Should very large handgun magazines be heavily regulated
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
- Status
Who cares about kings? At the time 'natural law' philospophers were building their schools of thought, there were only kings in the major countries. Our Colonies had a king as well until making a declaration of independence into a fact of independence in 1783.
And the Declaration is indeed an affirmation of 'natural law' and that school of thought; it is not a governing document. When the Founding Fathers built both the Articles of Confederation, then replaced it with the Constituition and its Bill of Rights, they specifically decided who had what rights - that's fundamentally different than simply letting undefined 'natural law' take its course and hoping for the best.
Last edited:
Chubbo
Member
STOP
What a hateful, destructive, fight this sad discussion has become.
It has turned friend against friend, and is accomplishing, exactly what the enemies of all gun owners/shooters want to accomplish. 'Divide and conquer'!
I believe that it's time for us to wake up, shut up, and see what is transpiring.
Too much has already been said. I'll not comment again.
Chubbo
What a hateful, destructive, fight this sad discussion has become.
It has turned friend against friend, and is accomplishing, exactly what the enemies of all gun owners/shooters want to accomplish. 'Divide and conquer'!
I believe that it's time for us to wake up, shut up, and see what is transpiring.
Too much has already been said. I'll not comment again.
Chubbo
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,771
- Reaction score
- 7,183
I expect you got that from one of the many distortions of what the Reverend Doctor Niemoeller said. I had the privilege of hearing him preach on the subject while in college and part of the message stuck with me. His sermon may have differed from what's usually reported, but in hugely different ways.
"First they came for the Communists. We understood and supported this."
You have to know the conditions in Germany following the abdication of the Kaiser to understand this. Civil unrest is a massive understatement. There were pitched battles between armed units (some former military units) representing various political and criminal elements in major cities. The Communists were widely known to have a major role in this.
"Then they came for the Socialists. We didn't understand this, but felt the authorities must have had good reason."
My memory gets foggy after this. IIRC, when they came for the next group people started to question but didn't actually take any action to require the government to justify their actions. The thrust of his sermon was that you should pay attention to what government, and your fellow citizens do and require accountability. Oppression starts with stuff many folks support and then a new obstacle can be identified and dealt with in a similar manner.
Last edited:
OK now you're deflecting by switching to Natural LAW, whereas before the argument was about Natural RIGHTS. Big difference - you can't equate the two, though you are attempting to. They are related but not the same thing.
Who cares about kings? The belief in a King's divine right to rule and the belief in Natural Rights (all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights - those are our Natural Rights) are opposites. Pretty hard to discuss Natural Rights in any detail and ignore the polar opposite view.
The Constitution did not "decide who had what rights". Read it again. It doesn't specify any group, or groups who do or do not have rights. The Constitution grants NO rights whatsoever. Instead it puts LIMITS on what the Government can do in regards to the rights of the governed. This is a common misperception that you seem to have fallen victim to. We have Natural Rights - they are not granted by the Constitution. The Constitution enshrines those rights in law by defining and limiting our government and its powers.
At one time there were a lot of common laws and state laws that excluded groups (slaves, women) from having equal rights and even specified things like only land owners had rights. But none of that was included in the Constitution. In fact those laws that did exclude groups of people from having rights were struck down because they violated the Constitution.
Again, you are confused or mistaken about who has or doesn't have a good grasp of our history.
Last edited:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,771
- Reaction score
- 7,183
OOPS! My bad, Biku. I didn't see the earlier post. What I get for starting on the last page. Having heard the original message in total, I get kinda exercised when folks distort it.
Last edited:
Not confused at all.
Article I, Section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Repealed by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Aritcle I, Section 3
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Repealed by the 17th Amendment.
Article I, Section 9:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The slave importation clause sunset 1808.
Article IV, Section 2
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Not specifically repealed, but rendered obsolete by the 13th Amendment.
14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Extends citizenship to all Americans and the applies the Bill of Rights to States actions for the first time, nearly 80 years later.
14th Amendment, Section 3:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Restructured by the 26th Amendment.
Not sure what any of this has to do with extra-capacity mags.
