Maine Town to 'Require' gun ownership?

(CNN) -- Voters in Byron, Maine, have unanimously rejected a proposed law that would have required each household in the 140-person town to own a firearm and ammunition.
 
And...Yet...
Thanks for playing along...

This was a good read... All opinion is always welcome in my world.

It's all good....
 
ChesusRice said:
What is clearly known is that Jones left for Philadelphia shortly after settling in North America to volunteer his services to the newly founded Continental Navy, precursor of the United States Navy. During this time, around 1775, the Navy and Marines were being formally established, and suitable ship's officers and captains were in great demand. Were it not for the endorsement of Richard Henry Lee who knew of his abilities, Jones's potential would likely have gone unrecognized. With help from influential members of the Continental Congress, however, Jones was to be appointed as a 1st Lieutenant of the newly converted 24-gun frigate Alfred in the Continental Navy on December 7, 1775.[SUP][7][/SUP]
Click to expand...

God Bless America!
 
kpmarine said:
That's the bitch of our system of government; there's a level of stoicism (In the Greek sense.) required. You can't expect the majority to always approve of your ideas of how things should work; the good comes with the bad. Hardline stances have issues like every other stance, they have the downside of not being adaptable though. From what I can see, our government was really designed with two major concepts: 1.)To be resistant to any one individual having effective control. 2.)To provide our minority with an ability to protect it's interests. I think those two concepts remain perfectly viable at this point, dependent on voting habits. That's where everything comes from, elections. Short of Anarchy, there is no complete freedom. As population grows on this tiny ball we live on, we do realistically have to make concessions acknowledging that we are no longer dedicated to just individual survival. I may not appreciate my tax money going to religious organizations; just as you may not appreciate your tax money funding planned parenthood. (I wish to emphasize that this is ENTIRELY hypothetical before anyone starts taking this example out of context.) If either of us don't like how things are working, we should elect new reps., plain and simple. Our elected officials are our agents of change; that change was never intended to be quick or efficient though, so one shouldn't expect progress overnight.
Click to expand...

the problem remains, our constitution is intended to be the final word on what the congress may or may not do, but when it does not permit what they desire, they simply re-define what they want so it can be shoe-horned into the General Welfare Clause, or the Interstate Commerce Clause. (they always call it the "commerce clause" to further relax any restrictions on their power). these two clauses were never considered to be at all nebulous before around 1900 when the nation began it's slow descent towards authoritarianism.

the congress and the courts (under the control of the money trust) have been slowly reaming out the asshole of the constitution (the Interstate Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause) to accommodate anything they want to shove up in there.

the requirement that all payments be in specie (precious metals) and the numerous arguments in opposition to a central bank system have been ignored for so long it doesnt even seem odd that our currency (the most important power of the congress) is run by a private banking cartel for their own benefit.

federal intervention in intra-state matters is so ubiquitous as to be unremarkable

drug prohibition is accepted by vast numbers of the populace without a second thought.

gun control is viewed by many as the next "common sense" step, but they never wonder where those steps are leading.

senators are elected by the plebs robbing the states of their representation in the congress, and making the senate into simply the senior house chamber rather than the voice of the states

supreme court nominations are being operated on single issue tests and a farcical review of their judicial history, but the choices of who may be nominated are really made by the Bar Association, a trade guild of lawyers with no constitutional basis and no accountability to the people, which has resulted in the selection of judges who care more about the Bar's rules than they do the constitution.

our press is complicit with the two major political parties in their attempt to silence any voice which is not part of their master plan.


so yeah, im calling for some of that Olde Time Constitutional Law, rather than the new Post Modern Guidelines and Recommendations.
 
