Constitution matters
Thanks to letter writer Linda Duhon for her disclosure (“Failure to disclose,” Aug. 14) of the relationship between The New American magazine and The John Birch Society, the proud parent of it.
Unique interpretation of the U.S. Constitution? Hardly. For example, the society agrees with economist Milton Friedman that the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished. Perhaps Duhon should learn that the agency was established without constitutional authority.
The society encourages everybody to interpret the Constitution by reading it, and learning of the original signers’ intent. It strongly recommends that more politicians pay attention to it. Perhaps Duhon might want to read the Constitution.
Don Kennedy, Littleton
Read the Constitution? Wow what a novel concept. However I doubt that you could get but a handful of people to read it, let alone be able to understand the clear meaning of it. An example is the bill of rights. An outline of things the gvernemnt cannot do. An outlne that those on the left and far right fail to understand.
Posted by on August 24, 2007 06:26 AMThe Birchers? Are they still out there knuckling around? Always wondered where the black helicopter/cattle mutilation crowd went
Posted by sly on August 24, 2007 06:48 AMWhere was it I heard that the constitution is a living, just another damned piece of paper, document lately. I need to ask the John Birch Society one question, well actually a two part question.
Firstly, why is it that there is no end of constitutional scholars that agree on not much between them and an equally large and diverse group of societies, foundations and associations that almost come to blows over what the constitution really says and secondly, how does one choose who, amongst this mob lost in the swamp of political expediency driven confusion and disagreement, is right.
While you are pondering this question please know that if you arrive at a clear, concice answer, you will be the first in the history of this country to do it, not withstanding the original authors of it.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 24, 2007 07:30 AMTo answer your question Mr. Campbell, the first step is to decide what the qualifications are to be a constitutional scholar. Requiring people to actually read it before they are considered scholars will eliminate many. And then requiring that any opinion be supported by historical evidence rather than moral and political imperatives will eliminate many more.
The second step is to ignore all the societies, foundations, and associations. They rarely actually represent the people they claim to represent. They usually represent a small group of activists.
The remaining group should find it easier to agree.
I hope this meets your requirements.
My God man, how dare you use logic, common sense and reasoned critical thinking. Don't you know you are involutarily exposing non thinkers to second hand something or other. Careful my friend, the anti-thinking police are everywhere. If you have the means, I would immediately repair to one of the sanity safe houses we've set up in the Dever metro area. I think you know where they are.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 24, 2007 08:43 AMAsk presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul.
He is the only candidate who is a champion of the Constitution. ALL the rest, except Tancredo, are just puppets for the globalists who run the Federal government behind the scenes.
Sincere congratulations to Yaakov and Allen for posting the two most cogent and entertaining comments seen by this old guy.
THANK YOU!
Hold on there. Obama taught constitutional law. I bet he probably knows the constitution pretty well.
Just sayin'.
Posted by Tbone on August 24, 2007 09:21 AMMs. Duhon's going to ruin a source of "facts" for many. She was quite correct to point out the connection. No one can conclusively interpret the Constitution, 100%, and the JBS contributors have as much a right as anyone else but their supporters should not use them as a source of incontroveritble evidence.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 24, 2007 09:43 AMTbone, you bet he knows the constitution, but his allegiance to the Israel lobby and the CFR effectively negate any loyalty he may have had to it.
Posted by Holy Reality on August 24, 2007 09:47 AMThe only conspiracy theory I believe in is the unknown until now, I take great pride in discovering it, one that has been hatched by, believe it or not, the entire poulation of this country. This was thought to be a little known, small and unimportant underground movement until I uncovered the evidence proving it is has insidiously grown like a cancer within our society which, surprisingly, was right before our noses all the time.
It was only known by the code letters PASC and it took me a very long and dangerous time to decode the real significancy of those letters because they could be interpreted many different ways but, now I can reveal them for what they really do mean. I hope you are prepared to handle the effects of this knowledge. It is the dreaded Public Apathy Syndrome Conspiracy. There I feel better now ,after having to carry the burden of this knowledge by myself for so long, you, the public, can now share the load with me. Thank you one and all.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 24, 2007 10:06 AMHR -
What's the CFR?
