White House response to my letter on 2nd Amendment

We make laws that are for the common good. Some may not like the laws that are made but they are made by an elected body. That elected body's job is to make law.for the good of all.

I prefer to think that the laws and enactment of them will be agreeable to all parties, but I think not. I think there will be some whack jobs that want complete bans and some whack jobs who want bazookas and tanks.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree that our elected body makes laws that some dont like.

BUT, What makes our system one of the best ever devised ,in my opinion is rhe bill of rights.

It is what protects each of us individually from the lawmakers who think they know whats best for us.

Firearms ownership can be restricted, the constitution can be changed, but it was designed to be very difficult for the majority to take these specific rights away from individuals.

It could also be argued that we still do have the right to own bazooka and tanks. If needed "we the people" meaning the militia, or national guard have access to this in each state in case of emergency.

At least we used too.

We have "compromised" to the point where where the federal government straps us into our cars, tells us what devices we can touch while driving.

They are in my bathroom regulating my toilet and light bulbs and how fast the water can come out of my shower. This list could go on for pages.

I think we have compromised enough for awhile.

If you dont like guns change the constitution or leave us alone.

I'm not directing this at you personally Mr brunger. But the people who are just looking out for our my own good are interfering with my life more than my enemies.

Mike
Click to expand...
 
But on further thought it seems to me that most political and societal problems can be reduced to the concept that we either belong to ourselves or we belong to the government, society, or a king.

I find it hard to compromise on this, If I don't belong to myself, then I'm a slave.
__________________________________________________


No, I think you are missing something. You are a free man, but, we (all of us in the US) live in a Republic... which is for the people by the people. We make laws that are for the common good. Some may not like the laws that are made but they are made by an elected body. That elected body's job is to make laws for the good of all.

I prefer to think that the laws and enactment of them will be agreeable to all parties, but I think not. I think there will be some whack jobs that want complete bans and some whack jobs who want bazookas and tanks.
Click to expand...

If the Republic worked perfectly as you describe - the Bill of Rights and system of checks and balances would not be needed. The Bill of Rights exists to protect certain things, things that in their wisdom the founding fathers saw as likely to be infringed upon by government. Damn few things are specifically protected in the Bill of rights and other amendments. The personal freedom to have guns to protect oneself was important enough that it got special mention on the list. It doesn't matter if gun owners are 1%, without further amendment we have that right.
Click to expand...
Tod's observation about the 1% is the point here. The Representative Republic form of government, guided by the Constitution and Amendments (Bill of Rights) protects the individual. The US is not a true Democracy, for a very specific reason. It is a lousey paraphrase, but "protecting the rights of the individual from mob rule" is the closest I can come off the top of my head. A good example of what the libs think of Constitutional Rights which inconvenience them is what CT's esteemed new Senator did yesterday... He wrote to Rupert Murdoch demanding that he (Fox Network) not televise the NASCAR NRA 500. Isn't there a 1st Amendment that the libs hold so dear? Apparently, though, in this case differing views are to be censored upon the demand of a man who is charged in part with upholding the Constitution. "For the Children"!!!! Thank you for this Comrade. Unless we are willing to live in a completely different US than we grew up in, as it pertains to individual freedoms of which gun rights are only one, we need to stand together now and say no more.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
We live in a constitutional republic. The Bill of Rights came out of the Federalist Paper(s). The first 10 amendments
were necessary to convince the states to agree to accept the constitution and an elected central government. The first 10
are written in stone as far as I'm concerned. It takes an amendment to change an amendment. No elected official,
or group ,there of ,can make any law that contradicts the constitution.It's that simple. Every politician takes an oath to uphold the constitution. When I went into Army,I took an oath,like every man and woman who has ever
served. I took it seriously. We live in a world where values seem to be in a state of flux,....but not mine. If I use
the word "guns" in any positive light,say that I love my country and am a patriot,and mention that I'm a Christian,
in some places that'll get me a snide look,and the label,"right-wing extremist". I'm not an extremist,however, I won't,willingly, let my values or my rights be compromised or infringed upon,ever.
 