Dr Kynes said:
the constitution was drafted within the framework of the federalist papers. the founders writings are replete with warnings of the danger of peacetime armies standing armies and military bureaucracies. but then they also extolled the virtures of NOT having a central bank, NOT using fiat currency and NOT compelling the states to serve as vassals to the federal government.

the tenth amendment is specific, any power not specifically granted the congress is reserved to the states and the people, and the maintaining of a permanent standing army was NOT included, unlike the navy which was specifically authorized.

the lack of specific authorization for an army, and the emphasis on the use of a militia was not an oversight or an accident. the army we see today has no basis in the constitution, nor does the airforce.

the navy was established in the constitution since warships require specialists to sail them, extensive maintenance even when not at war, and you cant really have an armature navy. the same arguments could be made for the air force and the modern mechanaized army, but until the provisions for the airforce and a standing army are established through a constitutional amendment they remain extra-constitutional, and in direct violation of the intent of the founders. the constitution is NOT a "living document" with plenty of room to shoehorn in anything you want based on weasel words and vagries in linguistic drift.

fuck, BHO should not have recieved the noble prize without the approval of congress since he was holding the office of the presidency at the time and the nobel commission is the very definition of a foreign body. but then the constitution does not limit lefties, it only limits everybody else. for lefties it's a source of any power they desire since if you use the right words to re-define your desired result, anything can fit into the "general welfare clause"
Click to expand...


How is it possible that a document signed hundreds of years ago by a few people can be binding on millions of people that never signed it hundreds of years later? Which other "contracts" are done like this?

You sometimes seem to grasp some logic and I'd like to hear how it is possible in your opinion for one group of people to bind another group that haven't even been born yet?
 
Rob Roy said:
How is it possible that a document signed hundreds of years ago by a few people can be binding on millions of people that never signed it hundreds of years later? Which other "contracts" are done like this?

You sometimes seem to grasp some logic and I'd like to hear how it is possible in your opinion for one group of people to bind another group that haven't even been born yet?
Click to expand...

national sovereignty transcends generations, and is no mere "contract"

you are arguing a fallacy. without the durability of succeeding generations, our nation would not be a nation, and our states would not be states, they would be simply feifdoms vulnerable to domination by a more aggressive neighbor.

the compact of the constitution provides for altering the document, and even abolishing it if future generations find it to be oppressive.

your spoonerite assumption that you are not bound by any law unless you personally agreed to it's inception is ridonkulous. under spooner's fantasy there would be no nations or social structures since no issue receives unanimous agreement.

murderers are of course quite opposed to laws against murder
rapers dont believe that laws against rape are just
theives believe that laws against theft are suppressing their cultural identity

if spooner got his way all of society would collapse, and in short order would be reformed by whoever had the weapons, liege men and aggression to dominate his neighbors.

anarchy creates the void which is inevitably filled by dominant violent men who are willing to kick the shit out of anyone who opposes their dictates.

anarcho-______________ism is a fantasy.
 
I was asking about contracts. You didn't answer that. You went in a different direction and implied that a person that murders wouldn't want to be bound by laws. You are correct there, some might not. What is the similarity between a person that murders and a person that tries to bind others in a "forever contract" they didn't agree to? They both use aggression and non consensual acts as part of their business model don't they?

How well has the constitution done chaining down the federal government? I think THAT answer is obvious.

If Spooner had his way, people would be free to interact consensually. He didn't support acts that initiate aggression or consolidating power in concepts such as "national sovereignty".

You imply that an absence of a central authority MUST result in chaos, why?

National Sovereignty ? Seems a bit oxymoronic and "my teamish" ....it seems to fail to address what sovereign means.
 
Dr Kynes said:
the problem remains, our constitution is intended to be the final word on what the congress may or may not do, but when it does not permit what they desire, they simply re-define what they want so it can be shoe-horned into the General Welfare Clause, or the Interstate Commerce Clause. (they always call it the "commerce clause" to further relax any restrictions on their power). these two clauses were never considered to be at all nebulous before around 1900 when the nation began it's slow descent towards authoritarianism.

the congress and the courts (under the control of the money trust) have been slowly reaming out the asshole of the constitution (the Interstate Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause) to accommodate anything they want to shove up in there.

the requirement that all payments be in specie (precious metals) and the numerous arguments in opposition to a central bank system have been ignored for so long it doesnt even seem odd that our currency (the most important power of the congress) is run by a private banking cartel for their own benefit.

federal intervention in intra-state matters is so ubiquitous as to be unremarkable

drug prohibition is accepted by vast numbers of the populace without a second thought.

gun control is viewed by many as the next "common sense" step, but they never wonder where those steps are leading.

senators are elected by the plebs robbing the states of their representation in the congress, and making the senate into simply the senior house chamber rather than the voice of the states

supreme court nominations are being operated on single issue tests and a farcical review of their judicial history, but the choices of who may be nominated are really made by the Bar Association, a trade guild of lawyers with no constitutional basis and no accountability to the people, which has resulted in the selection of judges who care more about the Bar's rules than they do the constitution.

our press is complicit with the two major political parties in their attempt to silence any voice which is not part of their master plan.


so yeah, im calling for some of that Olde Time Constitutional Law, rather than the new Post Modern Guidelines and Recommendations.
Click to expand...