I'm not a big fan of the Isreal lobby, either.
Posted by Tbone on August 24, 2007 10:24 AMHere is a right that is clear "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Colorado state Constitution"the right of no person to keep and bear arms ---shall be called into question." I think we can all agree this right is very clear.
Posted by An American on August 24, 2007 10:56 AMAn American writes that we can all agree that right to keep and bear arms is very clear but there are limitations on what types of arms we're permitted to bear (nuclear weapons?), not to mention the arguments concerning "a well regulated militia" which was omitted from An American's text. So it is not an issue that is "very clear", though it may not may have been so hazzy when it was adopted.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 24, 2007 12:08 PMU.S Constitution is no longer in affect!
We could read, memorize, paste it
to our wrist, the U.S. Constituion has
been destroyed and disregarded
by every Colorado official, Colorado
Court and Police Dept in Colorado.
No more PROTECTIONS! Welcome
to the Peoples Republic of Colorado.
U.S Constitution is no longer in affect!
We could read, memorize, paste it
to our wrist, the U.S. Constituion has
been destroyed and disregarded
by every Colorado official, Colorado
Court and Police Dept in Colorado.
No more PROTECTIONS! Welcome
to the Peoples Republic of Colorado.
There are biblical scholars; there are theological scholars; there are constitutional scholars. All these scholars fall under the category of crap. There is the final arbiter; he/she is the scholar; thus you will know who crap number one is. Got it. I'll spare you Deicide Corner though it contains expression chronicled on the pages of history something no poster herein will ever achieve.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com, Deicide ffrf.org. Web: http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think.html on August 24, 2007 12:51 PMConservative Scholars interpet the Constitution as the founding fathers had intended for it to be. Liberals and left wingers interpet it as "They would like it to be to fit their agenda. Just as the cults and atheists have done with Christianity. They couln't have made it any clearer so that the average Joe with common sense could read and understand what the it meant. I'm no John Bircher but from the things they write and support they are more in line with the Founding Fathers idea of what this country should be than the anti-American left.
Posted by Pete Martinez on August 24, 2007 01:23 PMConservative Scholars interpet the Constitution as the founding fathers had intended for it to be. Liberals and left wingers interpet it as "They would like it to be to fit their agenda. Just as the cults and atheists have done with Christianity. They couln't have made it any clearer so that the average Joe with common sense could read and understand what the it meant. I'm no John Bircher but from the things they write and support they are more in line with the Founding Fathers idea of what this country should be than the anti-American left.
Posted by Pete Martinez on August 24, 2007 01:23 PMPete Martinez is living evidence of the need for debating what the Founding Fathers intended. There is no anti-American left. just as their is no anti-American right. They are differing ideas. To assume that one has "the answer" is arrogant and that's why we have these discussions. Perhaps he should read the writings of Jefferson and Madison. This might assist in a better understanding of what the founders were trying to accomplish. Looking at the world with a closed mind is self-defeating.
The advancement and defusion of knowledge is the only guardian
of true liberty. - James Madison
Stan, I'll take you one step further in the "omission" category. "A well regulated militia, BEING NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (FYI, state in this instance is the same as nation).
I started to study the Constitution and constitutional law in my undergrad (as part of my history course work), became fascinated by it, and audited courses at Marquette University Law School on constitutional law. As an adult, it is one of my passions, to review the decisions of the Supreme Court, and the references they use in determining their conclusions, and then reviewing the actual amendments they cite for literal interpretation. Kind of a hobby of mine (pathetic right). But I hope that provides me a little more understanding of our constitutional rights and protections, the role of each branch of government (on the federal level), and how we have can track the deviations from our constitution, based on the mood of the generation (allowing slavery, abolishing slavery, the right of women to vote, the right of citizens to vote, prohibition, internment during WWII, civil rights, abortion, states rights, church - state separation, etc...).
