Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

That is kind of silly because if there was a right to vote, then felons could not be denied.
But originally women could not vote, and males who did not own land could not vote.
There is no history of voting being considered an absolute right, because it is not in the Bill of Rights.

When you break our laws and get arrested you forfeit some of your rights

The ONLY way rights can be forfeit is when it is absolutely necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
But preventing ex-felons from having the right of self defense can not be shown to make anyone else any safer.
So while you could say they forfeit their right to self defense while in prison, that is to protect the guards, and does not infringe because the guards then protect the inmates. That is not true once the person has finished their sentence and they are released. So it can then no longer be justifiable to prevent their right of self defense.

When people have a history of being unstable and a danger to the public then Arming them is a public safety risk. They can get a taser or a baseball bat for their own personal safety. I’m fine with conditions and expirations to that btw

There is only so much protection you have with a bat or taser against a man with a gun. If the person is drugged out, even a taser won't stop them. Just ask any cop.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And I blame the individual.

Poverty is a cheap excuse. There are plenty of people in poverty that don't have to break laws or hurt people to live life in America. In fact I would say most don't. You need to graduate high school, you need to stay away from heavy expenses like having children before you can afford them, you need to stay away from drugs, and you need the best paying job you are able to get.

This can be accomplished by most any American at any income level. The exceptions of course are physical or mental disabilities, but not poverty.

I am not talking about poverty, even though poverty is often the main cause of crime.
I am talking about injustice, which I think is not only the current main cause of crime, but is what makes crime justified right now.
For example, around 1957, laws were passed to allow employers to give tax exempt employee benefits.
That resulted in the wealthy all getting free health insurance, while essentially the poor that got no such benefits, had their taxes increased to subsidize that.
That is only one of the first of thousands of unfair an unjust legislative abuses of poor people.
The War on Drugs has harmed tens of millions of mostly poor or Black, and denied them of years of their lives, good job, the ability to vote, etc.
It really is almost to the point where crime is becoming responsible, as an act of rebellion against a very broken system.

Sorry, but I'm not understanding you here: tax exempt benefits affects both rich and poor who receive them. How does it disadvantage the poor?

Secondly, anytime you make something legal that was previously illegal, it increases the frequency of usage.

If you want to make all drugs legal, then expect our OD death rate to rise from 90,000 a year to 900,000 a year. How does that benefit our country?

What do you think would happen if we decided to make rape legal? How about armed robberies? How about murder?

We don't write laws so the individual is protected from themselves in most cases, we write laws to protect those associated with those breaking the laws. I've known or been associated with several people now dead because of opioid usage; one of them my cousins son just a few years ago. I've personally been harmed because of drug usage of other people. One nearly burned my house to the ground. Another ripped all the electoral wiring out of the house. Another busted into my apartment and stole items of value to supply their drug use.

Even if you make all drugs legal, they still need money to buy them be it from an illegal source or a legal source. Given the fact many addicts cannot work, what would you suggest, that taxpayers fund their drug addiction?

Sorry Ray I had to stop at your 90k to 900 k OD rate... that is complete bullshit. Don’t even try to sneak that by

Then try sneaking in the rescinding of drug laws in our country, and see what happens.

We were not discussing recinding all drug laws, but just ending the federal War on Drugs, because it is ILLEGAL!

How is it illegal? You can't tell me the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't have any guaranteed rights for drugs.

Drug laws have to be federal in order to work. It's just like states that now have legal pot. People in nearby states will just drive to a legal state to buy dope when things get dry in their own state. And if you have a state of people strung out on dope so badly that half the people don't work, it will be the federal government providing them welfare and medical care.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The guy that shot six cops in PA was a felon, and from what I heard on the radio the other day, a rap sheet a mile long, yet he had access to all kinds of weapons obviously. There is no way he could have purchased his weapons from a licensed dealer and passed a background check.

This happens all the time unfortunately. I think if you are a felon that uses an illegal firearm in the act of a crime, it should automatically be a life sentence with no parole.

