Bill of Rights? Bill of Rights provided you're government approved

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • CBR1000rr

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Feb 26, 2011
    766
    18
    In an eastern valley
    Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
    - You must have a permit to protest
    - You must have a press pass in order to attend a function and record it via video or audio and then share it with your friends/family/general public
    - You have the right to remain free of religious persecution provided you only have one spouse and avoid residing in a compound


    Right to keep and bear arms
    - Provided you meet certain criteria
    - You may only bear your arms in certain states outside of your own home while others require your firearms remain in a locked safe separate from your ammunition which too must be locked in a separate safe
    - You may only posses government approved weapons unless your are government approved to own the elusive weapons the general public is denied


    Conditions for quarters of soldiers
    - FINALLY..... One that isn't infringed upon


    Right of search and seizure regulated
    - NDAA
    - FAST program
    - The use of drones to patrol our skies and spy on you and I
    - 100% strip search of everyone who is arrested regardless of the offense
    I could continue but I think we all know where this one can go....


    Provisons concerning prosecution
    - Eminent Domain
    Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
    Right to a trial by jury
    Excessive bail, cruel punishment

    - Every single one of these could easily fall under the NDAA.... :rolleyes:

    Rule of construction of Constitution
    - :laugh:


    Rights of the States under Constitution
    - This is a one way street. A state can choose to deny an individual his right to bear arms (ahem - Il) yet a state can't legalize marijuana with out the federal government infringing on the rights granted by the states.

    I don't really have a question with this post. I was simply thinking about all of the ways our "rights" are infringed upon and began with the first 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights. It truly is a shame that we have a mis placed trust in a system that promises you certain liberties and even entices our young into service to defend said liberties but then turns around and regulates nearly every single one of them. Even further, it refuses to regulate other rights afforded to us under the Bill of Rights such as the 15th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.". The key word in this Amendment is American Citizen. We are required not only to present an ID to purchase a firearm but then we are forced to submit to an intrusive background check (another 4th Amendment violation) while any Tom Dick or Hairy can enter this country and vote for our leader without presenting any for of documentation proving who they are. This is more dangerous than a felon with a firearm; we are allowing criminals to ensure their reign of power.
     

    CBR1000rr

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Feb 26, 2011
    766
    18
    In an eastern valley
    And the blame for a lot of these can be placed squarely on the Republican Party.

    You can't simply blame these violations on a singular government entity. If my memory serves me correctly, wasn't it the Demon-cratic party whom introduced the Brady Bill?

    Either way, to separate our system of government into political parties is merely a system to appease the majority. Both parties are one in the same. Sure they may say they represent different view points but in reality they both share the same agenda. What is that agenda you ask? Power. To believe that one party is less intrusive on our rights than the other is simply naive.
     

    CBR1000rr

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Feb 26, 2011
    766
    18
    In an eastern valley
    Unless you live in New Orleans.:D

    I forgot all about NO. What a shame. My hopes were that we still had a few freedoms!

    This is why I say it's no longer the Bill of Rights. It is now the Bill of Revocable Privileges.

    I couldn't have said it better myself. I have gone back and forth for a few years now on acquiring my LTCH but to this date I have refused. My key argument that no one can seem to overcome is that the minute I submit and become "licensed" to carry my pistol is the minute I give in to the debacle that is our system of governance. I have nothing to hide and I don't carry my firearm unless it is completely within the letter of the law (which in itself is a form of submission).

    Back to your statement, that's exactly what this is. They are privileges that
    can be revoked at any time. The only rights we have are the ones that we are allowed to have until someone changes their mind.
     

    jbombelli

    ITG Certified
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    May 17, 2008
    13,010
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    Historically "the people" have only ever retained those rights they were willing to kill and die to retain.

    "The price of freedom is blood. The moment we are no longer willing to pay that price we are no longer free." -- me
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    I forgot all about NO. What a shame. My hopes were that we still had a few freedoms!



    I couldn't have said it better myself. I have gone back and forth for a few years now on acquiring my LTCH but to this date I have refused. My key argument that no one can seem to overcome is that the minute I submit and become "licensed" to carry my pistol is the minute I give in to the debacle that is our system of governance. I have nothing to hide and I don't carry my firearm unless it is completely within the letter of the law (which in itself is a form of submission).

    Back to your statement, that's exactly what this is. They are privileges that
    can be revoked at any time. The only rights we have are the ones that we are allowed to have until someone changes their mind.

    How many gun owners are there that don't support the ban on felons owning guns? I'd bet a coke that those of us who believe there should be no restrictions on NFA are in the minority too.
     

    CBR1000rr

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Feb 26, 2011
    766
    18
    In an eastern valley
    How many gun owners are there that don't support the ban on felons owning guns? I'd bet a coke that those of us who believe there should be no restrictions on NFA are in the minority too.

    I do not advocate a felon possessing a firearm. However, when you begin imposing restrictions, you begin to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens and that I stand against. The flip side of the coin is that many criminals aren't branded as criminals by any form of government. As a matter of fact, many up and coming gang bangers are serving in our military and fighting in Afghanistan.

    To my point, I do no support violent criminals toting guns. In my opinion, if the government is afraid said criminal remains a possible threat to society by owning a gun, they probably shouldn't have been released from prison. By releasing a criminal from a "rehabilitation facility", the assumption is that they are rehabilitated.

    I just really don't understand how someone can say they believe in our country and what it stands for yet advocates the restriction of our rights in which the country was founded.
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,197
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    I don't advocate a felon possessing a firearm - while the felon is in custody or in prison, but EVERYONE should have the right to possess the means to defend themselves.
     

    CBR1000rr

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Feb 26, 2011
    766
    18
    In an eastern valley
    Does that include those under the age of 18?

    Until they are of the age of 18, it should fall on the responsibility of the parents to protect their offspring. It also falls on the responsibility of the parents to raise their children in a responsible manner and teach them firearm safety. I know, expecting the majority of people to act like responsible parents and actually take on the role of parenting is like asking the government to admit the existence of alien life but we can always hope.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    How many gun owners are there that don't support the ban on felons owning guns? I'd bet a coke that those of us who believe there should be no restrictions on NFA are in the minority too.

    Well, you have me on both counts. My perspective is that there should be no restrictions on free citizens previously convicted of crimes for the following reasons: 1. After the end of their sentence, they are supposedly square with society. 2. This opens the door for taking rights away from all of us by criminalizing behaviors to the point that it is virtually impossible to stay withing the law. Incidentally, we aren't too far from this now. 3. Anyone who cannot be trusted with full exercise of their constitutional rights should not be roaming free. Such persons should either be in prison or already have been executed.

    As for NFA, where in the Second Amendment is the asterisk referencing the footnote declaring 'except for those arms the government considers inappropriate for private ownership'?
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    Until they are of the age of 18, it should fall on the responsibility of the parents to protect their offspring. It also falls on the responsibility of the parents to raise their children in a responsible manner and teach them firearm safety. I know, expecting the majority of people to act like responsible parents and actually take on the role of parenting is like asking the government to admit the existence of alien life but we can always hope.

    Is your 17 year old (or younger) within your eyesight 24/7?
     
    Top Bottom