Does this make me an expert? Maybe, maybe not. Does it make me more informed than the general public? Absolutely. But regardless of how well one studies the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court, their will always be bias from interpreting from an individual philosophy that will cloud the review, cloud the decision, and cloud the interpretation. It is our own political belief system. Conservative, liberal, constructionist, progressive, libertarian, green... Whatever you call yourself, your personal views will influence your interpretation. Nothing we can do to get around it.
Posted by Dan2 on August 24, 2007 01:46 PMConstitutional law should be a required course in high school.
CFR is the Council on Foreign Relations.
The CFR is a TRUE ENEMY of the sovereignty of the United States of America.
They are the pack of wolves, I mean unelected Globalists who are at the heart of the North American Union, along with many others who hope to destroy our Republic, and turn it into just another 'free trade zone' for the benefit of the collosal, multi-national corporations to turn a profit from.
Read up on the CFR and the NAU and you will probably want to do what Bush the senior once mentioned about NAFTA: If the Amercian public knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and hang us from the nearest lamp pole.
Jay,
They teach the constitution in most civics classes in high school, but the level of constitutional law that I am guessing that you are supporting in high schools would be pointless. In DPS at least, these kids can't read at grade level, much less understand and comprehend constitutional law.
Posted by Dan2 on August 24, 2007 02:22 PMSorry Dan2. I should have included the entire text of the second amendment. I am not opposed to people owning weapons. My post had to deal to do with the term "very clear". As you know from your own experiences, the Constitution was written when, generally speaking, only white male property owners were allowed to vote.
Changes, such as occur through time, leave some of the amendments somewhat outdated. No, the right to bear arms is not unlimited. There are many weapons that are not allowed to be owned all Americans. And, some nut going around shooting people does not constitute "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." ; so there ARE limitations.
Pete Martinez is 100% right.Stan Broyles is talking about the "militia" in the Second Amendment but does not mention that the state constitution makes no such reference to the milita.Also at the writing of the Constitution the "milita" was in fact the whole body of the people, all the citizens.If they wanted something different they called it the "select milita" which would have been like a National Guard.Here is what the milita was and is today "I ask you sir what is the milita?It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason. Thomas Jefferson"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" The reason I brought the gun issue up is because it shows how phoney the left is on the constitution.They will take rights that are explicit and try to twist them then they will make up rights for terrorists that were never ment to be.The left are cowards and fear the citizens being armed.All oppressors in history have tried to disarm the people.The left is no different.
Posted by An American on August 24, 2007 02:50 PMAbsolutely Stan. Well regulated, in my mind, is the key. Arms should be regulated. But the ability to keep and bear them, should not. For example, it may be debated if we really do need a carry conceal law, as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", may indeed mean what it states. I am not offering an opinion on this one amendment, but indeed pointing out the obvious of how hard it really is to interpret the meaning of that one sentence.
I was giving you a hard time for ranking on AnAmerican for doing something that you did too. It's all good.
Posted by Dan2 on August 24, 2007 02:55 PMStan Broyles has not done his research.The "well regulated" meant that they wanted the people to train with their arms.It was not what we mean today by "regulated".Like a ton of rules on firearms.The right is not unlimited but it would include owning the "semi-auto" firearms we have owned for 100 years.That is what the anti-gun liberals are trying to ban.
Posted by An American on August 24, 2007 03:10 PMIf you really want to know what the Second Amendment means you have to read what the Founding Fathers had to say about it in the debates.
Posted by An American on August 24, 2007 03:17 PMDan2, I undertsand what you were doing. I asked our local Police Chief for an application to carry a concealed weapon and, man, was that far out! You have to have a real need and lot of experience to qualify. Kind of puts your "rights" into perspective.
I'll bet the wording of the first amendment sends you into fits, too. Is THAT one loaded!
As for An American: I never mentioned the State Constitution. I was talking about the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution and how it is interpreted, not your right to have or possess arms. I have no objection to your possessing a weapon (should I?).
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
- James Madison
go to www.newswithviews.com and you will find various writers opinions on this topic, 2nd amendment. Devvy Kidd and Edwin Vierra come to mind.