Yes, life should have enough justice and opportunity so that anyone fatally abusing others should just be executed or life incarceration.
But the problem now is that there is no justice or opportunity for the poor, and crime then is not the fault of the criminal.
It is only ok to be draconian when one can be sure it is deserved.
And right now I tend to blame the police, government, corporate interests, corrupt politicians, etc. more than the criminals.

And I blame the individual.

Poverty is a cheap excuse. There are plenty of people in poverty that don't have to break laws or hurt people to live life in America. In fact I would say most don't. You need to graduate high school, you need to stay away from heavy expenses like having children before you can afford them, you need to stay away from drugs, and you need the best paying job you are able to get.

This can be accomplished by most any American at any income level. The exceptions of course are physical or mental disabilities, but not poverty.

I am not talking about poverty, even though poverty is often the main cause of crime.
I am talking about injustice, which I think is not only the current main cause of crime, but is what makes crime justified right now.
For example, around 1957, laws were passed to allow employers to give tax exempt employee benefits.
That resulted in the wealthy all getting free health insurance, while essentially the poor that got no such benefits, had their taxes increased to subsidize that.
That is only one of the first of thousands of unfair an unjust legislative abuses of poor people.
The War on Drugs has harmed tens of millions of mostly poor or Black, and denied them of years of their lives, good job, the ability to vote, etc.
It really is almost to the point where crime is becoming responsible, as an act of rebellion against a very broken system.

Sorry, but I'm not understanding you here: tax exempt benefits affects both rich and poor who receive them. How does it disadvantage the poor?

Secondly, anytime you make something legal that was previously illegal, it increases the frequency of usage.

If you want to make all drugs legal, then expect our OD death rate to rise from 90,000 a year to 900,000 a year. How does that benefit our country?

What do you think would happen if we decided to make rape legal? How about armed robberies? How about murder?

We don't write laws so the individual is protected from themselves in most cases, we write laws to protect those associated with those breaking the laws. I've known or been associated with several people now dead because of opioid usage; one of them my cousins son just a few years ago. I've personally been harmed because of drug usage of other people. One nearly burned my house to the ground. Another ripped all the electoral wiring out of the house. Another busted into my apartment and stole items of value to supply their drug use.

Even if you make all drugs legal, they still need money to buy them be it from an illegal source or a legal source. Given the fact many addicts cannot work, what would you suggest, that taxpayers fund their drug addiction?

Tax exempt employer benefits do NOT at all benefit the poor.
No poor person is getting employer health insurance.
If a job paid well enough to cover health insurance, then the person would not be poor.

And no, prohibition and the War on Drugs clearly show that making something illegal will greatly increase use, if the public finds the government restriction abusive.
Not only do people deliberately violate the law out of protest, but since the profits go way up, far more people become interested in pushing the illegal contraband.

All the drug problems you mentioned are all caused by the fact those drugs were illegal.
If they were not illegal, then people would believe the warnings more, and they would be able to easily get medical help if they still get themselves into medical trouble. It is the fact drugs are illegal that causes people to become trapped and dangerous.

If drugs were no longer illegal, they would be a fraction of the cost, and people could easily afford them because they could get medical help if their ability to work was reduced.

I've known plenty of people that got medical help for their addiction, and they all failed. Opioid addiction is one of those things that few can get off of once hooked. It's not a tough couple of days or couple of weeks to get over it. It's a lifelong struggle many can't maintain.

In states where pot is legal, there are still people selling illegal pot. They simply sell it at a lower price than the legal pot goes for. Many years ago in my state, the debate was whether to have a state lottery or not. Of course each side threw out their pros and cons. The people pushing for the lottery pointed out that it would reduce if not eliminate illegal gambling that sometimes leads to addiction and ruins.

The lottery was passed, and the mob simply used the states numbers pulled to run their games. The reason to place your bet with them is that it was tax-free, and if your numbers came in, a higher payout.