I do agree that changes need to be made, how does one actually make those changes though? It does seem that states are trying to restore their authority a bit more. I won't dispute that the commerce clause has been shoehorned to justify everything from drug laws to legitimate issues of commerce. It seems a lot of this is the sins of our fathers coming back on us. It's been running amok for so long, I don't think your ideal is attainable any time soon.

As far as the BAR association; how do you feel that should be dealt with? What's wrong with it? I've only known it as a certifying agency for lawyers, which seems like an important service.
 
Rob Roy said:
How is it possible that a document signed hundreds of years ago by a few people can be binding on millions of people that never signed it hundreds of years later? Which other "contracts" are done like this?

You sometimes seem to grasp some logic and I'd like to hear how it is possible in your opinion for one group of people to bind another group that haven't even been born yet?
Click to expand...

You must not be a lawyer. This is not a contract of any kind. It's a kick ass constituted interlocking set of individual sovereign rights. We rebelled and won. We are our own sovereigns. We armed ourselves and didn't look back.

Dirt, blood and bit of magic paper, to remind us of In-alienable, self evident and so, self granted rights. Our govt was granted sovereignty only by all the individual sovs, agreeing. And even they put in the Rights we couldn't think of. (9th A)

The Founding Sovs, neck in the noose already, signed it, so help us all. If you read the fucking manual, (geek talk) you will see what happened. Our founders set it up, in balance with amazingly specific generalities.

And let US figure it out. Which we do, gladly. It takes a long time. Many generations. It is not at all about you. It is ourselves, no King, over centuries of survival so far. No one can like it, this self rule. It is Rule.

It's only choked down because it is US. Individual Sovs, doing our best, and much better than all else. Sovs. I am, you are. Then the States we live in are, as well and that is what Constituted the National Sovereignty. People, States grant the rights to govt and we can modify them. There has been some serious mods in my life time. ...just read more history?

You seem possessed with the familiar fantasies. You don't like it here, you think it un-fair, it's some broken contract, easily voided.

No.
 
Rob Roy said:
How is it possible that a document signed hundreds of years ago by a few people can be binding on millions of people that never signed it hundreds of years later? Which other "contracts" are done like this??
Click to expand...

The supreme law of the land is generally not very enforceable if it's not consistent. That's bad for commerce, for the legal system, and bad for those bound by the legal system. The constitution isn't just a "contract", it's the supreme law of the land that dictates how our body of government functions. Now, there is a twist here that makes it different from other contracts: you can rewrite the thing at ANY TIME, you just need enough friends to agree that it should be done. If you don't appreciate the terms of the agreement, change them.

You sometimes seem to grasp some logic and I'd like to hear how it is possible in your opinion for one group of people to bind another group that haven't even been born yet?
Click to expand...

If you don't see the need for consistency for commerce to thrive, I don't know what to tell you.
 
kpmarine said:
You're not actually addressing the points I made. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Click to expand...

The price of tea in China should be set by mutual agreement between buyer and seller, uninterested parties should stay out of it.

Which points that you made supersede the idea that we all own ourselves as long as we respect the rights of others?
 
Rob Roy said:
I was asking about contracts. You didn't answer that. You went in a different direction and implied that a person that murders wouldn't want to be bound by laws. You are correct there, some might not. What is the similarity between a person that murders and a person that tries to bind others in a "forever contract" they didn't agree to? They both use aggression and non consensual acts as part of their business model don't they?

How well has the constitution done chaining down the federal government? I think THAT answer is obvious.

If Spooner had his way, people would be free to interact consensually. He didn't support acts that initiate aggression or consolidating power in concepts such as "national sovereignty".

You imply that an absence of a central authority MUST result in chaos, why?

