The USCCA supports our RKBA - that is irrespective of political party. Our inalienable rights should not be a matter of which party is in control of our Republic. The fact that the Democratic politicians seek to erode our rights should be of concern to all of us, again, irrespective of which political party you favor or belong to.
3 Likes
Very true, unfortunately, voting for a Democratic politician is voting against our inalienable rights as evidenced by the Democratic-controlled states and localities.
4 Likes
I understand what you’re saying, @Dave17, but there may be other issues that are hotter topics for people. I’m not saying that they’re right or wrong or that the Second doesn’t help protect everyone, but there are other topics that may be more immediately important to them.
I don’t think there is one person here who 100% agree with either political party platform and we have to vote based on the most important issues to us as individuals and our most important communities.
4 Likes
More like most were not, but three.
“Half the Declaration’s signers had some sort of divinity school training”, but that does not necessarily make them ministers or any other type of religious leader. Neither am I stating they were not religious, obviously most probably were, at least to some extent.
From this site, Christian Heritage Fellowship:
John Knox Witherspoon, listed as a Presbyterian minister
Lyman Hall, listed as physician and clergyman
1 Like
I believe our inalienable rights are the most important issues. Without them we become subjects, as the Democratic-controlled states and localities in the USA prove. I still recall that CNN (?) reporter’s statement reporting on the police in Venezuela crushing the protesters and stating that they could not fight back because they did not have the RKBA. I recall the riots of this Summer where the Democratic leaders forced the police to stand down and let innocent people get harmed and private and public property be stolen, burned and destroyed.
I have no issue with someone being different, politically, sexually, gender identity, whatever. I do have an huge issue with politicians that destroy our rights, refuse to abide by their oaths and let harm come to those they are supposed to protect and represent while their localities are looted and burned.
4 Likes
Thanks. I was sure there were those that had some formal training and belief since the framers were against enlightened despots like the King of England. I hope I did not misrepresent myself, though.
However, it still goes to show the favor the freedom of religion was strictly engrained into the minds of the framers as they parted ways with merry old England and started anew with a new representative government for the colonies. Good though.
2 Likes
“Democratic politicians seeking to erode our rights” is a partisan belief, not a fact. They do believe in common sense laws concerning guns, but so do I. I have no problem with making it harder for people who should not have guns to get them. I am still shopping for another insurance alternative. Hopefully with a company that does not try and sell me on their politics. But thanks for responding.
That is what is also known as “Gun Control” laws. No, we do not need anymore laws that are unconstitutional. California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and others prove that does not work and infringes only on the law-abiding. The Byzantine laws they have serve only to diminish our rights and make the RKBA more onerous, costly, and legally perilous.
“Gun control” also is discriminatory, and since I believe in our country’s principle of egalitarianism, I do not believe in “gun control”. In states with the most repressive firearm laws, minorities and women have the lowest percentage of firearm ownership to their respective populations compared to more liberal states. Making it cost hundreds or more dollars to exercise a right means only the wealthy will be able to afford firearms. That certainly counters the Democratic politicians claim to help the poor and minorities. Those most in need of self-defense can’t afford it. If they had a program to provide the poor with firearms and training, I would willing fund that.
The USCCA is not selling you on “their” politics. The USCCA is not a political organization. You will find that most people that believe in the RKBA believe in our inalienable Constitutionally protected rights, those same rights the Democratic politicians are seeking to revoke with their unconstitutional laws.
That is not a “partisan” belief. Look at what those politicians are advocating - disembowelment of our inalienable RKBA. Assorted firearm and mag bans, enormous fees to obtain firearms or permits, etc. As an example, as a citizen of Virginia, I would be violating NYS law if I entered that state with a firearm. In Virginia - even after the Democrats recently enacted horrible “gun control” laws this year - a person, from any state, that is legally allowed to possess a firearm, can open-carry, no permit or anything required, and can CC if he/she has a carry permit from any state. NYS is a “gun control” state, VA is getting there - since the Democrats passed bad laws. Prior to the Democratic takeover, our firearm laws were actually becoming more liberal. Maryland with very repressive firearm laws has much higher violent crime rates and firearm-related crime rates than Virginia does with its much more liberal firearm laws.
Some of the Democratic politicians even advocate repeal of the 2A. Jefferson clearly stated that our RKBA would exist even if the 2A did not, that it is a Natural Right, pre-existing government and the Law of Man. These same politicians took an oath to defend our Constitution. Part of that is the RKBA.
4 Likes
Well hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we have had gun control for a long time. I will not vote or advocate for laws that make it extremely difficult for law abiding citizens to get guns. I will advocate for measures that make it harder for people that are not supposed to have them, to get them. I will advocate for required training, permits, and registrations. I do not seek or require your agreement on the matter. Laws vary from state to state, so if you need more liberal laws then you can consider your residency. But who I support is not based on party, or any one, or two issues. It is always based on who I believe is most qualified and mirrors the majority of my views. While I appreciate your input, and respect your opinion, it will not alter my opinion on the matter. I live in SC, have a permit, and carry almost everywhere I go. I do this simply because I know that there are people who should not have guns, carrying them around. It would be great ( even though unrealistic at this point ) not to feel the need to carry. So I have no problem with laws that make it harder for some. One last point. You said that it is a fact that democrats eroded our rights. That “is” a partisan view. Laws of any party will always be deemed to affect someone’s rights. Thanks for your response.