So making something legal is not the solution to any problem. Most times it creates different or more problems. People who are addicted to illegal opioid products can get help today if they wanted. No authority is going to arrest you for getting help. In fact, if you are saved by the paramedics using Narcan, the police don't even get involved.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Did you bother to access the links?

Yes I read the first one and it was good for a laugh. It references amendments in the constitution that literally reference the right to vote but then tries and make the case that we don’t have the constitutional right to vote. Very entertaining to see how these whackos brains work. Goes right in line with my “sell and uzi to a 12 year old scenario” that I brought up earlier... I’m guessing you’d say that should be legal per the constitution.

At what age would you sell an Uzi to someone? What is the justification for the age?

I was using that as an example to the hardline constitutionalist who think all gun laws are illegal. The constitution also doesn’t say that we can restrict a 12 year olds right to have a machine gun so technically with that hardline argument it would be fine for the local 7-11 to sell a uzi and a slurpy to a 12 year old... just pointing out how ridiculous their argument is. Your voting rights articles were right up there on the ridiculous list

No one has ever said all gun laws are illegal.
But everyone should realize all federal gun laws are illegal.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights it to deny federal any federal jurisdiction to various areas, such as weapons.
So your argument about age is pointless.
It is supposed to be state laws that restrict age.
And it likely should vary from state to state.
Older in places like NY, and younger in places like Alaska, where there are greater natural dangers.

Several in this thread have made that argument and I’ve been debating them. You came in late. Many people take the 2nd very literally hence “shall not be infringed” makes any and all regulations illegal. I agree with you about state rights, but I we just had a kid shoot up a festival 45 minutes from my house shooting 15 and killing 3 using a gun he drove to Nevada to buy legally.

Sure maybe he could have found one on the black market if Vegas didn’t give him the easy buy. Or maybe not.

If that kid had been dealt with when people noticed he had problems, there would have been no mass shooting and no excuse for a background check.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

That is kind of silly because if there was a right to vote, then felons could not be denied.
But originally women could not vote, and males who did not own land could not vote.
There is no history of voting being considered an absolute right, because it is not in the Bill of Rights.

When you break our laws and get arrested you forfeit some of your rights

The ONLY way rights can be forfeit is when it is absolutely necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
But preventing ex-felons from having the right of self defense can not be shown to make anyone else any safer.
So while you could say they forfeit their right to self defense while in prison, that is to protect the guards, and does not infringe because the guards then protect the inmates. That is not true once the person has finished their sentence and they are released. So it can then no longer be justifiable to prevent their right of self defense.

When people have a history of being unstable and a danger to the public then Arming them is a public safety risk. They can get a taser or a baseball bat for their own personal safety. I’m fine with conditions and expirations to that btw

When people pose a danger to society the proper places for them are jails, prisons, mental facilities, and / or under the watchful eye of a guardian 24 / 7.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Keep running with that one! Haha

Keep running with that one! Haha

Did you bother to access the links?

Yes I read the first one and it was good for a laugh. It references amendments in the constitution that literally reference the right to vote but then tries and make the case that we don’t have the constitutional right to vote. Very entertaining to see how these whackos brains work. Goes right in line with my “sell and uzi to a 12 year old scenario” that I brought up earlier... I’m guessing you’d say that should be legal per the constitution.

Selling is ownership, and a 12 year old must be able to own anything, such as through an inheritance.
Ownership is not possession, and even possession should be legal if supervised by the parent or legal guardian.

Excellent... I’d propose we allow anybody to own whatever gun they want then... we can just regulate their rights to possess them

Again, you totally miss the point.
No one was ever suggesting all gun law be struck down, just all FEDERAL ones, because the Bill of Rights denied any federal jurisdiction over weapons. It is supposed to be a state or local jurisdiction.

This is not exactly right. The way our process works is that when there is a constitutional issue, it is settled in the courts. So, let's follow the whole sequence so that you understand the truth:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)


“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:



"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution

2) The Right is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence

3) The earliest courts ruled that the Right is absolute and above the jurisdiction of the state government.

