Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[TRFjr]

“Gun Control - What's the Problem?”

The problem is we have conservatives – the consequence of their ignorance, willful or otherwise – propagating the wrongheaded notion that any type of firearm regulatory measure ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right and that the Second Amendment right is ‘unlimited’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The problem is we have conservatives engaging in ridiculous sophistry – slippery slope fallacies, post hoc fallacies, false comparison fallacies – in a failed effort to ‘justify’ their unwarranted opposition to firearm regulatory measures which are perfectly consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The problem is we have conservatives contriving moronic lies about politicians advocating that all guns be ‘banned’ or ‘confiscated’ when no such measure has been introduced in any legislative body in the United States.

The problem is we have conservatives who have come to loathe Heller/McDonald and oppose its subsequent jurisprudence, ignoring the doctrines of judicial review and the supremacy of the Federal judiciary.

It’s the same problem we’ve had for decades: rightwing ignorance, stupidity, and dishonesty.

now apply that to abortions
the vast majority of guns aren't used to take a human life but all abortions a human life is taken

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Sorry, but I did not find the word unalienable or inalienable in the Bill of Rights?

I think you may be getting confused with the Declaration of Independence?
{...
Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
...}

Do you bother READING what is being said? Let me repeat it for you again:

"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Where do you think that pre-existing Right came from??? It was codified from a document that Thomas Jefferson said was the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man" - the Declaration of Independence.

I am still not following.
I agree that rights are not created by government, and must be pre-existing, or else we could not create governments.
I agree that since rights are inherent, they can not be sold or even given away.
But they can have reasonable restrictions.
For example, you always have the right of defense.
But when you walk into a police station, you don't need to be armed in order to be safe.
So there can be a restriction on carrying arms into a police station.
That is not an arbitrary infringement, but a concession necessary for the safety of police.
As long as any restriction can be shown as necessary in order to satisfy the rights of others, then it is not an infringement or illegal.

So are we disagreeing about something?

The reason you can't be armed in a police station isn't because it's "reasonable." The reason is that the police department owns the police station, and that means they get to make the rules. You can tell people they can't bring weapons into your house. Is that a limitation on your 2nd amendment rights? No, it's just you exercising your property rights.

Not following.
The police department does not own the police station.
You do, collectively, with a million other people.
No different than roads or parks.
But you still need to be armed for defense at roads or parks, because you would not be safe otherwise.
In a police station you are safe, so no need to be armed.
Can you tell police they can't bring weapons into your house?
I don't think so, because there can be situations where they do have to, even if you do not want them to, such as if they have a search warrant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

No misunderstanding – the position of most conservatives on the issue is factually wrong.

The Federal government has every authority to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law – that some don’t like the laws or believe the Federal government is ‘too big’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) doesn’t change that fact.

They’re at liberty to oppose those Federal laws through the political or judicial process like any other American.

And until such time as Federal firearm regulatory measures are repealed by Congress – or invalidated by the Supreme Court – those measures are perfectly lawful, appropriate, and Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This fails as a post hoc fallacy, slippery slope fallacy, and a strawman fallacy.

Well done.

Post hoc fallacy: there is no evidence that firearm regulatory measures make obtaining firearms ‘more difficult’ for lawful gun owners or in any manner ‘benefits’ those seeking to obtain a gun illegally.

Slippery slope fallacy: the enactment of Constitutional firearm regulatory measures will not ‘increase’ the difficulty of lawfully purchasing firearms.

Strawman fallacy: firearm regulatory measures will not result in more criminals obtaining guns nor will such laws facilitate a ‘black market.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Guns are a part of traditional America life and are ingrained into our society. Guns have provided food and protection to average Americans for centuries. Leftists have successfully removed morals and values from American society along with fathers. We now have a rudderless male youth some who see guns as a way to express their anger and masculinity. This is what happens when a society stigmatizes objects instead of putting the blame where it squarely belongs.....With THEM!!

Dishonest rightists engage in only propagating ridiculous lies – this post being one of many examples.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Sorry, but I did not find the word unalienable or inalienable in the Bill of Rights?

I think you may be getting confused with the Declaration of Independence?
{...
Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
...}

Do you bother READING what is being said? Let me repeat it for you again:

"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Where do you think that pre-existing Right came from??? It was codified from a document that Thomas Jefferson said was the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man" - the Declaration of Independence.