Posted by Jay on August 24, 2007 03:29 PMStan Broyles, What is there to debate about?
Even the short and sweet and to the point truthful post I submited threatens his un-American views. Closing your mind to false assumptions and obfuscations and to the left who keep beating this dead horse into the ground is not worthy of intelligent debate. It is was settled back when the document was drafted. I've seen the half truths and downright lies of the ACLU, the legal arm of the left wingers has perpertrated will this non existent issue of "Seperation of Church and State" The same goes for Roe v.s. Wade that was built on a foundation of lies from it's begginnings to the present day. I have nothing to debate with liars.
Let us see what the Founding Fathers had to say about the Second Amendent.
1]"The Constitution shall never be construed ...to prevent the people of the US who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.[ Alexander Hamilton.]
2]The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is,as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" {Thomas Jefferson} Class dismissed.
Pete Martinez just hit one out of the ball park!!!Pete knows what is going on in this country.Stan the last time I looked you did not have to have a need to get a concealed weapon permit in this state and you do not need a lot of experience.I would call the NRA -1-877-NRA-2000 and ask them what the law is on this issue or they can direct you to a state gun group.They would want to know this.
Posted by An American on August 24, 2007 03:52 PMAn American,
My experience with the concealed weapons app. occured about 10 years ago.
Any more discussions with you are obviously meaningless since you have already decided what I think, what I believe in and what political motives I have. If I don't agree with you, I'm wrong, you're right. Did it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? I didn't think so.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 24, 2007 04:22 PMWhen one fixates on a single constitutional issue or the interpretation of one right to the exclusion of all other rights, he may become very well versed about that right. But, the constitution is not just a list enumerating rights, it is also the foundational bedrock statement of the freedom, justiceand liberty that makes this country historically unique.
Now I want to tell you, everyone of you, what I believe is the single most important issue we face in this Country today. The devisiveness that exists within the people as a whole, primarily typfied by republicans and democrats, left and the right, conservatives and liberals and all the rest of the terms employed by each to define who they are. This is the problem and, it is more insidious and dangerous to the freedom we enjoy than any other single issue. Why?
Because freedom from tyranny and oppression depends on unity, not in all things, but only one thing, knowing the cost of freedom is eternal vigilances ! There are many historical examples showing that tyranny cannot gain power and control without the ages old tactic of divide and conquer.
Dividing is the hard part and they know it, so they wait for an opening in the political differences that are a natural consequence of freedom. Then they begin their treachery with proprganda designed to widen the gap between the two largest politically opposed factions. The smaller factions are not considered because history has shown they fall by the way and are silenced by the ever increasing turmoil this propaganda creates.
There are only two things that can result: Firstly, these political factions will fall into the trap of allowing their differences to increase the gap between them until there is such a wide void, that tyranny can step in as the unifying factor to pull them together, under their agenda of absolute power and control of course. Secondly, they simply wait until these factions fall into the trap created by the propaganda that pits them against each other and reach the point of ineffectiveness, then tyranny steps in a lets the faction beg them to fix the problem they created in the first place.
Now be assured that these are the actual examples of how tyrants rise to power and control, they create chaos then present themselves as the solution to it and the people, tired of it all, welcome them with open arms. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Tito, Idi etc, etc, ad naseam, all used these tatics or ones very close to them to gain power.
You may well say it couldn't happen here but, the political gap is widening and the arguments are getting more violent in nature. Maybe tyranny will not take hold here but. the political devisiveness in this country is unquetionable a warning and a danger that can grow like a cancer if we do not find common ground among us that we can agree on and remove zealous, either or nonsense from the political dicourse.
Remember, tyranny is like many forms of cancer, you don't know it's there until it's to late to stop it.
This
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 25, 2007 08:14 AMStan ,I can only go by what you write to decide what you think.No it did not occur to to me I might be wrong because I have spent a lot of time looking into the Second Amendment.