The ONLY reason we have so many laws on the books today is that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it repealed the Bill of Rights as unalienable Rights. See this for more details:

Stolen Rights

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You seem to be having a hard time following... I didn’t bring up voting registration as an example of what we need to duplicate for guns. I brought it up as an example of how other rights are regulated after you acted like guns is the only right that we are wanting to regulate.

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

That is kind of silly because if there was a right to vote, then felons could not be denied.
But originally women could not vote, and males who did not own land could not vote.
There is no history of voting being considered an absolute right, because it is not in the Bill of Rights.

When you break our laws and get arrested you forfeit some of your rights

The ONLY way rights can be forfeit is when it is absolutely necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
But preventing ex-felons from having the right of self defense can not be shown to make anyone else any safer.
So while you could say they forfeit their right to self defense while in prison, that is to protect the guards, and does not infringe because the guards then protect the inmates. That is not true once the person has finished their sentence and they are released. So it can then no longer be justifiable to prevent their right of self defense.

It is more accurate to say that unalienable Rights can be suspended when a person is serving a sentence for an actual crime. Constitutionally speaking, the individual should be able to retain their Rights at the end of a prison sentence.

If we let people out of prison, we're saying they've been punished; that they have repaid their debt to society; that they are rehabilitated. If the government cannot say that, they have NO business sending dangerous people back into our streets.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Not if you intimidate people from having defensive guns, so then you cause thousands of crimes to be successful that would not have otherwise.have been lost.
Over 99.9% of people are honest and make society better when armed.
The 0.1% who are a danger armed, are not going to give up because you made it harder for honest people to be armed.
In fact, you will greatly encourage the criminals because they will know there is will be no resistance because everyone else will be unarmed.

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

Wrong.
The proposed Assault Weapons Ban is deliberately targeting the most popular and affordable of all weapons because if the volume economy of scale.
They not only want to make tens of millions of current gun owners into criminals, but they want to put most gun makers out of business by making their currently legal and popular products, illegal.
That violates the 4th and 5th amendment because it takes away livelihood without due compensation.

The reason why private sales currently do not do background checks, is because the BATF refuses to do them.
People selling privately, want to conduct background checks, but the BATF will only conduct them for a person with a Federal Firearms License. And that adds an addition $20 to any transaction.

And since the reality is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, and pistols, shotguns, and all small rifles have been used as assault weapons, the slippery slope will allow them to confiscate ALL firearms then eventually.

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

 

[Slade3200]

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

Not if you intimidate people from having defensive guns, so then you cause thousands of crimes to be successful that would not have otherwise.have been lost.
Over 99.9% of people are honest and make society better when armed.
The 0.1% who are a danger armed, are not going to give up because you made it harder for honest people to be armed.
In fact, you will greatly encourage the criminals because they will know there is will be no resistance because everyone else will be unarmed.

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

How many times do you have to be told that there is no difference between the AR rifles you want to ban and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for the same caliber?

I don’t need to be told that... I’ve explained exactly that many times on this board

 

[Slade3200]

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

You are assuming that every time a straw buyer is caught that a life is saved?

There is no evidence of that

I’m not assuming that. I never said every time. That’s a fake argument

But the facts are that straw purchase/sales are very hard to convict because the person guilty can just claim it was a theft, so they usually get off. That means only about 1 of 1000 get convicted. But the number of convictions really has no correlation to lives saved. The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns are not shooting people. They more likely are using them to just intimidate, either to defend drug turf, at a robbery where not shots are fired, etc. It likely is wrong to imply that laws actually save any lives. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what laws exist.

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

You’re right, but why don’t you use that as an argument to eliminate all licensing requirements? Get ride of the DMV and highway patrol all together?

 

[Slade3200]

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

Voter registration does not require a license, passport or anything at all like that.
They send you voter registration card in the mail.
The main goal is to verify your address.
It is illegal in the US to require an ID, like a license or passport.

