ALL! Please refer to "gun rights" as CIVIL RIGHTS from now on.

[dantodd]

I certainly do understand what your point is and for the most part i do agree. I also think there is a huge difference between owning a firearm of any kind and being lawful and the church shouting their views on the war but directing that message to the family of the fallen soldier who is trying to bury him.

I guess the best hypothetical would be if you decided to take your AR/AK over to the same grave site and obnoxiously start shooting it at headstones while the funeral is in progress. Not trying to be inflammatory, JMO

My point is you are basing what should be legal and illegal on your "feelings" and that is exactly what we don't want fence sitters to do. It is easy for non-gun owning fence sitters to simply decide "I feel like guns are scary so let's outlaw them." We want them to think about what it means to strip someone of an enumerated constitutional right.

I really do want you to answer my question though. What is the difference between your own beliefs on Westboro Baptist church and anti-gunners position on gun-rights? They were both decided by SCOTUS to be protected civil rights. If you can't support one how can you ever condemn someone else for treating another SCOTUS decision with equal disregard?

[taperxz]

My point is you are basing what should be legal and illegal on your "feelings" and that is exactly what we don't want fence sitters to do. It is easy for non-gun owning fence sitters to simply decide "I feel like guns are scary so let's outlaw them." We want them to think about what it means to strip someone of an enumerated constitutional right.

I really do want you to answer my question though. What is the difference between your own beliefs on Westboro Baptist church and anti-gunners position on gun-rights? They were both decided by SCOTUS to be protected civil rights. If you can't support one how can you ever condemn someone else for treating another SCOTUS decision with equal disregard?

OK let me give it a shot here, (no pun intended)

We certainly can say what we want when we want for the most part. Westboro certainly has the right to congregate as a group. We as gun owners also have a right to keep and bear arms.

Should Westboro have the right to display or rally at a private event? NO! (It was ruled that Westboro had to follow the rules of the local government to get permission to assemble at these funerals and follow those laws) Thats why they now have assemble so many yards away from the actual funeral now where before they didn't.

Just like you or i don't have a right to bring our firearm into a private residence if the owner does not allow it.

There are rules and regulations for even the most basic rights in this country whether it be the 1A or 2A the Supreme Court even says this.

[chris12]

If you can't support one how can you ever condemn someone else for treating another SCOTUS decision with equal disregard?

Is there really anyone here who thinks all SCOTUS decisions are correct? Even if you throw out the ones where they (or an amendment) have already overturned (Dred Scott) it you still have some that don't deserve support. Slaugherhouse? Wickard?

I think Westboro was decided correctly, but just because SCOTUS decides something doesn't mean everyone should agree.

[dantodd]

[/B]

OK let me give it a shot here, (no pun intended)

We certainly can say what we want when we want for the most part. Westboro certainly has the right to congregate as a group. We as gun owners also have a right to keep and bear arms.

Should Westboro have the right to display or rally at a private event? NO! (It was ruled that Westboro had to follow the rules of the local government to get permission to assemble at these funerals and follow those laws) Thats why they now have assemble so many yards away from the actual funeral now where before they didn't.

Just like you or i don't have a right to bring our firearm into a private residence if the owner does not allow it.

There are rules and regulations for even the most basic rights in this country whether it be the 1A or 2A the Supreme Court even says this.

(I realize why you think that what Westboro is doing is wrong, that isn't my point though I could argue that case with you as well)

My point is that the Supreme Court has said that Westboro's activities are protected. The Supreme Court has said that private ownership (and bearing for self-defense in the event of confrontation) of firearms is protected.

If you are going to demand legislators and others accept Heller even though they may not like it why would you refuse to accept Westboro even though you don't like it?

If some city/state tried to stop Westboro in defiance of the SCOTUS ruling I wouldn't expect you to protest or file a lawsuit but I also wouldn't expect you (if you are a friend of the constitution and believe in the rule of law) to defend such laws.

The test of our commitment to the rights of others is not our willingness to defend those who exercise the same rights we enjoy but rather our willingness to defend those who exercise rights we find repugnant.

[taperxz]

(I realize why you think that what Westboro is doing is wrong, that isn't my point though I could argue that case with you as well)

My point is that the Supreme Court has said that Westboro's activities are protected. The Supreme Court has said that private ownership (and bearing for self-defense in the event of confrontation) of firearms is protected.

If you are going to demand legislators and others accept Heller even though they may not like it why would you refuse to accept Westboro even though you don't like it?

If some city/state tried to stop Westboro in defiance of the SCOTUS ruling I wouldn't expect you to protest or file a lawsuit but I also wouldn't expect you (if you are a friend of the constitution and believe in the rule of law) to defend such laws.

The test of our commitment to the rights of others is not our willingness to defend those who exercise the same rights we enjoy but rather our willingness to defend those who exercise rights we find repugnant.

And i agree with you! "I" am of the belief that all situations "can" merit different interpretations which in turn can be subjected to different forms of rights according to the constitution.

IMO Westboro, was and inflammatory action, 1A protected or not. The Supreme Court did subject them to the local restrictions! Thats probably one of the reasons they are not assembling at the funerals any more.