Posted by An American on August 25, 2007 08:30 AMAllen Campbell,Remember the first thing Hitler and the rest of the tyrants did was disarm the people.The Founding Fathers realized this from reading history.That is why they gave us the Second Amendment.
Posted by An American on August 25, 2007 08:40 AMThe Constitution says what the final arbiter says it says and today's final arbiter is the Catholic cabal, the Vatican five, five terrorist Catholics on the Supreme Court saying: F the Founding Fathers! Imperialist Bush can give $billions to the illigetimate Jew sired "from the loins of David" and screw the other gods. Bush knows the Constitution is just "a goddamn piece of paper," so he says. We are the final arbiter. We pee on the constitution when we so desire. Study of the nation's Organic Law is a waste of time.
Deicide Corner: _______________ Fill in the blank. However, Organic Law is the glue that has kept America together and made her the mightiest and richest nation on earth the illegal immigrants are invading with Bush's blessing.
I suggest because of the final arbiter's final conclusion which is imposed on the People: Let us not trash this "goddamn piece of paper," as neo King George W. trashes.
Posted by RG r22037yahoo on August 25, 2007 09:42 AMSo then is it the right to bare arms that is the only thing necessary to insure freedom, justice and liberty or is it the will of the people, armed or not, that are the glue that holds this country together. Guns have no ethics, no mind, no being. They are tools. It is the people who decide and it is only when people become apathetic and uncaring about our freedom of choice that any sort of tyranny has a chance to succeed and all the guns in the world can't prevent that, only a resurgence of the vigilance freedom requires can do it.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 25, 2007 10:36 AM"Allen Campbell,Remember the first thing Hitler and the rest of the tyrants did was disarm the people.The Founding Fathers realized this from reading history.That is why they gave us the Second Amendment."
I'm sure the Founding Fathers studied all about Hitler.
Posted by on August 25, 2007 01:49 PMAllen Campbell,
Some commentators here have not understood your statements.
I agree with you. You're right on the money.
Thanks Stan!
I don't know if people truly understand the importance of questioning their own thoughts. I find it revealing when I meditate and question why I believe what I do. It keeps me from thinking I am the only one who has the answer, like so many in the venue of comment do. In fact I learned so much that it finnally occured to me that I knew nothing. It was only then that I began to learn.
Dang, all this time I thought that the 2nd amendment right to "bare arms" meant I was able to wear a short sleeved shirt or go without a shirt!
Good points and well said, Allen.
Posted by RU Serious on August 25, 2007 06:18 PM1:29 PM,
Let me see, are you saying that the founding fathers learned from the history of Hitler and others that the first thing they do is take arms away from people? I did not know the founding fathers had developed the time travel technology needed to go forward 150 years, more or less, to learn what was going to happen so they could go back in time to enact a law against what inevitabilty would happen.
Besides, and maybe worst of all, RU Serious would have no arms to put on his short sleeved shirt with.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 26, 2007 02:05 AMI think that Allen Campbell,Stan Broyles and RU Serious are making the point that they do not believe in the Constitution.The reason I brought up the Second Amendment is because it is very clear that the Founding Fathers meant for the citizens to be armed.Allen,Stan and RU Serious have defended the rights of terrorists not to be wiretapped in other postings.In these postings ,above, none of them has made it clear that they really believe in the right to keep and bear arms.The reason for this is because they make up what they want the Constitution to be.Allen Campbell writes about "our freedom of choice".It sounds good but there is no such right in the Constitution.These are probably Democrat cowards and are fearful of being hurt by firearms so they "feel" that we should not have the Second Amendment.Here is what coward means,"Coward-One who yields unworthily to fear of pain or harm."
Posted by An American on August 26, 2007 08:06 AMAllen if you can't understand this statement how do you expect to understand the constitution."Remember the first thing--- the rest of the tyrants did was disarm the people.The Founding Fathers realized this from reading history."The reason I put Hitler in there is you probably did not know that there were tyrants all through history that disarmed the people.What I am trying to teach you is the government that wants to oppress the people is the one that wants to disarm them.That,without a doubt ,is the Democrat party.Is that simple enough for you and your friends to understand.