And gun control is nothing like that, because first of all it is federal, distant, banned by the Constitution, and pushed by those who have already admitted they want total confiscation of all private firearms.

How do they get your address? Regardless it is a registration process.

You have to send in a voter registration form in order for them to get your address to mail back to, but that is not very significant.
You ignored the important parts, which is that any gun control or regulations it prohibited from the federal government by the Bill of Rights.
And while it is fine for your address be used for voter registration, it is not fine for government to have the address of all the guns in the country. Government can be better than criminals or foreign invaders, but government do also have a long history of being abusive themselves. No one should want any government to have too much power or private information.

Why is it ok to have your address to vote and not for guns?

Because voting is held locally and the best way to prevent people from voting multiple times is to know where they live and where they should be voting

If a town has 500 residents but 5000 people voted in that town then you know there was voter fraud occurring

Agree, it is a smart thing to regulate.... but isn’t the gun argument saying that it’s wrong to regulate our rights?

 

[Slade3200]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

/——/ I don’t believe you own guns. And that is just the first issue with your post. But I do own a gun and my family and friends own guns and we see that you gun grabbers’ true agenda is the eventual ban and confiscation.

I own 11. Don’t really care if you believe me or not

 

[Slade3200]

Keep running with that one! Haha

That is kind of silly because if there was a right to vote, then felons could not be denied.
But originally women could not vote, and males who did not own land could not vote.
There is no history of voting being considered an absolute right, because it is not in the Bill of Rights.

When you break our laws and get arrested you forfeit some of your rights

The ONLY way rights can be forfeit is when it is absolutely necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
But preventing ex-felons from having the right of self defense can not be shown to make anyone else any safer.
So while you could say they forfeit their right to self defense while in prison, that is to protect the guards, and does not infringe because the guards then protect the inmates. That is not true once the person has finished their sentence and they are released. So it can then no longer be justifiable to prevent their right of self defense.

When people have a history of being unstable and a danger to the public then Arming them is a public safety risk. They can get a taser or a baseball bat for their own personal safety. I’m fine with conditions and expirations to that btw

There is only so much protection you have with a bat or taser against a man with a gun. If the person is drugged out, even a taser won't stop them. Just ask any cop.

Well then felons better be smart about the situations they put themselves in. They need to earn back the public trust before we allow them to be armed

 

[Blues Man]

You are assuming that every time a straw buyer is caught that a life is saved?

There is no evidence of that

I’m not assuming that. I never said every time. That’s a fake argument

But the facts are that straw purchase/sales are very hard to convict because the person guilty can just claim it was a theft, so they usually get off. That means only about 1 of 1000 get convicted. But the number of convictions really has no correlation to lives saved. The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns are not shooting people. They more likely are using them to just intimidate, either to defend drug turf, at a robbery where not shots are fired, etc. It likely is wrong to imply that laws actually save any lives. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what laws exist.

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

You’re right, but why don’t you use that as an argument to eliminate all licensing requirements? Get ride of the DMV and highway patrol all together?

Because as you have been told umpteen times driving is not and will never be a right

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Slade3200]

I am not talking about poverty, even though poverty is often the main cause of crime.
I am talking about injustice, which I think is not only the current main cause of crime, but is what makes crime justified right now.
For example, around 1957, laws were passed to allow employers to give tax exempt employee benefits.
That resulted in the wealthy all getting free health insurance, while essentially the poor that got no such benefits, had their taxes increased to subsidize that.
That is only one of the first of thousands of unfair an unjust legislative abuses of poor people.
The War on Drugs has harmed tens of millions of mostly poor or Black, and denied them of years of their lives, good job, the ability to vote, etc.
It really is almost to the point where crime is becoming responsible, as an act of rebellion against a very broken system.

Sorry, but I'm not understanding you here: tax exempt benefits affects both rich and poor who receive them. How does it disadvantage the poor?