I am still not following.
I agree that rights are not created by government, and must be pre-existing, or else we could not create governments.
I agree that since rights are inherent, they can not be sold or even given away.
But they can have reasonable restrictions.
For example, you always have the right of defense.
But when you walk into a police station, you don't need to be armed in order to be safe.
So there can be a restriction on carrying arms into a police station.
That is not an arbitrary infringement, but a concession necessary for the safety of police.
As long as any restriction can be shown as necessary in order to satisfy the rights of others, then it is not an infringement or illegal.

So are we disagreeing about something?

The reason you can't be armed in a police station isn't because it's "reasonable." The reason is that the police department owns the police station, and that means they get to make the rules. You can tell people they can't bring weapons into your house. Is that a limitation on your 2nd amendment rights? No, it's just you exercising your property rights.

Not following.
The police department does not own the police station.
You do, collectively, with a million other people.
No different than roads or parks.

Pure horseshit. Whoever sets the rules is the owner. The police department (or the city, take your pick) purchased the property. It sets the rules. It determines how the property is used. It can sell the property if it likes. Your theory that the people can own anything has been demonstrated to be absurd countless times. Government can own things. The people can't. The claim makes nonsense of the word "ownership."

But you still need to be armed for defense at roads or parks, because you would not be safe otherwise.
In a police station you are safe, so no need to be armed.
Can you tell police they can't bring weapons into your house?
I don't think so, because there can be situations where they do have to, even if you do not want them to, such as if they have a search warrant.

The rest of your post is irrelevant babble.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

This fails as a post hoc fallacy, slippery slope fallacy, and a strawman fallacy.

Well done.

Post hoc fallacy: there is no evidence that firearm regulatory measures make obtaining firearms ‘more difficult’ for lawful gun owners or in any manner ‘benefits’ those seeking to obtain a gun illegally.

Slippery slope fallacy: the enactment of Constitutional firearm regulatory measures will not ‘increase’ the difficulty of lawfully purchasing firearms.

Strawman fallacy: firearm regulatory measures will not result in more criminals obtaining guns nor will such laws facilitate a ‘black market.’

That isn't what "post hoc," means, ignoramus. You should quit labeling things as logical fallacies until you learn what they mean.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Obviously no right can be absolute.
If you are harming others, such as pointing a gun at an innocent, then your right to life can be forfeit.
Your own quote qualifies with, "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." , so then it is not without possible restriction. The restrictions can be a list of lawful purposes, and then all other purposed could be banned by state of municipal laws.

It’s not obvious to far too many conservatives, at least with regard to the Second Amendment.

And whether or not a restriction has a lawful purpose is determined by the majority of the people through their elected representatives – or ultimately the courts consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Measures determined to be lawful, necessary, and proper by the people – and Constitutional by the courts – may be enacted by the states and local jurisdictions – and the Federal government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

“Gun Control - What's the Problem?”

The problem is we have conservatives – the consequence of their ignorance, willful or otherwise – propagating the wrongheaded notion that any type of firearm regulatory measure ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right and that the Second Amendment right is ‘unlimited’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The problem is we have conservatives engaging in ridiculous sophistry – slippery slope fallacies, post hoc fallacies, false comparison fallacies – in a failed effort to ‘justify’ their unwarranted opposition to firearm regulatory measures which are perfectly consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The problem is we have conservatives contriving moronic lies about politicians advocating that all guns be ‘banned’ or ‘confiscated’ when no such measure has been introduced in any legislative body in the United States.

The problem is we have conservatives who have come to loathe Heller/McDonald and oppose its subsequent jurisprudence, ignoring the doctrines of judicial review and the supremacy of the Federal judiciary.

It’s the same problem we’ve had for decades: rightwing ignorance, stupidity, and dishonesty.

No, the problems are the liberals.

Liberals have a history of being very patient much like terrorists. They work incrementally to get to their long-term goal. In this instance, make buying or owning a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, such an expense, that most people will just abort the idea altogether.

If they ever get to the point of overloading the supreme court with liberal justices, then they will rule that firearm ownership is not a constitutional right.

In the meantime, the Democrats want to disarm the public thus making us all dependent on them for protection. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats. The more victims they create, the stronger their party is.

 

[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

"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."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

"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."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No Democrat wants to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Otherwise, yes – no firearm regulatory measure has been proposed as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence, including background checks.

Background checks work as intended.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

"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."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No Democrat wants to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Otherwise, yes – no firearm regulatory measure has been proposed as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence, including background checks.

Background checks work as intended.

The question is not whether they work or not, the question is whether they solve anything or not.