Posted by An American on August 26, 2007 10:50 AMAll America is not the only poster who exhibits a great naivety about gun control and disarmament.
There isn't a single first world country which does not have some degree of gun control. The places in which there is no effective gun control are places like Iraq, and the other places in the world in which there is constant killing and violence.
Disarmament generally is use to mean taking away all guns. Gun control as it is practiced in the world today never means that, except perhaps in some third world countries.
Erroneously using the word "disarmament" to apply to places where it simply does not exist is a propaganda tool used by people who simply don't have a good grasp of the English language, or who are not too concerned about the accuracy of their language.
Posted by Truth on August 26, 2007 12:42 PMHow long had guns been around in 1776? How many tyrants disarmed people before then?
Did former, or earlier tyrants take away swords, clubs and sticks from their subjects? Seems even the Romans let conquered people be armed, but with what?
For Gods or Goddesses sake agree with An American. Whatever he says, say your right, yessah you got it or what ever it takes to get him off this 2nd amendment rant again.
AA, it is a really large Constitution with amendments and all. More then just one amendment.
Too bad the Constitution in its entirety isn`t written clearly and absolutely like the Bible (joke)
Posted by Sharon B. on August 26, 2007 05:42 PMTruth declared:
"There isn't a single first world country which does not have some degree of gun control. "
Truth, we finally agree on something: American exceptionalism. The fact that the rest of the "first world" countries do or do not do something is irrelevant to American principles of freedom. Otherwise, we would have just chosen a monarchy instead of our Constitutional Republic.
Posted by John II on August 26, 2007 08:10 PMI think Truth and Sharon B. make my point about going by what they "feel" to determine what the Constitution should be.There are about 22,000 gun laws on the books that regulate our "right to keep and bear arms".What if there were that many laws restricting "freedom of speech".Truth would be having a fit.What if there were that many laws infringing on any right that the left "feel" they should have.What if there were 22,000 laws restricting having an abortion.Sharon would be having a fit.Even though there is no such right in the Constitution.The main reason that I brought up the Second Amendment is because it is very clear what the Founding Fathers intended.Because of the great fear of being shot liberal Democrats will make up any phoney excuse to take the right away.It is one of the few rights that put the power in the hands of the citizens and that is what the Democrats fear.Truth gives Iraq as an example of where there is not much gun control.That shows what he really thinks of the citizens of the US.He thinks we are no more than terrorists.This lesson was to show what liberal Democrats really are cowards.Coward--[One who yields unworthily to fear of pain or HARM].I think this describes Truth and Shron when it comes to protecting.Class dismissed.
Posted by An American on August 27, 2007 11:31 AMIn the last sentence after PROTECTING is supposed to have ,the Second Amendment.Second to the last sentence.
Posted by An American on August 27, 2007 11:38 AMAn American:
You needn't bother correcting yourself. Nobody reads your posts or takes you seriously..
Posted by Charles B on August 27, 2007 01:00 PMCharles B says that "nobody reads your posts". Meaning my posts.This shows how much the liberal Democrats will lie.He had to of read my post to make his statement.These people have no shame and they think people can't understand how dishonest they are.I thank God that they are too stupid to see how stupid they really are.
Posted by An American on August 27, 2007 03:06 PMDid you notice that liberal Democrat Charles did not even mention the Second Amendment.He always posts on letters that defend terrorists rights and he supports the terrorists.Now he has a chance to defend our rights and he is silent.This makes me wonder about Charles B.The only answer is he is a US hater or Democrat coward.
Posted by An American on August 27, 2007 03:14 PMIn case anyone is wondering. Here are the steps to get your CCW in Colorado and Utah as well.
1. Take a class. There are quite a few classes available. Cost is about $100.
2. Most counties have the forms and instructions for download. Boulder County does, for example a the sheriff's site.
3. get two money orders, again, at least for Boulder county, your county may differ, one for $100 and one for $52.50
4. Drop in to the Sheriff's office, drop off paperwork and get an appointment for fingerprints and photographs.
5. Wait approx 90 days.
6. Get license.
If you are convicted of a felony, or various other problems with your background, you probably will not qualify.