Secondly, anytime you make something legal that was previously illegal, it increases the frequency of usage.

If you want to make all drugs legal, then expect our OD death rate to rise from 90,000 a year to 900,000 a year. How does that benefit our country?

What do you think would happen if we decided to make rape legal? How about armed robberies? How about murder?

We don't write laws so the individual is protected from themselves in most cases, we write laws to protect those associated with those breaking the laws. I've known or been associated with several people now dead because of opioid usage; one of them my cousins son just a few years ago. I've personally been harmed because of drug usage of other people. One nearly burned my house to the ground. Another ripped all the electoral wiring out of the house. Another busted into my apartment and stole items of value to supply their drug use.

Even if you make all drugs legal, they still need money to buy them be it from an illegal source or a legal source. Given the fact many addicts cannot work, what would you suggest, that taxpayers fund their drug addiction?

Sorry Ray I had to stop at your 90k to 900 k OD rate... that is complete bullshit. Don’t even try to sneak that by

Then try sneaking in the rescinding of drug laws in our country, and see what happens.

We were not discussing recinding all drug laws, but just ending the federal War on Drugs, because it is ILLEGAL!

How is it illegal? You can't tell me the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't have any guaranteed rights for drugs.

Drug laws have to be federal in order to work. It's just like states that now have legal pot. People in nearby states will just drive to a legal state to buy dope when things get dry in their own state. And if you have a state of people strung out on dope so badly that half the people don't work, it will be the federal government providing them welfare and medical care.

That’s the same argument being used to federalize gun laws. Gilroy shooter drove to Vegas to get his weapon

 

[Blues Man]

Voter registration does not require a license, passport or anything at all like that.
They send you voter registration card in the mail.
The main goal is to verify your address.
It is illegal in the US to require an ID, like a license or passport.

And gun control is nothing like that, because first of all it is federal, distant, banned by the Constitution, and pushed by those who have already admitted they want total confiscation of all private firearms.

How do they get your address? Regardless it is a registration process.

You have to send in a voter registration form in order for them to get your address to mail back to, but that is not very significant.
You ignored the important parts, which is that any gun control or regulations it prohibited from the federal government by the Bill of Rights.
And while it is fine for your address be used for voter registration, it is not fine for government to have the address of all the guns in the country. Government can be better than criminals or foreign invaders, but government do also have a long history of being abusive themselves. No one should want any government to have too much power or private information.

Why is it ok to have your address to vote and not for guns?

Because voting is held locally and the best way to prevent people from voting multiple times is to know where they live and where they should be voting

If a town has 500 residents but 5000 people voted in that town then you know there was voter fraud occurring

Agree, it is a smart thing to regulate.... but isn’t the gun argument saying that it’s wrong to regulate our rights?

I gave you a reason why voting is based on address

There is no need to know the address of anyone who owns a gun

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

Sorry, but I'm not understanding you here: tax exempt benefits affects both rich and poor who receive them. How does it disadvantage the poor?

Secondly, anytime you make something legal that was previously illegal, it increases the frequency of usage.

If you want to make all drugs legal, then expect our OD death rate to rise from 90,000 a year to 900,000 a year. How does that benefit our country?

What do you think would happen if we decided to make rape legal? How about armed robberies? How about murder?

We don't write laws so the individual is protected from themselves in most cases, we write laws to protect those associated with those breaking the laws. I've known or been associated with several people now dead because of opioid usage; one of them my cousins son just a few years ago. I've personally been harmed because of drug usage of other people. One nearly burned my house to the ground. Another ripped all the electoral wiring out of the house. Another busted into my apartment and stole items of value to supply their drug use.

Even if you make all drugs legal, they still need money to buy them be it from an illegal source or a legal source. Given the fact many addicts cannot work, what would you suggest, that taxpayers fund their drug addiction?

Sorry Ray I had to stop at your 90k to 900 k OD rate... that is complete bullshit. Don’t even try to sneak that by

Then try sneaking in the rescinding of drug laws in our country, and see what happens.