Last edited:
Hey, no troubles!
Agreed completely - if the thread ends yesterday, that's fine.
Waldo
Member
I got that from here "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..."
There are a variety of versions out there. My point is that once we give up on any one gun or gun style or part or accessory, the anti gunners will never stop or be satisfied.
On the bump stock thing, I do not have or want one. I don't know how many people bought them with a copy of a letter from the government saying they were not a machine gun and legal to own. But no matter how few or how many, should they be penalized for the actions of a mad man?
I have watched the gun debate for many years. I have seen bills introduced to ban " Saturday Night Specials" that would have banned the 1911, the U.S. service pistol at the time. I have seen them want to ban "Plastic Pistols" as being designed and used by terrorists. Yes, that means the Glock used by a large number of police. The anti gunners are always looking for a chink in our armor. It disgusts me to see gun owners fall for this. I guess a lot of our fellow gun owners don't care, as long as the anti-gunners only come for someone else's guns. When I hear an anti gun politician or particularly a member of a gun forum talk about they "own guns and support the Second Amendment, it sickens me.
Exactly. Fudds and appeasers.
I agree with you and Chubbo. Have your opinion, state and defend it, but when courtesy is gone there is only one direction things are likely to go...into the toilet.
Sistema1927
US Veteran
The Commies in the NM Legislature have a bill this session banning any magazine over 15 rounds. No grandfather clause, and possession would be a felony. Includes a $1.5 million appropriation to enforce.
I guess this would make some folks on this thread very happy, but it infuriates me sine it will do nothin but criminalize law abiding owners without impacting the bad guys one bit.
I guess this would make some folks on this thread very happy, but it infuriates me sine it will do nothin but criminalize law abiding owners without impacting the bad guys one bit.
DOA. It hasn't been heard even in committee, there is no Fiscal Impact Report nor Agency Bill Analysis, and there are 18 days left in the session. It has these House referrals: Sent to HCPAC - Referrals: HCPAC/HJC/HAFC. Caballero doesn't even chair a subcommittee.
HB0156
This is the bill that may impact some gunowners that may well pass: HB0068
HB0156
This is the bill that may impact some gunowners that may well pass: HB0068
Last edited:
How would they address the fact that a standard 30 round AR mag will only hold 10 12.7 x42's with the only modification needed is filing the front notch slightly on the mag.
OK, I'll give you that one. Voting "rights" were defined and delegated to only specific groups - though this is kind of the historical revisionist's trick of judging the past by current standards and societal mores.
At that time voting was not viewed as a right in the same way or sense that it is today. It is not mentioned or enumerated as one of our God-given inalienable natural rights. Those were described in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Although the Declaration was not part of the Constitution both documents were crafted and signed by the same men, so attempting to exclude the Declaration and not being a founding document is disingenuous at best. But if you want to apply today's definition of "voting rights" to that point in time, OK.
Voting was viewed as a right of taxpayers - in direct response to the Crown having imposed "taxation without representation". So voting was restricted to those who paid taxes - something the groups being excluded from voting in the articles you reference generally did not do. In fact those articles pretty much ALL tie voting and taxation to one another. Only free men and property owners paid taxes, hence they were the only ones originally entitled to vote. As voting came to be viewed as a universal right the Constitution was amended to reflect that.
As to how did we get here - and to discussing this?
Simple. You don't view high cap mags as as protected under our 2nd Amendment rights, and almost all the rest of us do. In defense of your argument you went so far as to cite an English philosopher whose beliefs were completely antithetical to the founding principles of our country. A man who thought that our rights didn't exist - that the very idea of being endowed with natural rights is "nonsense". Your referencing his philosophy in support of your argument is how we got here. That and your "yeah, but..." deflection tactics.
Last edited:
I'm sorry - Blackstone was enormously influential on Jefferson and the Declaration as well as the later Constitution and its even later Bill of Rights.
Thomas Jefferson reflected Black-stone's view when he used the phrase "law of nature and of nature's God" in the Declaration. This phrase indicates that Jefferson understood the difference between Blackstone's theory and that of Grotius and Cicero. The law of nature refers to the will of God observable in creation while the law of nature's God refers to the divine law which is revealed through the Scriptures.