3 Likes
How has your getting permission to own/carry affected those you believe “should not” have guns? It seems you openly admit that gun control has not worked in your state, as you know people that should not be carrying. Would making your obtaining or maintaining ownership more difficult affect these people that you know should not carry?
No, Democratic politicians are eroding our RKBA - a fact proven by the states and localities that have passed “gun control”.
That is a discriminatory idea that “certain” people should not have “certain” rights. Remember Jim Crow? “Certain” people were denied the RKBA and to vote. There were even such things as a literacy test and a poll tax. Compare those to your training requirement and licensing ($$$). Who will be most impacted by increased costs? The wealthy or the poor? In the USA we do not believe in privileges, we believe in our inalienable rights. If your government decided to increase the training and cost of your permission slip to an amount that you could not afford, would you still believe in “certain” people being expensed-out of firearm ownership?
6 Likes
Hello @Leslie17. I appreciate the dialog and welcome to the forum.
IMO a license to own a firearm should not be needed, as in the case of driving (permit/license) and owning (registration/title) a car. In the case of driving, you are on publicly financed roads and driving is a privilege, not a right. Therefore we have licensing and testing.
But self-defense is an inalienable right per the US Constitution. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. LIFE is #1 on the list. And IMO the right to life extends to the right of self-defense, and to keep and bear arms…with no license required.
7 Likes
Yeah, I’m not for punishing all because of the few.
3 Likes
Gun control has not worked because there are too many loopholes. Why even have a background check for business sales but not for private sales? How does that help anything? That is sort of like having DUI laws and then only applying it to city limits. It is not discriminatory if you enhance and enforce the laws preventing people that it is already unlawful from easily obtaining weapons. I am not for increased cost. I don’t see that as helping much. I already posted what I am for, so I see no reason to retype it. Your first post said that Democrats are eroding our rights. Then you changed it to our RKBA. We will always see laws that restrict as an erosion of rights. But with rights, come responsibilities and you can’t have one without accepting the other. I do wish I had an easy answer to fix the problem but I am sure of one thing. Doing nothing to address the problem is not the answer. Perhaps more than a slap on the risk when someone that should not have a gun is caught with one. Or as I remember the NRA suggesting, if a felon attempts to buy a weapon don’t just deny the application but have them arrested for attempting. I don’t believe the laws are anymore discriminatory that one’s applying to buying and driving vehicles. There you have to pass a test, get a permit or license, register vehicle, pay taxes on it, get insurance, and is permanently tracked by a bin number. But no one seems to scream about their rights there. You can argue that cars aren’t listed in the constitution. But it’s kind of hard to pursue happiness without one. Also remember that the constitution gives a specific reason for not infringing on the rights of citizens to bear arms. This reason is largely ignored while the second half of the sentence gets all the focus. So I do not think doing nothing about the problem is the best course of action because the SCOTUS could later change it’s interpretation taking that whole sentence into account. Personally, I would rather put up with some nuisance laws and try to at least decrease the problems than risk completely losing my right to bear arms. Because you never know what our first dictator is going to command. But as always, just my opinion, and thanks for responding.
2 Likes
Sorry I had to make it that clear to you, as the thread is RNC Gun Platform Breakdown.
Yet, in many “gun control” states, that is exactly what they do, increase costs, add fees, increase training requirements (also costs extra time and money), etc., etc. In states that are more liberal, adding these “gun control” requirements you believe in does, in fact, increase costs. They also make it more legally perilous for law-abiding citizens.
How does my walking across the state line make me more dangerous? If I carry from VA, my home state, into MD, I become a felon.
As you just stated, they are already breaking the law. How does a UBC work, when they are already avoiding the background check? Who, but the law-abiding, will obtain the UBC?
You do not need a license to buy a vehicle. You do not need insurance, license, nor registration, if you drive it on your personal property. Many people are in violation of driving laws. Have we enacted UBCs for vehicle ownership to prevent that? It would work as well as UBC laws do in the states that already have them for firearm ownership - as well as they did prior their being passed. The UBC costs the legal buyer and/or the seller money - it is not free. Even if it were “free”, it would come at the cost of increased taxes to pay for it.
You have misinterpreted the 2A. The 2A specifically protects the individual RKBA, even the SCOTUS has admitted that. It does not state that one must be part of a militia to have the RKBA.
As I stated previously, Jefferson even stated that the RKBA is a Natural Right - an inalienable right - that pre-exists government and the Law of Man. What’s a nuisance to you is a hardship to others. What you are saying is that as long as you have the RKBA, you don’t care if no one else does. Until the 1939 FFA, felons did not lose their RKBA. Since then, look at how many other categories of people have lost their RKBA. What happens when a new “gun control” law puts you into the banned category? Will you still agree with “nuisance” laws?
