Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance

[Joeh]

Right. Now, to show the opposite of the argument above:
Even if you successfully find an enumerated power lurking somewhere in a forgotten corner of the Constitution permitting the federal government to regulate travel by air (the interstate commerce clause is the usual specious citation), such regulation still would have to comply explicitly with every single restriction of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments. Ain't no legal way around it.

I shake my head at the way putatively free people accept the ever-increasing demands to comply with ever-expanding federal laws inexorably tightening federal restrictions on every aspect of their day-to-day lives -- without once perceiving the irony that the very agency forcing their compliance in the very act of doing so blithely declines to comply with the law governing it: the Constitution of the United States. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of illegitimate, tyrannical, unjust, lawless government.

Even as I wrote it out earlier, it occurred to me that the notion of the government regulating the safety and security of privately owned aviation companies was suspect. Your example regarding my lack of ability to chose a competitive product or service that is more akin to my personal beliefs hammered that home for me.

This is the type of information I'm always looking out for, but unfortunately am not educated enough to be familiar with, although I am trying to learn.

So, again, I arrive back at a familiar place. If I know this, or it can be explained to me, why has nothing been done? Surely the SCOTUS can see the blatant violations of civil liberties. Is the majority really choking down the spoon fed 'national security' explanation we continue receiving? Or does it not even really matter what the majority wants anymore? Is it merely a facade, put in place to keep the citizens complacent with their dwindling liberties? I'm reminded of a statement one of my anti-2A law student buddies said, "sometimes we must give up parts of our liberties in order to benefit the greater good". But, is that really a true statement? I wonder if forfeiting any of my liberties is worth the 'safety and security' that I am promised in return. I, personally, feel the most safe, and the most secure, when I am prepared and ready to protect myself and my loved ones. I do not feel safe when my protection is to be provided by someone who is not around me at all times, nor is their duty to protect me.

While a great discussion, it is casting quite a dark cloud over my otherwise sunny outlook on life.

 

[tweetr]

If I know this, or it can be explained to me, why has nothing been done? Surely the SCOTUS can see the blatant violations of civil liberties. Is the majority really choking down the spoon fed 'national security' explanation we continue receiving? Or does it not even really matter what the majority wants anymore? Is it merely a facade, put in place to keep the citizens complacent with their dwindling liberties?

Because we lack the moral courage, the intestinal fortitude to stop it. Yes, the SCOTUS can read "shall not be infringed" just as clearly as you and I can. The justices ignore it because they can. They ignore it because we don't spank them for ignoring it. The intrinsic nature of all human governments that ever have or ever will exist upon the face of the earth is to aggregate power unto themselves at the expense and on the pain of their people. It is a driving, all-consuming lust as universal as any other lust of the human heart. But because it is more decentralized, it is less amenable to the mitigating moral influences on the human heart, and therefore more difficult to counter. Our government is no less lustful than any other, as our American DNA is no different from any other human DNA. That which makes our government unique in the history of man is that it explicitly recognizes the inherent evil of government and is so constructed to limit its own evil. The essential mechanism of the self-limit, however, is the eternal vigilance of the free citizens. If we let our attention wander, nothing prevents government from doing what all governments by their nature always do: steal, kidnap, murder, enslave, and oppress. Ours in that sense is not a new kind of human government that magically suppresses its own evil nature. It does so only so long and insofar as we make it heel.

one of my anti-2A law student buddies said, "sometimes we must give up parts of our liberties in order to benefit the greater good".

Your law student buddy evidently has not read his Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

This was a common sentiment of the day, probably not original to Franklin, that in part informed our own leap of faith into the heretofore never attempted national state of liberty. I would add to Franklin that he who gives up liberty to purchase security will soon find that he has neither, for the security so purchased is always a lie, while the liberty forfeited is always real.

By the way, do you perceive the irony in your phrase "anti-2A law student"? If not the Constitution, of what law is he a student?

