Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Blues Man]

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

If your gonna default back to that weak knee jerk argument then stop responding and save your breath. I’ve said several times now that the car comparisons have nothing to with rights vs privilege...that’s a different debate. this debate is about the effectiveness of laws and regulations. Let that sink in and if you still don’t get it then dont engage.

When you compare a right to a privilege it is you who are putting forth the poorer argument as the two are not remotely equivalent

The argument is whether regulations help the public safety. I can use whatever I want as an example for that. As soon as you pivot to the “rights” argument, you digress

The reason for the regulations isn't public safety the one and only reason is revenue

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

If your gonna default back to that weak knee jerk argument then stop responding and save your breath. I’ve said several times now that the car comparisons have nothing to with rights vs privilege...that’s a different debate. this debate is about the effectiveness of laws and regulations. Let that sink in and if you still don’t get it then dont engage.

When you compare a right to a privilege it is you who are putting forth the poorer argument as the two are not remotely equivalent

The argument is whether regulations help the public safety. I can use whatever I want as an example for that. As soon as you pivot to the “rights” argument, you digress

The reason for the regulations isn't public safety the one and only reason is revenue

It's less the revenue than it is the first stepping stone to confiscation of all firearms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I do better by sticking to the argument and giving direct answers. You pivoting to the “rights” argument was a cop out

How is that a cop out?

Is it not a right?

Let's start there, shall we?

Don't tell me you're one of the assholes who argued that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right, but is exercised collectively by militia, are you?

That is unforgivable and ends all discussion, if that is you.

.

The car comparison was being used to justify how laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena. That was the point of the debate. Not whether it was a right or not. Your trying to take the conversation in a different direction . I’m not going to explain this again. This is like the 5th time now.

Yes guns are a right and driving is a privilege... I get it... not the point of this convo

Yes, laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena.

So, what your you saying? You want to license the carrying of "dangerous tools" (firearms) in the public arena?

We already do that.

You want to license the keeping of arms in one's personal space, as it appears here.

.

Personally I’m not totally on board with registration, I like airing out the pros and cons through debate. I do support background checks and regulations on certain weapons but for most issues I enjoy hearing both sides of the argument

Fair enough.

The question becomes the purpose of a background check. If someone's background makes them unsafe to exercise a right, why is that person walking among us in the first place?

Same with registration. What is the purpose?

.

This gets into the Thought Police category. We know somebody who has a problem with alcohol. Should we require that you must have permission from the government on your license or government photo ID to drink in public? After all, if we are going to assume a violent person is going to shoot somebody, we can reasonably assume the alcoholic may get behind the wheel of a car and kill somebody or multiple people.

 

[Slade3200]

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

If your gonna default back to that weak knee jerk argument then stop responding and save your breath. I’ve said several times now that the car comparisons have nothing to with rights vs privilege...that’s a different debate. this debate is about the effectiveness of laws and regulations. Let that sink in and if you still don’t get it then dont engage.

When you compare a right to a privilege it is you who are putting forth the poorer argument as the two are not remotely equivalent

The argument is whether regulations help the public safety. I can use whatever I want as an example for that. As soon as you pivot to the “rights” argument, you digress

All kinds of shit can help public safety. Throwing everyone in jail will greatly improve public safety, but look what you have do to achieve it.

.

Right. I wouldn’t support a proposal to throw everybody in jail

 

[Slade3200]

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

If your gonna default back to that weak knee jerk argument then stop responding and save your breath. I’ve said several times now that the car comparisons have nothing to with rights vs privilege...that’s a different debate. this debate is about the effectiveness of laws and regulations. Let that sink in and if you still don’t get it then dont engage.

When you compare a right to a privilege it is you who are putting forth the poorer argument as the two are not remotely equivalent

The argument is whether regulations help the public safety. I can use whatever I want as an example for that. As soon as you pivot to the “rights” argument, you digress

The reason for the regulations isn't public safety the one and only reason is revenue

Whatever you say. Haha.

As if I care about the government collecting revenue. You don’t do a very good job understanding opposing positions.

 

[Blues Man]

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

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If your gonna default back to that weak knee jerk argument then stop responding and save your breath. I’ve said several times now that the car comparisons have nothing to with rights vs privilege...that’s a different debate. this debate is about the effectiveness of laws and regulations. Let that sink in and if you still don’t get it then dont engage.