The 2A which is a right to own and bear, can only be seen as inflammatory if one were to misuse the firearm they bear. I guess thats the only way i can describe what i was trying to convey.

For whats its worth: The 2A is a Civil right and i don't think anyone here should not convey that to others.

[wash]

We can't win if we are hypocrites.

If we claim our second amendment civil rights we are going to have to bite our tongue a little when things like the Westboro's come up.

The Westboro's are just one of the smaller prices we pay for freedom.

You can't pick and choose the civil rights you want without earning that hypocrite title.

You can want to punch a Westboro in the face and still respect their first amendment rights. That's just not being perfect.

[taperxz]

We can't win if we are hypocrites.

If we claim our second amendment civil rights we are going to have to bite our tongue a little when things like the Westboro's come up.

The Westboro's are just one of the smaller prices we pay for freedom.

You can't pick and choose the civil rights you want without earning that hypocrite title.

You can want to punch a Westboro in the face and still respect their first amendment rights. That's just not being perfect.

Absolutely!! No one wants to be hypocritical, especially when when one person disagrees with the work one is doing (MAIG) and thinking it is a waste of time as opposed to solving violence in some other city that has little to do with the 2A. No no hyprocrisy there at all.

[oaklander]

Quick addendum. . .

Two things:

1) A little bird told me that a VERY esteemed place of higher education will likely be doing a seminar on gun rights AS civil rights.

2) In Oakland, even the mainline groups (some of which have been around since the 1970's) are pretty much welcoming me with open arms. The reason is that I introduce myself as a civil rights person. I kind of wanted to be one of those folks in the 1960's who was fighting for racial equality. I never thought the race thing was fair, or even made sense.

I was born too late to be a part of the initial fights in that battle. But a lot of gun control came out of BACKLASHES AGAINST minorities (as a result of fear). Remember who signed the Mulford Act?

NOW, I am not some liberal, or conservative, or ANYTHING. I am poor because I do mostly this stuff and I am too stupid to figure out how to monetize it in an ethical fashion. So I stay poor (but I have FUN!) I am also not a leader. At work, they just kind of let me work by myself, and I guess tacitly support what I am doing. BUT - my gift, if I have one - is that I can kind of intuit how things parse out politically.

Right now, people ARE waking up - and they ARE realizing that we are the good guys and gals here. This is an amazing thing, and it makes what we all do very meaningful.

LOOK:

I do not like things that are stupid, unfair, and which hurt our country. Most rational people feel the same way I do. It is called "common sense" - and I am starting to see more of it in Bay Area government. We can fix this up here in NorCal, and you all are going to be part of it.


Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

[E Pluribus Unum]

As most of you know, I am now doing actual politics in Oakland. That means I am meeting with community leaders, doing photo ops, and all the other stuff you read about in political books, or something.

WELL, now I know WHY we do these things. Our MAIN "thing in life" is to achieve our goal (gun rights and defense rights) by getting people to LIKE US. The reason people LIKE US is that most rational people either own guns (and are clear supporters), or are slightly in favor of guns anyways (since they have common sense).

Rational people have a general tendancy to REALLY like the entire concept of right and wrong. And "rights" are called "rights" because THEY ARE RIGHT. Simple english AND math in that little equation!

I can tell you all from experience that I get a better reception with policy makers when I introduce myself as a civil rights person - AND NOT as a "gun rights" person. I do not know why this is, but it does not matter. I now introduce myself as a civil rights person.

Remember, civil rights is NOT a partisan issue!

Anyways, I know I am just "the BBQ guy" - but I am hoping people can start calling us what we REALLY ARE - civil rights advocates.


Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

That's funny; I just had a similar discussion today.... I told a guy that the gun groups have been filing civil rights lawsuits, and the country boy I was talking to said "now you sound like a liberal.... that's all they do is talk about civil rights...."

I explained that thanks to Heller and other cases.... gun rights ARE civil rights. Much of the legal precedent lost in cases like Rowe v Wade has set the groundwork for the second amendment. Any previous case that solidified enumerated personal liberties, and the limited process by which they can be thwarted, set the ground rules for the second. After all, what applies to one right, should apply to all rights.

[oaklander]

As we move forward, some opposition will come from strange places.

Do you remember Johnny The Jet Boy? He is CEO of a company in Antelope Valley, and I guess he "knows people." He seemed to have the idea that only certain, special people should have guns. The way I see it, if you are fairly law abiding, and NOT dangerous, then why should you NOT be able to own a defensive firearm?

We ran him off the forum. But you will see people like that from time to time. They are also known as people who will never be able to run for public office. The only reason I can EVEN think of it is because my views are correct in every sense: morally, legally, ethically, and commonsense-ally.

;-)

But there ARE people out there who appear to have ZERO moral basis upon which to base their views.




Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

[ivanimal]

We will always be singled out of groups for fighting for gun rights, Not many would exclude a civil rights fighter. Civil rights it is.

Civil rights they are.

[oaklander]

We will always be singled out of groups for fighting for gun rights, Not many would exclude a civil rights fighter. Civil rights it is.

Civil rights they are.

Word!