Guns & Ammo Editor Preaches Responsibilty ... Promptly Fired

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

unsung wrote:

He wasn't fired because he preached responsibility. He was fired because he said there were limits to rights.

There are limits to rights. Nothing controversial about that, both from a historical and practical perspective.

Those aren't real rights then.

Get serious. Yes they are.

A 'right' doesn't give one carte blanche to do whatever the hell they please... because that would mean their uninhibited rights would have the potential to trample all over someone else's rights.

For example, one person in a residential neighbourhood might say, "I have the right to own 20 dogs in my backyard." Well that is all fine and dandy except for the fact that the stench of dog shit and the barking of 20 dogs just might disturb the rights one's neighbours have towards having some semblance of peace and quiet for their homespace. So... to provide balance... regulations are placed into effect limiting the extent to which one might exercise their right.

A balancing act is necessary to ensure a fair playing field for all. Rules and regulations maintain the balance.

vant0037

unsung wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

unsung wrote:

He wasn't fired because he preached responsibility. He was fired because he said there were limits to rights.

There are limits to rights. Nothing controversial about that, both from a historical and practical perspective.

Those aren't real rights then.

Sure they are. States' rights are limited to those powers not delegated to the federal government, and vice versa.

Surely states' right are real, right?

mickeyrat

Cosmo wrote:

unsung wrote:

Well regulated meant to make regular, as in be organized. It did not mean to have regulations in the sense of having limitations.

...
Then... if that is the case... shouldn't the citizen gun owners be organized and trained as a regular security force?

like a militia? Or in modern times the national guard which are state militia? Hmmmm.

unsung

vant0037 wrote:

Sure they are. States' rights are limited to those powers not delegated to the federal government, and vice versa.

Surely states' right are real, right?

I'm speaking of the individual. The 2A is the only amendment that states, shall not be infringed, yet it happens. That doesn't sound like a right to me, that sounds like a privilege that changes based on geography.

As far as 10A, if it isn't covered under art 1 sec VIII, then it is left up to the state. Well, it is supposed to be. In a country run by banks and the military industrial complex we don't pay much attention to the Constitution anymore.

Somehow I think you know this.

unsung

mickeyrat wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

unsung wrote:

Well regulated meant to make regular, as in be organized. It did not mean to have regulations in the sense of having limitations.

...
Then... if that is the case... shouldn't the citizen gun owners be organized and trained as a regular security force?

like a militia? Or in modern times the national guard which are state militia? Hmmmm.

Nowhere have I found that the Founding Fathers called any militia the national guard.


Besides they are too busy patrolling the borders of some foreign nation right now anyway.

hedonist

Just me, but don't rights come with at least SOME responsibility resting on the shoulders of the person(s) exercising those rights?

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Get serious. Yes they are.

A 'right' doesn't give one carte blanche to do whatever the hell they please... because that would mean their uninhibited rights would have the potential to trample all over someone else's rights.

For example, one person in a residential neighbourhood might say, "I have the right to own 20 dogs in my backyard." Well that is all fine and dandy except for the fact that the stench of dog shit and the barking of 20 dogs just might disturb the rights one's neighbours have towards having some semblance of peace and quiet for their homespace. So... to provide balance... regulations are placed into effect limiting the extent to which one might exercise their right.

A balancing act is necessary to ensure a fair playing field for all. Rules and regulations maintain the balance.

People should be able to do whatever they want as long as others are not being harmed/defrauded/violated. If that happened then they must be prepared to face the consequences.

unsung

hedonist wrote:

Just me, but don't rights come with at least SOME responsibility resting on the shoulders of the person(s) exercising those rights?

Absolutely.

mickeyrat

guess you missed the "modern times" part. Whatever. Free speech and all.

Jason P

I still want to get down to the matter of the fact ... This editor has spent his entire career devoted to firearms. Obviously he was well respected throughout his career or he would have been ousted years ago. He loves guns.

He writes one article on gun responsibility and now he is branded as an Obama plant. WTF?

Instead of an intelligent thought out debate it immediately turned into a 2nd amendment witch hunt and he had to take the drowning test, even though he was well respected.

Lets focus on that aspect.

It's like if Rush made a comment that making it illegal for insurance companies to deny previous conditions was good and his base flopped on him.

Jason P

unsung wrote:

Well regulated meant to make regular, as in be organized. It did not mean to have regulations in the sense of having limitations.

If we were invaded tonight, do you really think we would have a "well regulated" and organized militia?

By the common people that never received training and not in the military?

If you answer "no", then I respect your answer. If you answer "yes", then you get to play my favorite game show, "Lying or Stupid".

Go Beavers

unsung wrote:

People should be able to do whatever they want as long as others are not being harmed/defrauded/violated. If that happened then they must be prepared to face the consequences.

That looks nice in a sentence, but aren't you really talking about an individual doing his own business, like toking away on a bong all day? Because I can use your logic to say it's fine for me to drive 60 through my neighborhood or swing a bat over people's heads. Of course there's laws made about potential outcomes where there's a good chance someone could be harmed, also.

vant0037

unsung wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Sure they are. States' rights are limited to those powers not delegated to the federal government, and vice versa.

