|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,463
Posts545,044
Members14,409
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,118 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,118 Likes: 198 |
OK, it's settled then. If they vote to confiscate our weapons or our homes, we will obey and turn them over. I don't know how it worked in GB or Australia. Were those gun owners compensated at retail value? I think that would be a better deal than sitting behind the table at a gun show all weekend to sell a few guns. Will they use the Blue Book or a legislated chart of values?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,091 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,091 Likes: 13 |
If your local government decides that your house is in a location that is needed for the benefit of the government or the public good the supreme court has ruled they have the right to take it.
In the past this was for new roads, airports, etc. Pretty much only government projects.
Now if they want a strip mall (privately owned) they can take your home and all they have to say is that it is for the public good.
If they take your house getting fair market value can be difficult to determine. Many towns undervalue their appraisals. Few people complain about their appraisals because their taxes are based on a multiplier of that appraisal. Chances are you can get somewhere between the town or county appraised value and market value.
If they can do that I would imagine that a few guns would be no big deal to the government and it is not easy to sue an entity with unlimited money (yours).
So many guns, so little time!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 103
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 103 |
If your local government decides that your house is in a location that is needed for the benefit of the government or the public good the supreme court has ruled they have the right to take it.
In the past this was for new roads, airports, etc. Pretty much only government projects.
Now if they want a strip mall (privately owned) they can take your home and all they have to say is that it is for the public good. That is not what the Supreme Court said. The SC said it's up to the states to regulate this, not the Federal government. After this decision, many states passed laws protecting landowners. This is a basic states rights issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 103
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 103 |
I will surely anger many of you with my comments, but I find myself agreeing with most of Jim Zumbo's orginal statements.The assualt-type weapons look to me like they are designed to spew a lot of ammo at a target. I believe this is consistent with their original purpose as a military firearm. I have a hard time embracing this kind of weapon as a sporting arm. Please follow my thinking on this. I am not saying these guns should be outlawed, but I cannot understand a good sporting use for these guns. The kind of firepower they represent goes against the grain of my sporting upbringing.
I think the public views these guns as weapons designed to put a lot of lead on to a target. They associate these guns with the assault-type purposes that they were designed for. It is no accident that these guns are referred to as "assault weapons." My point is that by embracing this kind of firepower as a sporting arm, we may be cutting off our own noses in spite of ourselves. People running around in the woods dressed like Rambo and toting assualt weapons does not endear hunting to the general public and can easily contribute to just more land being locked away from hunters forever.
I believe that we have to remember that we need to be good ambassadors for our sport. Associating hunting with this kind of weapon will not help the sport of hunting.
Many of you will strongly disagree with me, but I hope you won't feel the urge to attack me as a decent person because I believe differently than you. I am still a hunter and a lover of our sport. I just think that these weapons do not serve our sport well. I had more respect for Jim Zumbo with his original position. I kind of feel his retraction looked like a "cave in" and I had a hard time following his reasoning for reversing his first statement. Being tired just seemed a little weak to me and not much of a support for his reversal.
Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermont Ed - I sincerely hope they ban doubleshotguns before they ban rifles. In fact, I will write my congressman and let him know if they only want to ban double shotguns and leave the rest alone, I will support that. Besides, I'd rather take my chances with "Rambo" taking 30 shots at me with a "military rifle" than standing in front of a 12 gauge. I live in the middle of deer hunting heaven. And I guarantee you, if you ask most "soccer moms" or sandal wearing suburbanite which "right" they'd rather give up - being able to defend yourself from an intruder or being able to shoot bambi or a bird 1/2 the size of a chicken, guess which one they'll pick? Wake up. Hunting is dead for a lot of people. There is no right to hunt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155 |
 Humor aside, Halvey makes an interesting point. There are a hell of a lot more guns in the US than there are hunters, and gun ownership has gone up even as hunting licenses have gone down.  If push came to shove, I'd give up hunting before I'd give up home defense. But if we're politically astute, we won't have to give up either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,752
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,752 |
King:
As I said - parse the logic of your position very carefully.
Your example is non-functional. The interesting thing is that enrolling James Meredith was supporting and defending the Constitution - "Equal Protection Clause", and all that.
True Natural Rights are not fungible, and are not dependent on the will of a majority. Or on human will at all.
Pretend that a majority in a Legislature passes a law that certain people, say Jews and Gypsies: have no civil rights, no right to life, and are not really people, and they may be shot on sight or sent to , umm.... lets see.. whats a good term... how about Konzentrationslager? After passing such a law, by majority, such people have no rights, right?
You are a journalist. If a majority passes a law requiring licensing of journalists, then thats ok, right?
That is the position you are espousing.
Natural rights transcend majoritarian will. Majorities control policies - not rights.
The Founding Fathers of this country did not suggest the Second Amendment was to settle policy matters - that is anarchy. For you to suggest that that is the position I and others here have presented( the American Classical Constitutionalist position) is silly - and another straw man argument. I would not have expected you to advance that - or perhaps I have been unclear in expressing just WHAT the Second Amendment is for. But , I have used plain English, as have several other folks, so I am led to conclude that you are being intentionally obtuse. The other possibility is that you have such a European idea of rights ( namely that they exist solely as the product of a majoritarian Legislative will - the new "Absolute Monarch" - and can be created and destroyed at the whim of the majority)that we cannot bridge the chasm between us.
I think like an American and you think like a Canadian.
Regards
GKT
Texas Declaration of Independence 1836 -The Indictment against the dictatorship, Para.16:"It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,118 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,118 Likes: 198 |
A statement to the effect that "A population deprived of its rights should not rebel because they have little chance of winning." is not what U.S. citizens have been taught and it is not part of U.S. history. I must remind some posters that disagreement with government policy beyond writing letters is a part of U.S. history, as recently as...probably yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 43
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 43 |
Hey King, if you were really here during the Meredith crisis; you would know that the confrontation took place on the Circle at Ole Miss, not the square in Oxford. I call b******t!
Last edited by MS_double_fan; 02/28/07 05:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
Bill, I agree; our history is not one of unvarying consensus. Do you have an approved list of dissenters from the majoritarian viewpoint? IWW on there, is it? Homestead strikers? Chicago 7?
jack
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
You're right, Bill, in that governments make new polity at home and overseas all the time. Ms Rice promised a new reality in the Middle East and Canada is trying to impose another with Leopard tanks and heavy artillery in Afghanistan.
The issue, I think, is in your previous message: "OK, it's settled then. If they vote to confiscate our weapons or our homes, we will obey and turn them over." Well, I guess so unless you're Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Army.
It seems unlikely to me that a country formed from Revolution and Civil War with the most liberal gun laws in the world would, in the current geopolitcal and domestic climate, beat its swords into spoons and live as lambs.
It's not going to happen. It can't happen. It's not in your bones.
|
|
|
|
|