National Sovereignty ? Seems a bit oxymoronic and "my teamish" ....it seems to fail to address what sovereign means.
Click to expand...

the constitution is NOT a fucking contract. it is a Compact, a Covenant, but NOT a contract.

the union has failed to hold to it's stated ideals, but that does not invalidate those ideals, nor does the failure to be perfect invalidate the constitution.

the compact of the constitution is not in any way similar to a civil contract save that rights and responsibilities of the various parties are spelled out.
pretending you dont understand this is just an example of begging the question.

spooner's consensual "do as you may" fantasy would inevitably result in the collapse of society and real somalia style anarchy because everybody is NOT NICE.

in spooner's fantasyland the first time some freak tires to touch on your kid's penis or steal your cow you would be forced to "initiate violence" and thus become the villain in your own story. theres a million things that can be done to you without "initiating violence" much like everybody with a kid brother knows how much he can do to piss you off while still being able to chant "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!".

without the authority of the social compact and the uniformed peacekeepers and courts to handle the violence for us, every dispute between neighbors would be settled like grownups, or would devolve into a generational violent feud of escalating violence and revenge. without the cops and courts as a source of mediation every serious dispute would be settled by the sort of violence that america hasnt seen outside the inner city gang wars of the 80's or the war between the states.
eventually all semblance of civilization would vanish, and those who have arms and the willingness to use them against others would become the new rulers over the pacifist peasantry.
then, anything you have, from livestock, to food stores to crops in the field, to a particularly attractive daughter would be a commodity vulnerable to "collectivization" by whatever minor warlord declares himself the Overdog of your particular patch of ground and without meeting his violence with your own, you could only submit.

the social structure of our nation, the several states, their counties, and their municipalities is the hierarchy that provides the illusion of security which allows us to work, engage in commerce and live our lives without constantly preparing for the dystopian nightmare future which will arrive as soon as the illusion of security fails.

once anarchy reigns, there are literally NO RULES (thats why they call it anarchy) save those you can enforce with arms, and your willingness to blow a malefactor's head off.

and yes, national sovereignty is tribal. and theres nothing wrong with that, it is a fundamental part of human nature, it's why we care what happens to our other villagers, but not so much for the people from the hill tribe whoi live in a far off land many day's walk from our forest homes.

the post-modern fascination with being "objective" and rejecting "bias" is an affectation to which i do not subscribe. we all have biases and our own perspectives, pretending we do not have them is self-delusion.
 
Rob Roy said:
The price of tea in China should be set by mutual agreement between buyer and seller, uninterested parties should stay out of it.

Which points that you made supersede the idea that we all own ourselves as long as we respect the rights of others?
Click to expand...

For the sake of throwing a Carlin-ism in here: "If it can be taken away, it's not a right." Any rights you have are only there because we agreed to help you protect them. There are no real natural rights, only the rights you demand and others allow you. Ideally, you have something here, but anarchy only works on paper. If you don't like the fact that laws made in the past apply to you now, change them. Admittedly, things like the war on drugs are an indicator that things need to be fixed; people are starting to realize that our gov. needs constant policing though.

More importantly, what's your solution to the problem you see? All this talk about problems is well and good, but not without a solution.
 
kpmarine said:
For the sake of throwing a Carlin-ism in here: "If it can be taken away, it's not a right." Any rights you have are only there because we agreed to help you protect them. There are no real natural rights, only the rights you demand and others allow you. Ideally, you have something here, but anarchy only works on paper. If you don't like the fact that laws made in the past apply to you now, change them. Admittedly, things like the war on drugs are an indicator that things need to be fixed; people are starting to realize that our gov. needs constant policing though.

More importantly, what's your solution to the problem you see? All this talk about problems is well and good, but not without a solution.
Click to expand...

My solution is to practice and spread the ideas that I believe in. I own me, you own you. Government cannot solve problems that it by it's nature it creates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lifegoesonbrah
stories about people protecting themselves and others with guns
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
4K
Winter Woman
Winter Woman
mr2shim
Damn good gun control article
Replies
0
Views
659
mr2shim
mr2shim
S
texas town allowed teachers to carry guns!YES!
Replies
5
Views
971
ClaytonBigsby
ClaytonBigsby
squarepush3r
Why there are no "good cops"
Replies
7
Views
2K
canndo
canndo
RC7
Kid Makes 38 Million Selling Marijuana
2
Replies
30
Views
10K
Bombur
B
Back
Top