What actions can the people not on the dole take to affect real change? What can they do to take back their liberties? How can they rid themselves of an entire class of people dedicated to the acquisition of power and retaining it at all costs?

What...

Here you ask a very difficult question. I do not advocate revolution. I advocate individual return to understanding of and moral confidence in our unique liberty. Quit voting for the usurpers! At every level, from neighborhood association and school board on up, insist on strict Constitutional adherence in particular, and the principles of liberty in general. When any official proves subject to the lusts of power, throw the bum out on his ear! Man the pitchforks and flaming torches (in the polling booth!)

I find this a severely uphill battle, fraught with personal heartache. I find myself, for instance, in a small neighborhood association (a serious mistake I will never repeat) peopled by a small minority who believe they have both the right and the duty to interfere in their neighbors' lives. I am continually amazed at how difficult it is to sell even the majority of nice folks on the moral superiority of liberty; in this context of merely insisting that the vocal minority mind their own business. In doing so I make actual enemies! I find it simply bizarre how angry putatively free citizens become upon hearing liberty advocated. I find actual, visceral fear at the thought that other people might not be under external legalistic control, even in the simple context of a nice neighborhood peopled by mostly nice people. I find that the substantial majority of nice people utterly lack the moral courage to oppose the blatant, angry, disruptive, harsh usurpations of the vocal minority against their own neighbors.

This problem is an individual one. When individual Americans neither understand nor cherish their essential liberties, any attempt to restore them at a national level is doomed. I therefore strive at every opportunity to convince my fellow man of the moral superiority of liberty. In my home, in the cockpit, on the job, in my neighborhood, and even here on this forum (among other places), I advocate liberty in the faint but worthy hope that we may someday achieve a critical mass. In the mean time I vote "no" on every tax or bond issue, no matter what the stated reason for it; I vote "no" on every "shall judge so-and-so be retained"; I vote for the most liberty-minded candidate I can find for every office; I importune my representatives for liberty-minded actions; and I vote to throw the bums out every time they succumb to the siren song of state control.

Y'know what I would love to see as a good start? Here in Oklahoma and in like-minded states a very simple law passed that would not require hundreds of pages: "It shall be a felony punishable by <insert stiff felony penalty here> for any public official to seek to enforce any unconstitutional law in the state of Oklahoma." I would love to see the burden to comply placed where it belongs: on those who seek to force us to comply.

 

[Joeh]

Because we lack the moral courage, the intestinal fortitude to stop it. Yes, the SCOTUS can read "shall not be infringed" just as clearly as you and I can. The justices ignore it because they can. They ignore it because we don't spank them for ignoring it. The intrinsic nature of all human governments that ever have or ever will exist upon the face of the earth is to aggregate power unto themselves at the expense and on the pain of their people. It is a driving, all-consuming lust as universal as any other lust of the human heart. But because it is more decentralized, it is less amenable to the mitigating moral influences on the human heart, and therefore more difficult to counter. Our government is no less lustful than any other, as our American DNA is no different from any other human DNA. That which makes our government unique in the history of man is that it explicitly recognizes the inherent evil of government and is so constructed to limit its own evil. The essential mechanism of the self-limit, however, is the eternal vigilance of the free citizens. If we let our attention wander, nothing prevents government from doing what all governments by their nature always do: steal, kidnap, murder, enslave, and oppress. Ours in that sense is not a new kind of human government that magically suppresses its own evil nature. It does so only so long and insofar as we make it heel.

If this is truly the answer, then were we not doomed as a country from the start? Will our centralized government, and for that matter our country, go the same route as all of the world powers that came before us? If we are not able to prevent, what appears to me to be inevitable, then how can we have any hope that the next evolutionary cycle can do better? I'd like to think that we're reaching a point in our country that unrest is becoming something too large to ignore; the people of our country are growing tired of the lies, deceit, and lust for power. But, as I look at my peers, this isn't what I see. I see a group of young people who are ready and willing to sacrifice their own liberties in the pursuit of what the government tells them is good. Not to mention that talk of anything different is met with only hate and disdain. I never thought I'd grow up to be the guy that everyone thought was crazy, who wanted to live in the middle of no where and just be left alone, but I'm starting to feel like that would be a lot better than I ever imagined.