That is pure BS. Take my example of MD and VA crime stats I referenced earlier. You can go to the FBI UCR site to confirm. MD has higher violent crime rates and firearm-related crime rates than Virginia. There is no “loophole”. They have UBC laws. Virginia has lower rates, yet more liberal laws, so “gun control” is not the reason for the lower rates. Neither is it likely that MD “gun control” is the reason they have higher rates. This is just one example of how “gun control” does not work.
If you believe “gun control” and UBCs work, shouldn’t we apply that same logic to drugs? Before you can get that prescription, you need training, a permit, and a background check. Every time you get that prescription, another background check. Reminds me of the sinus medicine that you are now “allowed” to only buy so much at a time due to Meth. Oddly, Meth became even more of an issue after that law. So how did making it more difficult for the “law-abiding” stop Meth production and use? How did that “nuisance” law prevent anything?
Obviously, those that wish to break the law, will. Laws only provide punishments for acts ruled as criminal, they cannot prevent the act, only punish it. Just as you mentioned before, you know people that should not have arms, but do. Does your permission slip prevent that? Does your getting a UBC prevent it? Does your training requirement prevent that? Does a mag ban prevent it? Oddly enough, after MD passed a mag limit, they began finding more “high” cap mags at crime scenes. It seems the criminals did not get the message that they were illegal. Another example of failed “gun control”.
6 Likes
It was already perfectly clear. You first said Democrats were eroding our rights. I stated that was a partisan view. You then changed it to Democrats were eroding RKBA.
I am not for increasing the cost to law abiding citizens but I do understand that prices do keep going up. But I am sure the cost of guns and ammo keep going up as well. I did not say anything about going across a state line. I was referring to convicted felons and other people who should not have them, from buying guns.
Of course they are avoiding background checks and such checks are not even required for private sales in this state. My point was to make that more difficult. I understand that you are not going to stop criminals from having guns. But if you apply that logic why bother having any laws. People still drive drunk so why bother having laws that deter it?
You do need all the things I mentioned to operate a vehicle on public roads. In this state you do not need a permit or registration to have a gun on your property or POV. So not sure what point you’re making there. I do not see the " because people will break the laws anyway as an excuse to not have them. Except for cell phones in cars. Never understood the need for that one when distracted driving is already a violation but that is a bit off subject.
I did not give an interpretation of the constitution. I simply said there is room for other interpretation based on how it is written. I am glad the SCOTUS interpreted the way it did but my concern is that could change if keep up with the lets do nothing about bad guys having guns. I did not say gun control worked. I said we already had it. I said it does not work because of all the variances, loopholes, and lack of enforcement of the gun control laws we already have.
I am not going to agree that everyone should be allowed to carry weapons. Felons (people, who have proven they care nothing about the right of others) , children, and people with physiological problems are examples of who should not be allowed to carry weapons regardless of what Jefferson said. In short I only believe that responsible law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry weapons. You will not be able to change my opinion on that but thanks for the respectful and thought provoking debate. This will be my last email for the day so have a good and safe night.
2 Likes
OMG, give it a rest. I tried to simplify it for you. I did not want to get into a debate on all the issues of which rights they are eroding - many of them, I tried to keep it to the basis of the thread. Yes, they are going after more than just the RKBA. Their “gun control” laws do impact many of our other rights, too, the 4th, 6th, 9th, for starters. This is not the forum for that debate.
The increasing costs I am referring to are the legislators demanding higher fees for transfers/sales and permits/licensing, that has nothing to do with “inflation”, but their desire to limit access. I will politely assume you are not this naive. Do the research, if you are.
They are already disbarred the RKBA and they are not legally able to obtain - by any means, possess, nor use firearms. This is already law. You actually believe a felon currently undergoes a background check to illegally obtain firearms? You believe that will change with a UBC? I cannot believe you are that ignorant.
Yet they are not getting their firearms in private sales - the stats readily prove that to be fact. A UBC would not change that.
How do cell phones in cars have anything to do with firearm laws? Other than your proving that people do not obey laws they decide not to follow.
And the other interpretation is illogical and does not conform to grammar and intent of the 2A, nor the SCOTUS finally affirming that it is an individual right, just like all the others in our Bill of Rights.
And if a felon, released from prison is now following the law, do you believe he/she should still be disbarred their RKBA? I know I will not change your mind, but you need to understand that your point of view.
Not only Jefferson, Natural Law is not his making. Read Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, their ideas are the basis of our RKBA. Your ignorance is on full display. I have been trying to be polite and enlighten you on your ignorant stance, showing you the fallacies in your viewpoint. You have been very stubborn in your adherence to ignorance and not addressing my questions except with more deflection.
How does your having to get a UBC, training, permit, etc., prevent felons from illegally obtaining, possessing, and using firearms? How will you react when your “nuisance” laws make it financially unaffordable for you to own firearms, make your firearms illegal to own, or turn you into a prohibited person? You believe “certain” people should not own firearms - that is exactly what Jim Crow laws did. Those were ruled unconstitutional. Do you have any reasonable argument for your beliefs? I am trying to understand how you rationally believe what you claim you do.
5 Likes