Surely states' right are real, right?

I'm speaking of the individual. The 2A is the only amendment that states, shall not be infringed, yet it happens. That doesn't sound like a right to me, that sounds like a privilege that changes based on geography.

As far as 10A, if it isn't covered under art 1 sec VIII, then it is left up to the state. Well, it is supposed to be. In a country run by banks and the military industrial complex we don't pay much attention to the Constitution anymore.

Somehow I think you know this.

What I know isn't the issue. You said, rights with limitations aren't "real." I gave you an example of a right or set of rights with limitations and asked if it was not "real" (whatever that means).

Try again.

Bentleyspop

It is possible that this guys was planted 37 years ago by socialist muslims in order to subvert the 2nd amendment

















:fp:

Cosmo

Seriously... all I want is some sort of means to keep modern day firepower out of the hands of the mentally imbalanced so their extreme paranoia and distrust of all authority does not compel them to flip the switch one day and go from 'legal, responsible gun owner' to 'raving, anti-Government psycho' and pick up their legally obtained semi-automatic rifle that was converted to full-auto back in 1974 and their 75 round banana clips, duct taped together, over to the Costco and shoot up the place as I'm there, just picking up some cat food and kitty litter because them cats at home are screaming at me to fed them and clean the damn catbox.
...
Is that too much to ask for?

unsung

Jason P wrote:

unsung wrote:

Well regulated meant to make regular, as in be organized. It did not mean to have regulations in the sense of having limitations.

If we were invaded tonight, do you really think we would have a "well regulated" and organized militia?

By the common people that never received training and not in the military?

If you answer "no", then I respect your answer. If you answer "yes", then you get to play my favorite game show, "Lying or Stupid".

The answer is not immediately. In time organization would happen, but it would take some time.

Just like it did circa-1775.

unsung

vant0037 wrote:

What I know isn't the issue. You said, rights with limitations aren't "real." I gave you an example of a right or set of rights with limitations and asked if it was not "real" (whatever that means).

Try again.

I am fully aware of what I've said. And just so we can clear up your "whatever that means" and "try again" comments I will do so attempting to get it across to you.

If you want to do something and have to get permission to do it, then it is not a right.

Clear enough?

unsung

Cosmo wrote:

Seriously... all I want is some sort of means to keep modern day firepower out of the hands of the mentally imbalanced so their extreme paranoia and distrust of all authority does not compel them to flip the switch one day and go from 'legal, responsible gun owner' to 'raving, anti-Government psycho' and pick up their legally obtained semi-automatic rifle that was converted to full-auto back in 1974 and their 75 round banana clips, duct taped together, over to the Costco and shoot up the place as I'm there, just picking up some cat food and kitty litter because them cats at home are screaming at me to fed them and clean the damn catbox.
...
Is that too much to ask for?

No, not at all. FYI, these last few anti-govt psychos have been registered Democrats. So much for that broad brush, huh?

vant0037

unsung wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

What I know isn't the issue. You said, rights with limitations aren't "real." I gave you an example of a right or set of rights with limitations and asked if it was not "real" (whatever that means).

Try again.

I am fully aware of what I've said. And just so we can clear up your "whatever that means" and "try again" comments I will do so attempting to get it across to you.

If you want to do something and have to get permission to do it, then it is not a right.

Clear enough?

Well, we're talking about limitations on rights, not permission. A law regulating the use of a firearm that specifies, say, no shooting people, is a limit. It has nothing to do with permission.

So let's try to pin it down this time.

My point: rights are inherently subject to limitations, for practical reasons but also have been historically.

You said: then those are not real rights.

My example: States' rights are those rights not delegated to the federal government. In other words, if the federal government isn't already empowered with it, it belongs to the states. (sounds like a limitation...)

My point: arguing that a right must be unlimited for it to be a right is flawed from the start, if only because the very nature of government, whether large or small, rests on the premise that there IS a limit on your personal ability to exercise some right at some time in some way. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. For too many reasons, there must be limitations - somewhere - on a right.

If you think any government is illegitimate from the start, then just say you're an anarchist already and we can all stop having these arguments.

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Seriously... all I want is some sort of means to keep modern day firepower out of the hands of the mentally imbalanced so their extreme paranoia and distrust of all authority does not compel them to flip the switch one day and go from 'legal, responsible gun owner' to 'raving, anti-Government psycho' and pick up their legally obtained semi-automatic rifle that was converted to full-auto back in 1974 and their 75 round banana clips, duct taped together, over to the Costco and shoot up the place as I'm there, just picking up some cat food and kitty litter because them cats at home are screaming at me to fed them and clean the damn catbox.
...
Is that too much to ask for?

No, not at all. FYI, these last few anti-govt psychos have been registered Democrats. So much for that broad brush, huh?

...
Well... there you go, again...
Who said ANYTHING about partisan politics?
Answer: You.