We were not discussing recinding all drug laws, but just ending the federal War on Drugs, because it is ILLEGAL!

How is it illegal? You can't tell me the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't have any guaranteed rights for drugs.

Drug laws have to be federal in order to work. It's just like states that now have legal pot. People in nearby states will just drive to a legal state to buy dope when things get dry in their own state. And if you have a state of people strung out on dope so badly that half the people don't work, it will be the federal government providing them welfare and medical care.

That’s the same argument being used to federalize gun laws. Gilroy shooter drove to Vegas to get his weapon

We already have federal gun laws and we need to enforce those laws before we add more

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, life should have enough justice and opportunity so that anyone fatally abusing others should just be executed or life incarceration.
But the problem now is that there is no justice or opportunity for the poor, and crime then is not the fault of the criminal.
It is only ok to be draconian when one can be sure it is deserved.
And right now I tend to blame the police, government, corporate interests, corrupt politicians, etc. more than the criminals.

And I blame the individual.

Poverty is a cheap excuse. There are plenty of people in poverty that don't have to break laws or hurt people to live life in America. In fact I would say most don't. You need to graduate high school, you need to stay away from heavy expenses like having children before you can afford them, you need to stay away from drugs, and you need the best paying job you are able to get.

This can be accomplished by most any American at any income level. The exceptions of course are physical or mental disabilities, but not poverty.

I am not talking about poverty, even though poverty is often the main cause of crime.
I am talking about injustice, which I think is not only the current main cause of crime, but is what makes crime justified right now.
For example, around 1957, laws were passed to allow employers to give tax exempt employee benefits.
That resulted in the wealthy all getting free health insurance, while essentially the poor that got no such benefits, had their taxes increased to subsidize that.
That is only one of the first of thousands of unfair an unjust legislative abuses of poor people.
The War on Drugs has harmed tens of millions of mostly poor or Black, and denied them of years of their lives, good job, the ability to vote, etc.
It really is almost to the point where crime is becoming responsible, as an act of rebellion against a very broken system.

Sorry, but I'm not understanding you here: tax exempt benefits affects both rich and poor who receive them. How does it disadvantage the poor?

Secondly, anytime you make something legal that was previously illegal, it increases the frequency of usage.

If you want to make all drugs legal, then expect our OD death rate to rise from 90,000 a year to 900,000 a year. How does that benefit our country?

What do you think would happen if we decided to make rape legal? How about armed robberies? How about murder?

We don't write laws so the individual is protected from themselves in most cases, we write laws to protect those associated with those breaking the laws. I've known or been associated with several people now dead because of opioid usage; one of them my cousins son just a few years ago. I've personally been harmed because of drug usage of other people. One nearly burned my house to the ground. Another ripped all the electoral wiring out of the house. Another busted into my apartment and stole items of value to supply their drug use.

Even if you make all drugs legal, they still need money to buy them be it from an illegal source or a legal source. Given the fact many addicts cannot work, what would you suggest, that taxpayers fund their drug addiction?

Tax exempt employer benefits do NOT at all benefit the poor.
No poor person is getting employer health insurance.
If a job paid well enough to cover health insurance, then the person would not be poor.

And no, prohibition and the War on Drugs clearly show that making something illegal will greatly increase use, if the public finds the government restriction abusive.
Not only do people deliberately violate the law out of protest, but since the profits go way up, far more people become interested in pushing the illegal contraband.

All the drug problems you mentioned are all caused by the fact those drugs were illegal.
If they were not illegal, then people would believe the warnings more, and they would be able to easily get medical help if they still get themselves into medical trouble. It is the fact drugs are illegal that causes people to become trapped and dangerous.

If drugs were no longer illegal, they would be a fraction of the cost, and people could easily afford them because they could get medical help if their ability to work was reduced.