When you compare a right to a privilege it is you who are putting forth the poorer argument as the two are not remotely equivalent

The argument is whether regulations help the public safety. I can use whatever I want as an example for that. As soon as you pivot to the “rights” argument, you digress

The reason for the regulations isn't public safety the one and only reason is revenue

Whatever you say. Haha.

As if I care about the government collecting revenue. You don’t do a very good job understanding opposing positions.

Your position is weak

The facts tell you that.

Over 100 million legal gun owners and most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners

So all your regulation and fees and licenses you want to impose on legal gun owners will do nothing to stop gun crimes

The only thing that will stop gun crimes that has actually been proven to do so is to uncompromisingly enforce our federal gun laws.

 

[Slade3200]

If your gonna default back to that weak knee jerk argument then stop responding and save your breath. I’ve said several times now that the car comparisons have nothing to with rights vs privilege...that’s a different debate. this debate is about the effectiveness of laws and regulations. Let that sink in and if you still don’t get it then dont engage.

When you compare a right to a privilege it is you who are putting forth the poorer argument as the two are not remotely equivalent

The argument is whether regulations help the public safety. I can use whatever I want as an example for that. As soon as you pivot to the “rights” argument, you digress

The reason for the regulations isn't public safety the one and only reason is revenue

Whatever you say. Haha.

As if I care about the government collecting revenue. You don’t do a very good job understanding opposing positions.

Your position is weak

The facts tell you that.

Over 100 million legal gun owners and most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners

So all your regulation and fees and licenses you want to impose on legal gun owners will do nothing to stop gun crimes

The only thing that will stop gun crimes that has actually been proven to do so is to uncompromisingly enforce our federal gun laws.

Yeah yeah, you think my position is weak, I think yours is weak... that stuff make zero difference.

It’s funny that you try and make the argument that most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners. First of there are still many crimes committed by people who legally purchased guns or who got their guns from people who legally purchased the guns. Second, it’s because of laws and regulations that make it so they had to get the guns illegally. That’s a good thing. Why would we want to make it easier for these guys to get guns?!

As for enforcing gun laws, I agree with you. Do you think we aren’t enforcing the laws? Sounds like a talking point without a lot of meat behind it

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Again that is an absurd and very stupid comment.
The vast majority of the people are honest, but they will still have traffic accidents.
It is not criminals intent on harm that cause car accidents, but simply the fact driving is VERY difficult.
So of course you need licensing, training, laws, etc., for traffic.
But that has nothing at all to do with gun laws, which supposedly are only to catch criminals, while in actuality only harming honest people.
So traffic laws, licensing, and regulations clearly are necessary and save lives, while gun laws only cause harm, and do absolutely no good at all.

That’s a fair point but there are relations... mainly doing our best to make sure responsible people have access to dangerous equipment (guns and cars). for driving we want people to be of age, knowledgeable/obedient of laws and using proper safety equipment. Guns we want responsible people that don’t pose a risk and we want to make sure the equipment being sold doesn’t have the ability to do a tremendous amount of damage if it is used for illegal actions. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

Sure we want responsible gun owners who won't pose a risk, but you have not suggest at all how any additional laws can accomplish that, since criminals already are intending to violate laws that already have far greater penalties than illegal firearms purchase laws.
It does not stop people from driving illegally when you take their license away either.
All it does is allow you to fine them, if you happen to catch them.
If people intend mass murder and suicide, you are not even going to be able to fine them.

Well I’ve spent the majority of this thread justifying why any laws at all are legal because there is a whole faction of kooks saying that everything is unconstitutional... the rest of the thread I’ve made arguments justifying how laws (generically) can help with public safety. See this is the crap I gotta get through just to get to actually productive conversation about what specific laws might help?! It’s crazy.

I’m guessing since you said “additional” laws you have some agreement that current laws do help.

And your right, taking away somebody’s license might not stop them from driving. But they are going to be way more careful not to get pulled over and if they are pulled over the they will get caught. If no laws were in place then they stay in the roads and make them more dangerous. Get the analogy?

But you have misunderstood the general position of others.
They object mostly to federal weapons laws, first because the federal government is excessively large, arrogant, abusive, expensive to defend against, corrupt, and in general indifferent to individual rights at best, and second because federal weapons jurisdiction is specifically forbidden by the Bill of Rights.

In general, when we look at the spikes in graph of murders in the US, we see an immediate correlation with Prohibition and the War on Drugs, so then NO, laws in general do not help, but in general are the problem and source of most crime.

