel during their entire trip just so as not to violate the law when they drive onto park property with that firearm in the vehicle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Gunsmoker - They published it this morning BUT LEFT OUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
They also edited other paragraphs. For example, they remove the sentence referring to cell-phones having no signal in most parks.
 

·
Romans 10:13
Joined
·
4,649 Posts
I read that in the Macon Telegraph yesterday as well. Some people are just clueless. Another "thank you" Gunsmoker for taking the time to respond.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,744 Posts
Good job!

They should not have edited out the "cell phone signal" part, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
I would have written in, but I don't think that they would publish my letter stating:

"Frank W. Gadbois of Warner Robins is a dumba**."
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top