While Jefferson affirmed Blackstone's view of natural law, he abhorred the influence of Blackstone in the adoption of the English common law in the Colonies. Because of Jefferson's significant role in the founding of America, it is necessary to discern precisely where he agreed with Blackstone as well as where he disagreed.
And...
II. the influence of Blackstone on the Constitution
A. No Taxation Without Representation
In a sense, the Declaration was a document listing grievances against a government which the Signers believed had failed to operate in accordance with the laws of nature. Chief among the grievances listed in the Declaration was the fact that King George violated the "laws of nature and of nature's God" by "imposing taxes on us without our consent."
Colonies were taxed but denied representation in Parliament. In contrast, the Constitution documents how the Founding Fathers believed that an ideal government, in submission to the law of nature, should operate. Accordingly, the Constitution sought to remedy the taxation problem by requiring in Article I, Section 7, that bills for revenue originate in the House of Representatives, the body of government closest to the American people.16
B. The Unalienable Right to Property
An understanding of Blackstone's beliefs on property rights is impossible apart from an understanding of his beliefs on happiness, for he believed that the latter depended on the former. Blackstone stated that a right to property "tends to man's real happiness, and therefore justly concluding that...it is a part of the law of nature." 17 Likewise, according to Blackstone, the converse is true-denial of property rights is "destructive of man's real happiness, and therefore the law of nature forbids it." 18
Richard A. Huenefeld has noted the following concerning Blackstone's influence on the Founding Fathers' view of property rights:
The influential Blackstone said that the right of private property "consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all [personal] acquisitions." While he spoke of the "sacred and inviolable rights of private property," he equivocated concerning the origin and nature of property rights.
He indicated that the "origin of private property is probably found in nature," but that much of this natural liberty was sacrificed in order to enjoy society's protection of it. Apparently he was uncertain whether to adopt a law of nature position or a social compact theory.
Blackstone turned to the revealed law of God for "the only true and solid foundation of man's dominion over external things." He referred to Genesis chapter one wherein the Creator gave man "dominion over all the earth." From this, Blackstone considered this common ownership sufficient for only a short time as the growth of population led to conflicts over the subject of dominion.
He adopted a social compact theory, asserting that "necessity begat property," meaning that civil laws recognizing the institution of property were needed for beneficial resolution of conflicts. He modified his social compact theory by holding that "bodily labor, bestowed upon any subject which before lay in common to all men, is universally allowed to give the fairest and most reasonable title to an exclusive property therein."19
When the Framers engrafted the right to property into the Constitution-with all of its complexities and exceptions-the theories of Blackstone were, without a doubt, of paramount influence.
C. The Unalienable Right of Self-Defense
Blackstone's view of the right to bear arms is stated in the following quote:
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense . . . which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2, C. 2, and it is indeed, a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation. 20
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 21 The question of the source of this principle is difficult because of the extensive history of debate in England and virtually every other society which has attempted to maintain a balance between anarchy and oppressive government.
However, it is safe to say that the American belief in the right to bear arms has its roots in "civil jurists of the period who had specifically dealt with the question of self-defense as a natural right." 22
It has been noted that their doctrine stemmed essentially from the traditional view of suicide as a sin and perhaps as the ultimate sin. To them a failure to defend yourself against an unlawful aggression amounted to suicide by inaction. If a person's life is a gift of the Creator and he cannot destroy it by action, he cannot destroy it by inaction or negligence.
If life is not the private property of the person living, then it is not his to destroy or allow to be destroyed: you may voluntarily acquiesce to robbery; you may not voluntarily acquiesce to murder.23
III. conclusion
It is not coincidental that the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were espoused less than a decade after Blackstone's Commentaries first appeared in print in England. The correlation between the philosophy of America's founding documents and the Commentaries is worthy of careful exploration.
The OP is about extra-capacity magazines.
Thomas Jefferson reflected Black-stone's view when he used the phrase "law of nature and of nature's God" in the Declaration. This phrase indicates that Jefferson understood the difference between Blackstone's theory and that of Grotius and Cicero. The law of nature refers to the will of God observable in creation while the law of nature's God refers to the divine law which is revealed through the Scriptures.