A good example of what the libs think of Constitutional Rights which inconvenience them is what CT's esteemed new Senator did yesterday... He wrote to Rupert Murdoch demanding that he (Fox Network) not televise the NASCAR NRA 500. Isn't there a 1st Amendment that the libs hold so dear? Apparently, though, in this case differing views are to be censored upon the demand of a man who is charged in part with upholding the Constitution. "For the Children"!!!! Thank you for this Comrade.
Click to expand...
WHAT!! Now that's just UNAmerican! The gaul of some people! He was probably one of those that pushed to have dodge ball taken out of schools because he was targeted as a kid! Or had his face pushed into the drinking fountain, Or got spanked by is parents when all the other dweebs got time outs. Where consequences for his parents actions raised a kid that said I'll show you. I'll make laws that you can't discipline me or I'll sue and call child services because only a villiage can raise me right. The guy sounds like a villiage idiot!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Mike,
:If I may go off on a slight rant:

The costs of ignorance far outweighs the inconvenience regarding several of the items you list.

Conserving resources preserving human life? Pffft who cares about those things!!! right? Oh wait, I belong to DU, so I guess I care about preserving resources. I pay taxes and have insurance costs that in some cases are used to provide care for uninsured or under insured people. I don't mind paying (I hope I am lucky enough to always be cared for if something like my current situation were to change). I do however have issues when a person made a personal choice to do something destructive. example? You don't wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle? fine! but you can't collect from funds if the unthinkable happens. Smoke? sorry, when you have treatment costs that exceed your healthcare limit? Sorry, You chose to smoke.

Constitutional republic... YES, My point exactly. The constitution isn't laws, it is a written doctrine to guide the laws. And, as I stated, legislators (that we all vote on) are chosen to write legislation that will help govern and protect the good of the masses from "mob rule" or extremists from any angle!

[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]I think the problem lies within us. We as humans like to be able to point fingers and place blame. We allow media outlets to easily grab hold of that, and direct us from one side to another. We have been polarized. If you look at any issue there are many shades of grey and the problem with us is we tend to forget those grey areas and only focus on black and white. The media and lobbyists for both sides of any issue prey on that nature and can easily drag us into one of two sides. I have ALWAYS tried to see things from both sides and see where common ground is and try to get there. I also try to self evaluate and see if my views infringe on others and try to not be one of the people who mongers fear or who draws lines in the sand saying you are either on this side of the line or that side of the line.


[/font]
 
Mike,
:If I may go off on a slight rant:

The costs of ignorance far outweighs the inconvenience regarding several of the items you list.

Conserving resources preserving human life? Pffft who cares a bout those things!!! right? Oh wait, I belong to DU, so I guess I care about preserving resources. I pay taxes and have insurance costs that in some cases are used to provide care for uninsured or under insured people. I don't mind paying (I hope I am lucky enough to always be cared for if something like my current situation were to change). I do however have issues when a person made a personal choice to do something destructive.


[/size][/COLOR][/font]
Click to expand...

Did the government require you to join DU?

Did I. Ask you to pay the costs of my bad choices?

Your assumption that I am so ignorant that I cant take care of myself is exactly what led to the burden being placed on your shoulders.

Now I can agree that my misuse of public resources to the point where I am affecting others should be a point of compromise.
But the people living in large urban areas assuming that thier rules should apply to everyone is a problem for me.

You dont want me to ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

Maybe I dont like skiing, rock climbing bungee jumping, scuba diving, car racing, parachuting, ect, ect,
But I would defend your right to do them, just dont send me the bill if things go wrong.

For the record I dont ride anymore, I dont smoke or drink, dont own any black rifles and manage my property to benefit the wildlife living there.
I also volunteer on local conservations programs.
Not that its anyone elses business but your implication that I "care" less than you got under my skin.
 
DBRUNGER "Constitutional republic... YES, My point exactly. The constitution isn't laws, it is a written doctrine to guide the laws. And, as I stated, legislators (that we all vote on) are chosen to write legislation that will help govern and protect the good of the masses from "mob rule" or extremists from any angle! "


You're wrong. The Constitution is "THE LAW "!!. It is the absolute. It's not a guide,or a suggestion,it is
the LAW OF THE LAND. Only the SCOTUS decides if a piece of legislation violates the constitution,not the
president,not congress,nobody. To amend the Constitution is a pretty hefty undertaking.Google it,I don't
feel like typing it out.
 
Last edited:
DBRUNGER "Constitutional republic... YES, My point exactly. The constitution isn't laws, it is a written doctrine to guide the laws. And, as I stated, legislators (that we all vote on) are chosen to write legislation that will help govern and protect the good of the masses from "mob rule" or extremists from any angle! "


You're wrong. The Constitution is "THE LAW "!!. It is the absolute. It's not a guide,or a suggestion,it is
the LAW OF THE LAND. Only the SCOTUS decides if a piece of legislation violates the constitution,not the
president,not congress,nobody. To amend the Constitution is a pretty hefty undertaking.Google it,I don't
feel like typing it out.
Click to expand...