7. get a good holster, belt. I can recommend lots of good leather makers. My latest is a black sharkskin belt with a matching IWB holster for a H&K P7.
8. if you want the Utah permit, you can write them as well. Cost is less than Colorado's but you can carry in a few more states.
Thanks for that info, Dravur. I was wondering what the steps were. I can't believe all the hoops we have to jump through just to defend ourselves. $250, fingerprints, photographs(?), 90 days?!
Posted by John II on August 27, 2007 05:23 PMJohn 2,
Dravur gave the instructions on getting a CARRY PERMIT.
If you're so concerned about "defending yourself" that you feel the necessity to carry a loaded weapon about with you, then that's the way to go, in Colorado anyway.
On the other hand, if by "defend ourselves" you mean weapons possession as such, then all you need do is go down to your sporting goods store and purchase the rifle, handgun, or other firearm of your choice. You will have to wait for the check that everyone must undergo, to see whether or not you are of sound mind, and have no felony convictions, etc..; but that's not much by way of "jumping through hoops".
And, of course, you can always go out on the street, and acquire some kind of Saturdy Night Special, if you don'[t want to be bothered by investigations about your maturity and stability.
And/or, you can just go right on trotting out the weapons you have already, and carrying them around the house.
"Defend ourselves"? From what? Or are we under the threat of those flying carpets, and great bronze horses powered by the djinn, bringing hordes of bloodthirsty foreigners with swords to cut off our heads? Again? Or Still? Depending on the state of your imagination at any given moment, that is.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 28, 2007 08:53 AMOr better yet OG, just buy a used gun from a private individual. It's perfectly legal and has other great benefits...
No background checks
No waiting time
No record of purchase
No problems!
Posted by KW on August 28, 2007 10:41 AMOld Grouch, remember the LA riots over Rodney King? That is the sort of thing I see coming. When the powers that be decide to make it so, civil unrest such as that will be commonplace across the nation. It will be a precursor to bigger and better things
Posted by Jay on August 28, 2007 01:12 PMJay,
The point being? Are you saying that an isolated incident - isolated in the sense of location in only one place, and not at all something universal throughout the United States - is, somehow, going to be repeated in sufficient number and distribution as to cause "civil unrest" to become "commonplace across the nation"?
Sorry, that's waaaaaaaaay too much of a stretch of a local situation into affecting national affairs, for anything I can relate to...
Old Grouch,
You may do whatever you like to protect yourself. You may depend on the police, you may actually do something to protect yourself and your loved ones. It is up to you.
We give you that freedom. I choose to use my freedom to go armed and I have actually had to use my lawfully concealed firearm to protect a life. I won't be a sheep, but, and here's the rub, we don't require you to as we are for freedom, not against it.
I am a lawful CCW holder. I will protect myself and not have to wait passively for the police to save me. Men save themselves, sheep wait.
Posted by Dravur on August 28, 2007 03:12 PMIt has been established in other postings that Old Grouch is a Democrat coward and fears the people of this counrty owning firearms.Old grouch writes about how it is unlikely that you will need a gun for self defense.How likeiy is it your house will burn down and how many people have fire insurance?I lived near LA most of my life and was within 30 miles of both riots.Being a liberal that has defended the right of terrorists not to be wiretapped it strikes me as weird Old Grouch would be against citizens being able to defend themselves.That seems to be the NEW Democrat party.
Posted by An American on August 28, 2007 03:33 PMOld Grouch,
I will echo Dravur's sentiments: Men save themselves and others.
I am well armed at home. But, what do I do when I'm not home? What about when I'm walking with my wife at night in Denver? I always carry a knife but that may not be enough. I'm new to Denver but I've been here long enough to know that there is a high level of crime that's tolerated by the local government here. The government may tolerate, but I won't.