Of course we need laws like against murder, theft, rape, etc., but not for things like gun control, the War on Drugs, etc., that are in direct conflict with the principles of a democratic republic.

Again, the analogy with a driver's license fails completely. That is because no one is deliberately trying to cause car accidents. Driving is difficult, some people just can't do it, they may have a drinking problem. etc. And no one should have to drive, because there should always be alternatives like mass transit. So that has no similarity to weapons problems, where it has nothing to do with accidents and is not at all difficult. The problem with weapons is deliberate misuse by those who are profit motivated, and won't give a darn what laws you try to pass. They already are ignoring laws against armed hold ups. So while laws against armed holdups are fine, laws attempting to reduce gun access makes no sense because 99% of legal guns are used for defense, and not harm. All that could be accomplished by gun control is to make honest people more defenseless and vulnerable.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Sorry, that makes no sense.
Trying to restrict firearms is NOT at all going to make dangerous people less dangerous. There are thousands of other possible means by which they can more easily create mass murder, other than firearms.
The solution to unstable and dangerous people has to be to control the person, not all of society instead.
There is no possible way to prevent them from getting and using harmful things unless they are closely supervised. So that must be the only thing done.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

There was a person who killed several hundred with a gallon of gasoline just a few years ago.
There is nothing exceptional about being able to kill 40 people in 32 seconds. Anyone could do that with a pump shotgun or a pair of pistols. You do not seem to be keeping up with technology.
There is no "that kind of weaponry". All weapons have been able to do that for over a century.

I simply don’t agree. You might be able to find some soldiers who can pull that shit off but not some drugged out kid

You then are totally ignorant of firearms, weapons, etc. A pump shotgun can hold up to 40 rounds, and have as many as 20 or so lethal pellets per shell. It takes about 1 second to pull the trigger and pump, so in 40 second you can easily kill or wound up to 800 people. You would find some place where there were dense crowds that could not get away, like a subway platform, theater, etc. But it would be even easier to just open a gas valve in the basement of some large building. You could then start a small timer device to ignite if 15 minutes later, after you were safely gone, and no one would even know who blew up the building, potentially killing many hundreds of people. So this could be repeated over and over. Or you could just to what Timothy McVeigh did, with fertilizer. It is fairly trivial. So you are not going to be able to legislate a solution to the problem by going after things that may be used by a dangerous person. Instead, you MUST only go after the dangerous people themselves. That is the only thing with any hope of doing any sort of good at all.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

No! First of all, I did not come in late, but was in here much earlier and just started up again. Second is that everyone knows the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and that only restricted federal laws originally. It is true that Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago, did incorporate firearms as an individual right, but that did not totally ban all state and local jurisdiction, like the 2nd amendment does to federal jurisdiction. Then the argument that no right is without restriction comes into play. I have never seen anyone claim that weapons rights can not be restricted at all, in any way.

By the way, there is state authority, but not "states rights". Only individuals have rights. But I knew what you meant.

However, I assure you that someone intent on murder is not going to be deterred by lesser penalty weapons laws. The spread of illegal drugs shows that the more you try to restrict something, the more profitable it becomes, and the more accessible they become as well. The more you try to restrict guns, the more profitable they will be on the black market.
And it seems to me that if it was a legal purchase in Nevada, then it would also have been a legal purchase in California?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

No! First of all, I did not come in late, but was in here much earlier and just started up again. Second is that everyone knows the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and that only restricted federal laws originally. It is true that Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago, did incorporate firearms as an individual right, but that did not totally ban all state and local jurisdiction, like the 2nd amendment does to federal jurisdiction. Then the argument that no right is without restriction comes into play. I have never seen anyone claim that weapons rights can not be restricted at all, in any way.

By the way, there is state authority, but not "states rights". Only individuals have rights. But I knew what you meant.

However, I assure you that someone intent on murder is not going to be deterred by lesser penalty weapons laws. The spread of illegal drugs shows that the more you try to restrict something, the more profitable it becomes, and the more accessible they become as well. The more you try to restrict guns, the more profitable they will be on the black market.
And it seems to me that if it was a legal purchase in Nevada, then it would also have been a legal purchase in California?

I disagree with you, but I really wish you'd read the thread rather than force us to rehash the same points over and over.

NO, unalienable Rights are just that... and they are absolute.