While Jefferson affirmed Blackstone's view of natural law, he abhorred the influence of Blackstone in the adoption of the English common law in the Colonies. Because of Jefferson's significant role in the founding of America, it is necessary to discern precisely where he agreed with Blackstone as well as where he disagreed.
And...
II. the influence of Blackstone on the Constitution
A. No Taxation Without Representation
In a sense, the Declaration was a document listing grievances against a government which the Signers believed had failed to operate in accordance with the laws of nature. Chief among the grievances listed in the Declaration was the fact that King George violated the "laws of nature and of nature's God" by "imposing taxes on us without our consent."
Colonies were taxed but denied representation in Parliament. In contrast, the Constitution documents how the Founding Fathers believed that an ideal government, in submission to the law of nature, should operate. Accordingly, the Constitution sought to remedy the taxation problem by requiring in Article I, Section 7, that bills for revenue originate in the House of Representatives, the body of government closest to the American people.16
B. The Unalienable Right to Property
An understanding of Blackstone's beliefs on property rights is impossible apart from an understanding of his beliefs on happiness, for he believed that the latter depended on the former. Blackstone stated that a right to property "tends to man's real happiness, and therefore justly concluding that...it is a part of the law of nature." 17 Likewise, according to Blackstone, the converse is true-denial of property rights is "destructive of man's real happiness, and therefore the law of nature forbids it." 18
Richard A. Huenefeld has noted the following concerning Blackstone's influence on the Founding Fathers' view of property rights:
The influential Blackstone said that the right of private property "consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all [personal] acquisitions." While he spoke of the "sacred and inviolable rights of private property," he equivocated concerning the origin and nature of property rights.
He indicated that the "origin of private property is probably found in nature," but that much of this natural liberty was sacrificed in order to enjoy society's protection of it. Apparently he was uncertain whether to adopt a law of nature position or a social compact theory.
Blackstone turned to the revealed law of God for "the only true and solid foundation of man's dominion over external things." He referred to Genesis chapter one wherein the Creator gave man "dominion over all the earth." From this, Blackstone considered this common ownership sufficient for only a short time as the growth of population led to conflicts over the subject of dominion.
He adopted a social compact theory, asserting that "necessity begat property," meaning that civil laws recognizing the institution of property were needed for beneficial resolution of conflicts. He modified his social compact theory by holding that "bodily labor, bestowed upon any subject which before lay in common to all men, is universally allowed to give the fairest and most reasonable title to an exclusive property therein."19
When the Framers engrafted the right to property into the Constitution-with all of its complexities and exceptions-the theories of Blackstone were, without a doubt, of paramount influence.
C. The Unalienable Right of Self-Defense
Blackstone's view of the right to bear arms is stated in the following quote:
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense . . . which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2, C. 2, and it is indeed, a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation. 20
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 21 The question of the source of this principle is difficult because of the extensive history of debate in England and virtually every other society which has attempted to maintain a balance between anarchy and oppressive government.
However, it is safe to say that the American belief in the right to bear arms has its roots in "civil jurists of the period who had specifically dealt with the question of self-defense as a natural right." 22
It has been noted that their doctrine stemmed essentially from the traditional view of suicide as a sin and perhaps as the ultimate sin. To them a failure to defend yourself against an unlawful aggression amounted to suicide by inaction. If a person's life is a gift of the Creator and he cannot destroy it by action, he cannot destroy it by inaction or negligence.
If life is not the private property of the person living, then it is not his to destroy or allow to be destroyed: you may voluntarily acquiesce to robbery; you may not voluntarily acquiesce to murder.23
III. conclusion
It is not coincidental that the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were espoused less than a decade after Blackstone's Commentaries first appeared in print in England. The correlation between the philosophy of America's founding documents and the Commentaries is worthy of careful exploration.
The OP is about extra-capacity magazines.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Air Force Has Completed its Inspection of their SIG M18 Service Pistols- Latest: The Last Standing Knight
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
