Indiana Laws & Rules That Need Changing NOW.

[4sarge]

OK Rhino, we are going to agree to disagree

Originally Posted by rhino

I try to avoid nitpicking when I can ... but there are some fundamental problems above. Your interpretation

1. The US Constitution grants NOTHING. The Constitution does two things: 1) it enumerates rights that we inherently have as adult humans, and 2) it places limits on what the government is allowed to do. Clearly both elements have long since been forgotten.

Whether you feel that they have been forgotten or not is irrelevant. The US Constitution is the Law of the Land and I will admit that we as a collective whole (American Citizens) have allowed the Federal Government and various special interest groups to usurp those rights. The Bill of Rights is a very important part of the Constitution that was added by the Founding Fathers to protect our individual freedoms and as Americans those freedoms are collective to the group. I will agree that we thru our elected misrepresentation have allowed many of the rights to be usurped by Federal & State Law.

LII: Constitution - Bill of Rights

Constitutional Topic: The Bill of Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

LII: Constitution

Never allow yourself to fall into the mindset that your rights are granted or provided by a document or the government or anyone else. Your rights are inherent to you, and even if bad laws prevent you from exercising them without penalty, you still have them.

2. There is no such thing as a "collective right." Only individuals have rights. The closest thing to a collective right is that individual states (are supposed to) have rights with respect to the Federal government (or they did before 1865 anyway).

Without Law, we have anarchy and thus the goal of the government was/is to provide equal protection for all. A few of the founding fathers were suspicious (rightfully so) of any absolute government and wanted to insure our rights as Americans and thus the Bill of Rights was added.

Sadly, we as Americans continually vote into office individuals who become career politicians that are only there to perpetuate their time in office and the cradle to grave government that we now have. I (like many others) swore an oath to defend this Country, The Constitution, and most importantly "Our" Freedom.

Now, I'm going to have my first cup of morning coffee and my view or opinion could change

[kludge]

Originally Posted by melensdad

Kludge, you make a valid point and one that we were discussing at the gun shop that I was in yesterday, but if I may suggest, the solutions you provide in the link are too limited. You do not seem to provide any provision for transporting a gun to a range for practice but you provide for a transportation provision if someone is going to a lesson. After the lesson don't you want to practice? If so, apparently you will need to hire an instructor every time you wish to practice?

Seems to me there should be a transportation provision that allows for any citizen to be able to transport a gun to/from an established commercial or public shooting range or to the private property of an individual who has private shooting range (like going to your friend' farm).

I agree that people should be able to tranpsort to the range without a license, but that's not the way the law is written now.

The point being, that someone who wants to shoot regulary will get a qualified license, and this option is already provided for in the law, entreched, and not likely to change... but there are too many people who buy a gun for protection in the home and have no interest in carry, target practice, or hunting, and who never learn how to use or store a gun safely, and that person who sought out training would then be committing a crime.

Getting this passed is easier, IMHO, than getting rid of the "qualified" license and allowing people to transport w/o a license.

Baby steps.

And when I look for people to teach the NRA pistol class to, they say, "Can I bring my gun to the range?" Well, technically, no that is illegal - and then they decide it's not worth the hassle, or someone with a permit, like me, would have to pick up their gun and transport it for them, and even then it's still not clear whether they could even then "possess" the gun during the course without "technically" committing a crime.

[rhino]

4Sarge ... It looks like you misunderstood my points. I did not intend to imply that the US Consitution isn't important. It is vastly important, bordering on sacred.

The key is, the Consitution itself isn't the source of our rights. It does not in grant them, nor can it or any element of the government. It was and is intended to protect our rights and restrict the government.

If our rights were granted by the Consitution or gov't, then they could easily be taken away, and they wouldn't be rights at all. They would be privileges granted by a king that happens to consist of more than one person.

I'm not sure how you inferred that I suggested that rule of law was somehow unimportant or that I advocated anything even remotely near anarchy. I was very simply clarifying that our rights do not arise from a document, nor does a collective have rights. The collective is a source of a dictatorship of the majority; rights are sacred and they are possessed by individuals. The Bill of Rights in its entirety is about individual rights. "The people" is a phase that is well understood to refer to individuals. To suggest otherwise plays into the revisionist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is somehow applies to the collective and not individuals, which simply is not true.

[abnk]

Correct, our rights, enumerated in the Constitution, are pre-existing, Natural rights inherent to individuals. The Constitution itself is merely a contract between the people and the government.

In the past, states had the power to challenge any violations of this contract, but this does not seem to be the case anymore. It's funny how we expect the central government to keep itself in check.

[4sarge]

I guess that is all in our individual interpretation. I see "we" as plural and "I" as singular. So in my logic even if faulty is that we are collective because it is plural and not singular in nature.

and as far as

Never allow yourself to fall into the mindset that your rights are granted or provided by a document or the government or anyone else. Your rights are inherent to you, and even if bad laws prevent you from exercising them without penalty, you still have them.

huh :rolleyesedit:

I guess the good thing is that we (strike that) you and I individually believe in gun rights but we do not believe in them collectively as a group of gun owners

[obijohn]

4sarge, i think you may be missing the point again. we can BELIEVE collectively, but the rights themselves are individual in nature. you and rhino seem to be almost on the same page, but are handicapped by the american version of the english language.

can't we just get along?

[4sarge]

Originally Posted by obijohn

4sarge, i think you may be missing the point again. we can BELIEVE collectively, but the rights themselves are individual in nature. you and rhino seem to be almost on the same page, but are handicapped by the american version of the english language.

can't we just get along?

I just want to know the definition of "is" I'm beginning to feel like Bill Clinton. No wonder liberals don't like you gun nuts

[obijohn]

Originally Posted by 4sarge

I just want to know the definition of "is" I'm beginning to feel like Bill Clinton. No wonder liberals don't like you gun nuts

ha ha ha, good one 4sarge.

[4sarge]

Originally Posted by obijohn

ha ha ha, good one 4sarge.

If you thought that was funny, I'm appearing 3 nites a week in the lounge

no cover charge but 3 drink minimum

[Soundslikejosh]

its that the minimum to enjoy the jokes?