Posted by John II on August 28, 2007 06:24 PMDravur,
I have no problem with your choice to carry. Nor do I have a problem with anyone else's individual choice in the matter - convicted felons, mentally unstable, and untrained or immature, who cannot get a permit, excepted, of course.
I was merely answering "Jay", as to the nature of the Rodney King incident causing "civil unrest (to become)commonplace across the nation". I think he's stretching an incident in another place, time, and social setting too far, that's all.
I've owned firearms for many years. Over 55 years ago, I had the badge and commission to carry 24/7. This expanded into a multi-State carry, when I went over to a private Safety Patrol, organized for the purpose of providing security for a number of Interstate Trucking firms.
I've posted on the matter of Junior NRA Saftey Lessons - my first when I was 8 years old, 70+ years ago - and firearms ownership, as well as Constitutional Rights, many times.
Which is all I have to say to that stupid little twit who keeps butting in on adult discussions, like a nasty little yapping puppy desperate for attention.
John2,
Sorry you feel that the Metro-Denver area is unsafe. Your comment about a "high level of crime that's tolerated by the local government here", is quite fatuous. But, that's to be expected; and in truth, really has nothing at all to do with the matter of the Constitutional issue of the right to own firearms, nor with the matter of having a concealed weapons carry permit.
The process for getting your own Colorado carry permit has been posted above. If you feel you are in all that much need of one, there is nothing stopping you from applying. Is there?
Most of us grow out of the "good old days of the Old Wild West," and the necessity to play Cowboys and Indians. Others don't, of course.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 29, 2007 08:04 AMIf it was not for the Republican reps. in Colorado the people of Denver would not be allowed to carry concealed.When the Republicans controled the state government they put concealed carry through.Now that the Democrats are in control we will be lucky if we keep that right.
Posted by An American on August 29, 2007 11:04 AMOld Grouch, go to www.youtube.com and search out (fema camp beech indiana), watch a few videos, then search out (bush and security directives) see what you see, then think about why all those camps have been set up. They are for the folks caught up in the chaos that will be unleashed by the next 'false flag' operation, or by the next 'epidemic' requiring mass vaccinations, or the martial law that will be imposed by the dictator when 'the people' demand a redress of grievances as set forth in the Bill of Rights.
The cause will be different, the locations will be widespread, the activities will be very similar to the LA riots.
John II,
I support the right to bear arms, I think the second amendment is important. I’m pretty much a fan of the entire bill of rights and most of the subsequent (surviving) amendments. I get a little nervous when restrictions are placed categorically (and somewhat arbitrarily) on certain types of guns.
Still I think your griping about fingerprints and background checks is to get a CCW permit is a little over the top.
You know your constitutional theory pretty well, so I am sure you are aware that the framers meant for the second amendment to apply to “peaceable citizens”. I would take that in the current time to exclude felons, those convicted of any violent crimes, and those with certain mental illnesses (particularly those with violent tendencies). You don’t need to refer to the farmers private letters and public speeches to make the case that felons should be denied the right to own guns, convicted felons are stripped (or you could say have forfeited) of many of their rights including the right to vote, to liberty (while incarcerated) etc. I think that most people are in agreement with me that while normal citizens should be able to possess guns (ok there are lots of people who disagree with my first clause), that violent offenders, and those with certain mental disorders, should not be able to legally buy a gun.
So, since we have a large population of people who can move about freely between states, and because felons generally do not have their past crimes tattooed on their foreheads. When the country was much smaller and travel outside of a local community was rare, perhaps people could rely on personal knowledge of an individual to determine whether they are a “peacable citizen” or not. But with our current society and population, background checks are necessary and do not infringe on a persons freedom to own a gun. Yes you have to go through an application process of sorts, but as long as you check out you can purchase a weapon. The same goes for concealed carry permits, yes you have to prove you are not a felon or criminally insane, you have to prove that you are not so inept with the firearm that you are a danger to the public, and there are the poorly streamlined redundant forms to fill out, fees to be paid, time to wait, but again, if you are a peaceable citizen you can obtain a permit. It may be a pain in the but, however, your rights have not been abridged.