I've known plenty of people that got medical help for their addiction, and they all failed. Opioid addiction is one of those things that few can get off of once hooked. It's not a tough couple of days or couple of weeks to get over it. It's a lifelong struggle many can't maintain.

In states where pot is legal, there are still people selling illegal pot. They simply sell it at a lower price than the legal pot goes for. Many years ago in my state, the debate was whether to have a state lottery or not. Of course each side threw out their pros and cons. The people pushing for the lottery pointed out that it would reduce if not eliminate illegal gambling that sometimes leads to addiction and ruins.

The lottery was passed, and the mob simply used the states numbers pulled to run their games. The reason to place your bet with them is that it was tax-free, and if your numbers came in, a higher payout.

So making something legal is not the solution to any problem. Most times it creates different or more problems. People who are addicted to illegal opioid products can get help today if they wanted. No authority is going to arrest you for getting help. In fact, if you are saved by the paramedics using Narcan, the police don't even get involved.

In CA, pot is a 10 billion dollar industry. 3 billion legal market 7 billion illegal. So legalization cut the criminal cash flow down by at least 30% and also funded over a billion in taxes which can be used for law enforcement education and rehab. The products being sold can also be developed to be safer than the products on the black market. The positives far outweigh the negatives

 

[Slade3200]

Yes I read the first one and it was good for a laugh. It references amendments in the constitution that literally reference the right to vote but then tries and make the case that we don’t have the constitutional right to vote. Very entertaining to see how these whackos brains work. Goes right in line with my “sell and uzi to a 12 year old scenario” that I brought up earlier... I’m guessing you’d say that should be legal per the constitution.

At what age would you sell an Uzi to someone? What is the justification for the age?

I was using that as an example to the hardline constitutionalist who think all gun laws are illegal. The constitution also doesn’t say that we can restrict a 12 year olds right to have a machine gun so technically with that hardline argument it would be fine for the local 7-11 to sell a uzi and a slurpy to a 12 year old... just pointing out how ridiculous their argument is. Your voting rights articles were right up there on the ridiculous list

No one has ever said all gun laws are illegal.
But everyone should realize all federal gun laws are illegal.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights it to deny federal any federal jurisdiction to various areas, such as weapons.
So your argument about age is pointless.
It is supposed to be state laws that restrict age.
And it likely should vary from state to state.
Older in places like NY, and younger in places like Alaska, where there are greater natural dangers.

Several in this thread have made that argument and I’ve been debating them. You came in late. Many people take the 2nd very literally hence “shall not be infringed” makes any and all regulations illegal. I agree with you about state rights, but I we just had a kid shoot up a festival 45 minutes from my house shooting 15 and killing 3 using a gun he drove to Nevada to buy legally.

Sure maybe he could have found one on the black market if Vegas didn’t give him the easy buy. Or maybe not.

If that kid had been dealt with when people noticed he had problems, there would have been no mass shooting and no excuse for a background check.

Probably, I’m all for supporting mental healthcare... it’s needed

 

[Slade3200]

Keep running with that one! Haha

That is kind of silly because if there was a right to vote, then felons could not be denied.
But originally women could not vote, and males who did not own land could not vote.
There is no history of voting being considered an absolute right, because it is not in the Bill of Rights.

When you break our laws and get arrested you forfeit some of your rights

The ONLY way rights can be forfeit is when it is absolutely necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
But preventing ex-felons from having the right of self defense can not be shown to make anyone else any safer.
So while you could say they forfeit their right to self defense while in prison, that is to protect the guards, and does not infringe because the guards then protect the inmates. That is not true once the person has finished their sentence and they are released. So it can then no longer be justifiable to prevent their right of self defense.

When people have a history of being unstable and a danger to the public then Arming them is a public safety risk. They can get a taser or a baseball bat for their own personal safety. I’m fine with conditions and expirations to that btw

When people pose a danger to society the proper places for them are jails, prisons, mental facilities, and / or under the watchful eye of a guardian 24 / 7.

How do you plan on finding that program? Who’s in charge?