California's New CC Ruling

[Kensal Rise]

Let me try to aid Mr. Gardner in understanding what he cites: Article III of The United States Constitution:

[B][I]"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

There may be some perceived difference in "levying war" against the States and defending oneself against tyranny, or assisting in the "security of a free State."

Also, the American colonists were NOT oppressed by a "foreign government." They were oppressed by THEIR OWN government.

And, if oppression is "relative" then what was that Holocaust the Jews have been complaining about?

And sorry. Every creature on the face of the Earth has the God given right to defend itself. Even Jews and gays in an Orlando nightclub.

And as for his last claim, I humbly refer Mr. Gardner to this passage of the Declaration of Independence:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


I must emphasize that all this is offered in the cordial spirit of casual debate, with no ill intended toward anyone on this board. Especially Mr. Gardner.

[Bindlestiff]

Originally Posted by John Campbell

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The state of New Hampshire takes this idea to heart.

The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire is the fundamental law of the State of New Hampshire, with which all statute laws must comply. The constitution became effective June 2, 1784, when it replaced the state's constitution of 1776.

The constitution is divided into two parts: a Bill of Rights and a Form of Government.

Part First of the constitution, the Bill of Rights, is made up of 43 articles, codifying many of the same natural rights as does the United States Constitution, including free speech, freedom of the press, jury trials, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms. It protects citizens against double jeopardy, unreasonable searches and seizures, and being required to quarter soldiers. In most cases, the state constitution affords more specific protections than the U.S. Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, New Hampshire's Bill of Rights has been amended regularly since its adoption.

Article 10. Right of Revolution

New Hampshire is one of several states that codify a "Right of Revolution" in their state constitutions. The Right of Revolution dates back to the Revolutionary War. Article 10 reads:

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

I really like living in the "Live Free or Die" state!

[Mike Franzen]

Simply put if, the 2nd A is open to interpretation then I choose to interpret it to mean that it is my God given right to keep and bear arms and if ANYONE tries to take them away from me then I will defend my right unto my death. I can put up with a lot of nonsense but this is the hill I'm willing to die on. Are you?

[Double Lab]

I'm with you Mike. I've had enough.

[Setter Man]

And it is in the spirit of shared interests that we debate these questions, cordially. Unfortunately there are few forums where one can find civil debate. If one can't debate both sides of issues then they don't fully understand the issues.

If there is any lesson to be learned from American jurisprudence it is there is nothing that is black and white. That is why civil debate is critical in our country.

[George M. Purtill Member #28]

Originally Posted by Jay Gardner

If there is any lesson to be learned from American jurisprudence it is there is nothing that is black and white. That is why civil debate is critical in our country.

So true Jay. And the absence of black and white means that there are people with a higher pay grade than we gun owners who will be doing the interpreting and THOSE people don't care about guns or have any experience using them and never did and never will.
Those people of all 3 parties- R and D and IND- are not evil per se. They just don't see why we would ever care about gun ownership.
They have no experience with guns.
We need to reach those people and educate them. Or we will be forever behind the 8 ball.

[Setter Man]

Originally Posted by George M. Purtill

So true Jay. And the absence of black and white means that there are people with a higher pay grade than we gun owners who will be doing the interpreting and THOSE people don't care about guns or have any experience using them and never did and never will.
Those people of all 3 parties- R and D and IND- are not evil per se. They just don't see why we would ever care about gun ownership.
They have no experience with guns.
We need to reach those people and educate them. Or we will be forever behind the 8 ball.

Sad but so true. What's become of us? We all grew up hunting and shooting when we were just as likely to have a shotgun as a basketball. There was nothing evil or suspect about it. People are making gobs of money off this fight, pitting one side against another. Those are the ones we all need to take our anger out on. Those who exploit these shootings (and make no mistake, the are exploiters on both sides of these issues).

[Quigley97]

WOW!! What an informative discussion. Really good straight forward opinions, and we all have a right to have an opinion. Just as Mr. Campbell put it a "civil debate". I myself took it as a mini history lesson. I want to thank all the contributors to this thread it was an interesting read. Thank you again.
Tom P.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Jay Gardner

People are making gobs of money off this fight, pitting one side against another. Those are the ones we all need to take our anger out on. Those who exploit these 'incidents' (and make no mistake, the are exploiters on both sides of these issues).

My, my... we may as well be discussing "global warming" as gun rights.

Indeed - what's become of us?






.

[Paul Harm]

Thank you Mark, Kensal and Robin - very, very good posts. If some would step back and see where the 2A was written - in the Bill of Rights - those are God given rights - not governments rights. I don't understand what anyone finds difficult to understand who's rights they where writing about.