 

[Rigby5]

When you compare a right to a privilege it is you who are putting forth the poorer argument as the two are not remotely equivalent

The argument is whether regulations help the public safety. I can use whatever I want as an example for that. As soon as you pivot to the “rights” argument, you digress

The reason for the regulations isn't public safety the one and only reason is revenue

Whatever you say. Haha.

As if I care about the government collecting revenue. You don’t do a very good job understanding opposing positions.

Your position is weak

The facts tell you that.

Over 100 million legal gun owners and most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners

So all your regulation and fees and licenses you want to impose on legal gun owners will do nothing to stop gun crimes

The only thing that will stop gun crimes that has actually been proven to do so is to uncompromisingly enforce our federal gun laws.

Yeah yeah, you think my position is weak, I think yours is weak... that stuff make zero difference.

It’s funny that you try and make the argument that most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners. First of there are still many crimes committed by people who legally purchased guns or who got their guns from people who legally purchased the guns. Second, it’s because of laws and regulations that make it so they had to get the guns illegally. That’s a good thing. Why would we want to make it easier for these guys to get guns?!

As for enforcing gun laws, I agree with you. Do you think we aren’t enforcing the laws? Sounds like a talking point without a lot of meat behind it

But the reality is that by attempting to increase gun restrictions to the point that it becomes difficult for legal purchases, then you will be making it much easier for criminals to get guns because you will have make the black market more profitable.
Clearly the ONLY way to reduce harm caused by dangerous people is through better supervision of dangerous people.
You can not possibly succeed at trying to instead make the world nerf safe, so that you don't have to supervise dangerous people.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

No! First of all, I did not come in late, but was in here much earlier and just started up again. Second is that everyone knows the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and that only restricted federal laws originally. It is true that Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago, did incorporate firearms as an individual right, but that did not totally ban all state and local jurisdiction, like the 2nd amendment does to federal jurisdiction. Then the argument that no right is without restriction comes into play. I have never seen anyone claim that weapons rights can not be restricted at all, in any way.

By the way, there is state authority, but not "states rights". Only individuals have rights. But I knew what you meant.

However, I assure you that someone intent on murder is not going to be deterred by lesser penalty weapons laws. The spread of illegal drugs shows that the more you try to restrict something, the more profitable it becomes, and the more accessible they become as well. The more you try to restrict guns, the more profitable they will be on the black market.
And it seems to me that if it was a legal purchase in Nevada, then it would also have been a legal purchase in California?

I disagree with you, but I really wish you'd read the thread rather than force us to rehash the same points over and over.

NO, unalienable Rights are just that... and they are absolute.

Now I have no idea what you are talking about.
Lets take the single most important individual right, the right to life.
Can it be restricted or taken away from you?
Of course it can.
If you have done something illegal or threatening, then someone else could legally kill you if that was necessary due to the harm you caused.
So clearly no right could ever possibly be unrestricted.

As to "unalienable", that has little to do with legalities, but instead religion or commerce.
{...
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
...}

If you start to illegally begin firing at someone, then they have the right of defense to shoot back and kill you.
The fact you have not surrendered, sold, or transfered your right to life is not very important if you are dead due to someone else needing to defend themselves from your crime.
So again I am not sure what your point is?

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Then we ought to consider banning all semi-auto magazine fed rifles huh...

That is foolish first of all because rifles in general are almost never used in any crime at all, and 99% of murders are committed with pistols. And second of all because 96% of all rifles sold are semi auto. You would have to illegally confiscate about 40 million semi auto rifles owned now in order to accomplish that.
And that would start a civil war that the gun owners would win.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

STFU, this is America, we're not going to go the way of the Jews in Nazi Germany. We'll fight that to the death. Our ancestors built this country. Those that are naturalized and assimilated are right there with us too, bitch.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

No! First of all, I did not come in late, but was in here much earlier and just started up again. Second is that everyone knows the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and that only restricted federal laws originally. It is true that Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago, did incorporate firearms as an individual right, but that did not totally ban all state and local jurisdiction, like the 2nd amendment does to federal jurisdiction. Then the argument that no right is without restriction comes into play. I have never seen anyone claim that weapons rights can not be restricted at all, in any way.

By the way, there is state authority, but not "states rights". Only individuals have rights. But I knew what you meant.