Thank you for typing as much as you did Chris. My fingers have gotten too much exercise already today. ;-)
 
Did the government require you to join DU?

Did I. Ask you to pay the costs of my bad choices?

Your assumption that I am so ignorant that I cant take care of myself is exactly what led to the burden being placed on your shoulders.

Now I can agree that my misuse of public resources to the point where I am affecting others should be a point of compromise.
But the people living in large urban areas assuming that thier rules should apply to everyone is a problem for me.

You dont want me to ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

Maybe I dont like skiing, rock climbing bungee jumping, scuba diving, car racing, parachuting, ect, ect,
But I would defend your right to do them, just dont send me the bill if things go wrong.

For the record I dont ride anymore, I dont smoke or drink, dont own any black rifles and manage my property to benefit the wildlife living there.
I also volunteer on local conservations programs.
Not that its anyone elses business but your implication that I "care" less than you got under my skin.
Click to expand...


I didn't insinuate that you "care less" but was merely making the point that a lot of the examples in your post regarding "Government intervention" were in fact more beneficial to the well being of our society. Regardless of socioeconomic status, geographical location there are reasons for protecting the society!

The fact that you belong to a conservation society shows that either you do care or, are donating for self benefit. (I am not saying which you are, you in your own heart know why you do)... and if it is because you care, you must agree that several laws and regulations that you mentioned are for the benefit of society.

One of the main reasons for my statement of helmets, seatbelts (which you brought up) and smoking is because the cost to society is great when those choices are made.
so to your point,
Did YOU ask me to pay for your decisions? No.
Have YOU and I been affected by others bad decisions? Absolutely. The laws are made to cut down on the burden incurred by the general population.

Did the government make me join DU? NO... but I agree with the government when they regulate emissions from power plants, regulate new toilet purchases to "low flow", etc. because that is a benefit to society as a whole. It will help us keep air and waterways clean for our enjoyment but more importantly for society as a whole.
 

Did YOU ask me to pay for your decisions? No.
Have YOU and I been affected by others bad decisions? Absolutely. The laws are made to cut down on the burden incurred by the general population.
.[/QUOTE]
The
One final try.

The bad decisions that have affected me most were made by lawmakers ignoring the restraints placed on them by the constitution.

If you believe that you have a right to make decisions for other more "ignorant" men. Then you must also accept the decisions made for you by " more educated men"

I believe the "bill of rights" was intended to protect us from these "most educated men".

If you see the constitution as a "guideline" a " living breathing document"" then you have lost the protection it was meant to give.

This concludes my foray into politics.
Next time I'm home recovering from surgery I'm only clicking on the hunting posts.

All the best
Mike
 


I didn't insinuate that you "care less" but was merely making the point that a lot of the examples in your post regarding "Government intervention" were in fact more beneficial to the well being of our society. Regardless of socioeconomic status, geographical location there are reasons for protecting the society!

The laws are made to cut down on the burden incurred by the general population.

Did the government make me join DU? NO... but I agree with the government when they regulate emissions from power plants, regulate new toilet purchases to "low flow", etc. because that is a benefit to society as a whole. It will help us keep air and waterways clean for our enjoyment but more importantly for society as a whole.
Click to expand...


Me thinks you better go back to school and maybe pay attention this time. The Constituion was written to protect the individual from exaactly what you say above. The Federal Government was granted very limited powers by the States when the Constitution was ratified. It has become so twisted over time that it has lost much of it's meaning. Everyday a little bit gets taken away. how the hell can the government mandate that you buy something and if you don't you will be heavily taxed? What the hell?

If you think laws/rules/regulations are made to "cut down on the burden incurred by the general population", go back to smoking whatever it is you are. Are you nuts? Let me give you but one example of the thousands that exist.

Keystone pipeline. Obama says it is to protect the environment (and then from your understanding of the Constitution) protect the general population. Dead wrong. Follow the money. Who was one of the biggest Billionaires telling us we needed to be taxed more so it is fair. Warren Buffet. Who owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe and a couple of other railroads - yep, Warren Buffet. Who would lose a bunch of business if the pipeline carried oil instead of trains - yep again Warren Bufrfet. If you understand how rail contracts are written, the last thing Buffet needs is to lose these contracts or become uncompetitive.

Now tell me again how this cuts down on the burden for the general population?

Government is about governement. Those in power want to keep power. Power is intoxicating and the worst drug out there in my opinion. The way those in power stay in power is by giving things away to those who can give them money and influence to stay in power. The only way the little guy can get heard is to join forces to be bigger and have more influence than the billionaires.

Mark W
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top