 

[TRFjr]

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

"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."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

If they can pass a background check they aren't criminals now are they?
so you need to explain again how background checks keep guns out of criminals hands? Because criminals don't obtain their guns which a background check is administered

 

[Cecilie1200]

Incrementalism is the problem.

Plus the fact that the proposals would prevent no criminal from acquiring a firearm.

Deal with the criminals and the insane. Take them off the street, permanently if necessary. Leave the real people alone.

Yes, it's very obvious that the increments they demand are aimed at disarming the public, not at ending whatever crime problem they're waving like a bloody banner at the moment.

I'm not a fan of putting laws on the books which have no practical purpose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Sorry, but I did not find the word unalienable or inalienable in the Bill of Rights?

I think you may be getting confused with the Declaration of Independence?
{...
Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
...}

Do you bother READING what is being said? Let me repeat it for you again:

"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Where do you think that pre-existing Right came from??? It was codified from a document that Thomas Jefferson said was the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man" - the Declaration of Independence.

I am still not following.
I agree that rights are not created by government, and must be pre-existing, or else we could not create governments.
I agree that since rights are inherent, they can not be sold or even given away.
But they can have reasonable restrictions.
For example, you always have the right of defense.
But when you walk into a police station, you don't need to be armed in order to be safe.
So there can be a restriction on carrying arms into a police station.
That is not an arbitrary infringement, but a concession necessary for the safety of police.
As long as any restriction can be shown as necessary in order to satisfy the rights of others, then it is not an infringement or illegal.

So are we disagreeing about something?

Possibly about what constitutes "reasonable and necessary".

 

[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

"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."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No Democrat wants to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Otherwise, yes – no firearm regulatory measure has been proposed as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence, including background checks.

Background checks work as intended.

The question is not whether they work or not, the question is whether they solve anything or not.

Nothing is ever going to solve the problem of gun violence, all we can do is try and help in as many areas as we can. Background checks force criminals and high risk individuals to get guns from illegal means. This makes it harder and more expensive for them and limits their options. It also narrows things for law enforcement who want to fight the underground gun market.

If we had no BG checks and no gun Regs then all that goes away and anybody can buy anything from any store that offers it. I personally don’t think that helps a thing, It can only hurt

 

[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

"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."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

If they can pass a background check they aren't criminals now are they?
so you need to explain again how background checks keep guns out of criminals hands? Because criminals don't obtain their guns which a background check is administered

It’s very simple... if there were no background checks then criminals would be able to go into a store and buy a gun. How do you not understand that?

 

[TRFjr]

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

"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."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No Democrat wants to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Otherwise, yes – no firearm regulatory measure has been proposed as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence, including background checks.

Background checks work as intended.

The question is not whether they work or not, the question is whether they solve anything or not.

Nothing is ever going to solve the problem of gun violence, all we can do is try and help in as many areas as we can. Background checks force criminals and high risk individuals to get guns from illegal means. This makes it harder and more expensive for them and limits their options. It also narrows things for law enforcement who want to fight the underground gun market.

If we had no BG checks and no gun Regs then all that goes away and anybody can buy anything from any store that offers it. I personally don’t think that helps a thing, It can only hurt

yes because making drugs illegal sure in the hell kept us from having an illegal drug epidemic
simpleton peddle your bull shit some where else we arent buying it

 

[TRFjr]

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

"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."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

If they can pass a background check they aren't criminals now are they?
so you need to explain again how background checks keep guns out of criminals hands? Because criminals don't obtain their guns which a background check is administered

It’s very simple... if there were no background checks then criminals would be able to go into a store and buy a gun. How do you not understand that?

so instead they walk up to the guy on the street corner and buy one right next to the guy selling illegal drugs

 

[Leo123]

Guns are a part of traditional America life and are ingrained into our society. Guns have provided food and protection to average Americans for centuries. Leftists have successfully removed morals and values from American society along with fathers. We now have a rudderless male youth some who see guns as a way to express their anger and masculinity. This is what happens when a society stigmatizes objects instead of putting the blame where it squarely belongs.....With THEM!!

Dishonest rightists engage in only propagating ridiculous lies – this post being one of many examples.

Leftists have lied about racism, they lied about Trump being a Russian agent, they lied about a SCOTUS nominee being a sexual predator and now they are lying to American youth by denigrating maleness and confusing them as to their actual gender. Talk about ridiculous lies....Look in the fucking mirror hypocrites.