Your law student buddy evidently has not read his Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

This was a common sentiment of the day, probably not original to Franklin, that in part informed our own leap of faith into the heretofore never attempted national state of liberty. I would add to Franklin that he who gives up liberty to purchase security will soon find that he has neither, for the security so purchased is always a lie, while the liberty forfeited is always real.

By the way, do you perceive the irony in your phrase "anti-2A law student"? If not the Constitution, of what law is he a student?

Perhaps they haven't. I enjoy a solid back and forth conversation, so it is entirely possible that they were simply holding the opposite side of the debate. I know very little of their actual stance on the 2A, but I imagine she would be willing to 'compromise' our rights, where compromise reads as 'give up something you have, for nothing in return'.

Despite being a few short months away from taking the BAR, I'm not sure she would see the irony in her position.

I advocate individual return to understanding of and moral confidence in our unique liberty. Quit voting for the usurpers! At every level, from neighborhood association and school board on up, insist on strict Constitutional adherence in particular, and the principles of liberty in general. When any official proves subject to the lusts of power, throw the bum out on his ear! Man the pitchforks and flaming torches (in the polling booth!)

I find this a severely uphill battle, fraught with personal heartache. I find myself, for instance, in a small neighborhood association (a serious mistake I will never repeat) peopled by a small minority who believe they have both the right and the duty to interfere in their neighbors' lives. I am continually amazed at how difficult it is to sell even the majority of nice folks on the moral superiority of liberty; in this context of merely insisting that the vocal minority mind their own business. In doing so I make actual enemies! I find it simply bizarre how angry putatively free citizens become upon hearing liberty advocated. I find actual, visceral fear at the thought that other people might not be under external legalistic control, even in the simple context of a nice neighborhood peopled by mostly nice people. I find that the substantial majority of nice people utterly lack the moral courage to oppose the blatant, angry, disruptive, harsh usurpations of the vocal minority against their own neighbors.

This problem is an individual one. When individual Americans neither understand nor cherish their essential liberties, any attempt to restore them at a national level is doomed

Unfortunately I'd have to agree. Even before this discussion, when I had a weaker position (thanks for all the positive remarks and educated responses!) I was still considered to be an extremist by many of my friends. It astounds me the rate at which my peers are willing to sacrifice rights and liberties for perceived gains. They refuse to educate themselves on the subjects, rather deferring to the government/media for their opinion.

Y'know what I would love to see as a good start? Here in Oklahoma and in like-minded states a very simple law passed that would not require hundreds of pages: "It shall be a felony punishable by <insert stiff felony penalty here> for any public official to seek to enforce any unconstitutional law in the state of Oklahoma." I would love to see the burden to comply placed where it belongs: on those who seek to force us to comply.

Hell, I would love to see an individual that holds an office, to do it WITHOUT being threatened with penalty, simply because it is the right thing to do. They are supposed to serve, they are supposed to do what is best for the people. They should not need to be reminded that their job is to uphold the existing law, yet here we are... Personal honor through doing the right thing is all but dead in the political realm. The chase for power and who can make the biggest media splash is all that matters now. Those who do good, by nature, are trampled in the process.

I wonder how long it will take before my friends, or before the rest of my demographic, becomes aware enough of these problems that something must be done. When will enough be enough? Obviously, dismantling the 2A isn't where the line is drawn, since even here in Oklahoma I have enough friends that would do away with it that it scares me. Will it be the 1st? What about the 4th? Maybe it will be something else entirely. The problem I have is that it has made it this far, without being stopped, simply because those of us who should be calling for government compliance with the constitution, are too busy to worry about it.