However, I assure you that someone intent on murder is not going to be deterred by lesser penalty weapons laws. The spread of illegal drugs shows that the more you try to restrict something, the more profitable it becomes, and the more accessible they become as well. The more you try to restrict guns, the more profitable they will be on the black market.
And it seems to me that if it was a legal purchase in Nevada, then it would also have been a legal purchase in California?

I disagree with you, but I really wish you'd read the thread rather than force us to rehash the same points over and over.

NO, unalienable Rights are just that... and they are absolute.

Now I have no idea what you are talking about.
Lets take the single most important individual right, the right to life.
Can it be restricted or taken away from you?
Of course it can.
If you have done something illegal or threatening, then someone else could legally kill you if that was necessary due to the harm you caused.
So clearly no right could ever possibly be unrestricted.

As to "unalienable", that has little to do with legalities, but instead religion or commerce.
{...
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
...}

If you start to illegally begin firing at someone, then they have the right of defense to shoot back and kill you.
The fact you have not surrendered, sold, or transfered your right to life is not very important if you are dead due to someone else needing to defend themselves from your crime.
So again I am not sure what your point is?

Ah, another semantics expert. You cannot rape a woman... well, yes you can, but you cannot do it legally because it is illegal.

The Bill of Rights was a document that says you have an unalienable Right to certain things. If someone were to try and take your firearms, even under color of law, they would be committing an unconstitutional act.

As you quoted unalienable Rights cannot be surrendered. I had an argument earlier on this thread wherein a poster thought you could surrender unalienable Rights. You cannot as that is the essence of the word unalienable.

"Surrender -to give (something) over to the control or possession of another usually under duress..."

Thesaurus results for SURRENDER

Government can claim a power to take things from you; even think they are giving you the option of forfeiting, but they lack the authority to do the act.

I have a Right to Life. You have a Right to Life. If you begin to shoot at me, you can take my life... and the government is obligated to make you pay for that life. But, I can shoot back and defend my Right to Life because your Rights end where my nose begins. Somebody's Rights have to take precedence. So, if you violate my unalienable Rights, you must be held accountable.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The Bill of Rights was not intended to list individual rights, but simply a denial of federal jurisdiction.
It then does not matter if the purpose of the article of the Bill of Rights is to give jurisdiction to the states or to protect individual rights.
And in the 9th and 10th amendments, it clearly says that there can only be federal jurisdiction if the federal authority is explicitly granted in the body of the Constitution. Since no health issue like drugs is mentioned or given to federal authority in the Constitution, then by default the federal government is barred from any drug legislation.

Drug laws can never be federal. If drugs are legal in a near by state, then likely they should be legal every where. But only states are capable of doing the research and coming up with the right conclusions. And the reality is that when drugs were legal, there was LESS problem than there is now. And the federal government has never provided any welfare or medical care for any drug user.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

Then we ought to consider banning all semi-auto magazine fed rifles huh...

That is foolish first of all because rifles in general are almost never used in any crime at all, and 99% of murders are committed with pistols. And second of all because 96% of all rifles sold are semi auto. You would have to illegally confiscate about 40 million semi auto rifles owned now in order to accomplish that.
And that would start a civil war that the gun owners would win.

You're coming up short on zeroes.

"More than 4 million rifles were produced in 2016, up from 1.8 million in 2010. The National Rifle Association has estimated that 25 percent of all rifles produced in the United States are AR-15s or other semiautomatic styles, while other gun groups have said the ratio is closer to 50 percent."

U.S. gun manufacturers have produced 150 million guns since 1986 – The Denver Post

There were 5 million M1 Garands that were manufactured. Many of those were sold to civilians.

Outlawing guns will only create a black market as big as the opioid market. You need to focus on the people who will misuse the weapons when they are young, BEFORE they commit a criminal act.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Sure there are some people with a physically addictive personality or body chemistry, who will always have problems with drugs. But making them illegal has never helped and always made things worse.

Making things legal may not solve every problem, but it does minimize them.
And no, no one with a drug problem can get any help today.
They are always arrested when they try to get help.
Medical professionals are required to turn them in, and they always do.
Police do carry and use Narcan, but they then also are required to report the use, and the person is still often prosecuted for illegal drug use.

Since we have spikes of mass murder/suicides, then clearly drugs themselves are not likely a cause, but merely one of the many symptoms of a dysfunctional society, that is making a large percentage, very unhappy and unsatisfied.
In fact, we have incredibly high anxiety levels. More arrests and more incarcerations is not helping, but just discredits government even more.