Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 2134934" data-attributes="member: 5183"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p>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!)</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tweetr, post: 2134934, member: 5183"] 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. 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? 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom