Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

Well, it is specific to say shall not infringe.

Yes it does. But a country can provide you with rights, but that doesn't mean you have to accept them. When you commit a crime, you voluntarily surrendered those rights.

 

[Rigby5]

Ya, they don't seem to have ANY hillbillies, despite all the hills. What should we be doing?

Buy more guns and ammo...

Sheesh, with the amount of guns and ammo you hillbillies have, and we're not safe, why would more guns keep us safer? Please explain.

The reason we are not safe is that you are not allowed to have guns outside the home pretty much.
Like the insane law making it illegal to drive past a school with a gun in the trunk.
And it is getting harder and harder to have guns or find any place to practice.
For example, condo associations can ban them, as well as government subsidized housing, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

10000 people own 17 guns or more. Everybody else has 1 or 2. That's all the study suggests, but that is total bullshit. There are way more than 250 million guns.

Wrong again. "Everybody"...actually ends up being only 22% of the population who own ANY guns

That is disturbing. Way too low.

Everyone needs a gun to be readily available so, when they make the right choice and decide to off themselves, they are successful.

The world population is out of control, which is causing climate change, and we need volunteers to be ready to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

.

I bet you're a fucking prepper doucher. amirite or AMIRITE??

According to the Founders, everyone is supposed to be a prepper.
Everyone ends up fighting over their country about every 400 years or so, and you never know when that is going to happen.
With Congress lying about Iraqi WMD and murdering over half a million innocent civilians, we likely should have already had a rebellion in the US,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And that is the way it should be. The last thing I want to see is a druggie wheeling around in an 80,000 lb 70 foot death machine.

Yes and no. I mean........I certainly don't want to drive around anybody who is intoxicated, especially in an 18 wheeler. However there is a distinct difference between being intoxicated and having residual drugs or alcohol in your system from what you were doing in your off duty hours.

A friend of mine works for ConWay express which was recently sold to another company. He told me that every driver gets pulled for a drug test after vacation. Why? Because vacation is when people let loose a bit, and residual THC can stay in your system from three to four weeks.

So they were not testing to see if you came back loaded, they tested to see what you did while on vacation, and to me, that's an invasion of privacy.

You want the job, stay clean. If you are using during your vacation then chances are you are also using when you aren't on vacation. Don't lie about it. It means a lot of lives are on the line for certain jobs. It's like when I was an Aircraft Specialist. Do you really want to fly on an Aircraft that a druggie worked on? Or when I worked High Scale. Certain jobs MUST be completely clean for the safety of everyone. I don't find ConWays drug policy wrong at all. If you do then maybe you should go work at something less dangerous.

That makes no sense and is an illegal invasion of privacy.
There is no drug that continues to have effect after 12 hours or so.
Just because the drug test can find minute traces in your urine, does not mean you are high, dangerous, or incapable of delicate work.
The government has no right or authority to say what you do, only that you do your job correctly.
And drug testing does not at all do that.

In my case, drug testing is a government requirement. However it's not so in other industries. Companies get breaks in their Workman's Compensation insurance if they participate in drug screenings for employees. But because government forces us to comply, I do find that a violation of our fourth Amendment rights.

You have the option to go work somewhere else. I hear that grocery baggers are probably not randomly drug tested.

So are you saying that when government violates your rights, it's up to you as a citizen to take action so your rights are no longer being violated by the government?

If that's the case, then why have any rights at all? It's like saying if you don't want government to search your home without a warrant, don't live in a home. Live under a bridge and that's totally constitutional.

 

[Rigby5]

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

It doesn't say it anywhere in the constitution. Which you correctly stated first. So any buts are superceded. Irrelevant. But you said but.

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

That is not true.
If you had no rights when imprisoned, then someone could murder you and there would be no charges.
You rights can only legally be curtailed as necessary to defend the rights of others.

State authority does not have to be in the Constitution, only federal authority has to be explicitly granted in the Constitution.

Wrong. States cannot implement laws that violate the US Constitution. It's part of being a member of the union.

For instance let's say my state created a law that said homosexuals can be discriminated against by state government and businesses. They can't do that because it would violate the US Constitution.

I never said you had no rights when in prison, I said you are denied certain rights, just like you willingly surrendered your right when you committed a crime.

Rights can not really be denied, but they can be restricted as necessary in order to protect the rights of others.

As for the Constitution, you misunderstand what the Constitution was for.
It said nothing at all about what states can do, and in fact it says clearly in the 9th and 10th amendments that the purpose of the constitution is just to establish what the federal government is authorized to do, and everything else is left up to the states.
There was a slight change after the Civil War, when the 14th amendment came out and the SCOTUS started incorporating the Bill of Rights as individual, and to also prohibit state infringement. But there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits states from doing anything. It is just the SCOTUS interpretation of what they decide must be individual rights.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yes it does. But a country can provide you with rights, but that doesn't mean you have to accept them.

So, you're saying rights come from the federal government? There's something scwewy about that, Ray, that doesn't sound right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It doesn't, but taking away rights is part of the sentence you get when you committed a crime you knew would deny you those rights. In that sense, it was an option to no longer have those rights that you chose.

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

y

Technically traffic laws are voluntary contractual obligations when you accept the license. That is because driving itself, is not really a right.
But government has no authority of its own.
So government can only act in the defense of the rights of others.
That means that it can incarcerate you when you harm others, in order to protect others.
But once out, there no longer is a legal valid justification for harming the convicted felon.
Government does not have that authority, as it defends no one.
In fact, by denying the right to vote, government is committing the crime of taxation without representation,

Yes, but again, you did have these rights to being with. You willingly surrendered them when you decided to commit a felony. It's like I mentioned about my line of work. I willingly forfeited some constitutional rights when I went into this career.

For instance, state troopers pull me over for no reason at all. I didn't violate any law. When I ask what I did wrong, they tell me "nothing is wrong, I pulled you over to find something wrong!" Then they proceed to check out my truck, look into the trailer to inspect the cargo, look into my cab to inspect paperwork, and even a few times, looked under the hood of my truck. It's a clear violation of my fourth amendment rights, but again, that's something I forfeited when taking the job.

Outside of my job, police can hold me to different OVI standards as well. You and I have a few drinks at a bar. After leaving the bar and following each other, we run into a sobriety checkpoint. They test you and you are far from the legal limit, so they send you on your way. They check me and I have the same breathalyzer results as you did, but they arrest me for DUI because CDL standards for DUI are much lower, even though I'm only driving my car. It's a clear violation of my constitutional rights of equal protection.

The point I'm making is that you can and do surrender your constitutional rights. You are not guaranteed those rights if you willingly surrender them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes it does. But a country can provide you with rights, but that doesn't mean you have to accept them.

So, you're saying rights come from the federal government? There's something scwewy about that, Ray, that doesn't sound right.

If rights do not come from the government, then where do they come from? If you say God or nature, then why do countries that rule under Communism or Dictatorships not have those rights for their citizens? It's because government doesn't provide those rights no matter where you think they came from.

 

[Rigby5]

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

Well, it is specific to say shall not infringe.

Yes it does. But a country can provide you with rights, but that doesn't mean you have to accept them. When you commit a crime, you voluntarily surrendered those rights.

No, that is NOT the correct way to think of it.
For example, what about an innocent person who is convicted anyway?
You do not and can not surrender rights, voluntarily or involuntarily.
All that can legally be done is for your rights to temporarily be curtailed in order to defend the rights of others.
You still have all your rights, but to protect the rights of other, yours can be slightly deferred.
The fact sometimes rights will be incorrectly restricted is not a problem if there is no other way to defend the rights of others.
In fact, sometimes it is best to violate a law.
The law could be wrong, or it could be that some larger emergency requires violating some more minor law.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If rights do not come from the government, then where do they come from? If you say God or nature, then why do countries that rule under Communism or Dictatorships not have those rights to their citizens? It's because government doesn't provide those rights no matter where you think they came from.

Because we're the only nation in the world which specifically bases it's form of government on the notion that all men are created...endowed by their creator. Our form of government is religious in nature. It says so right there in the document. It doesn't matter what other countries do in this regard.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

It doesn't say it anywhere in the constitution. Which you correctly stated first. So any buts are superceded. Irrelevant. But you said but.

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

That is not true.
If you had no rights when imprisoned, then someone could murder you and there would be no charges.
You rights can only legally be curtailed as necessary to defend the rights of others.

State authority does not have to be in the Constitution, only federal authority has to be explicitly granted in the Constitution.

Wrong. States cannot implement laws that violate the US Constitution. It's part of being a member of the union.

For instance let's say my state created a law that said homosexuals can be discriminated against by state government and businesses. They can't do that because it would violate the US Constitution.

I never said you had no rights when in prison, I said you are denied certain rights, just like you willingly surrendered your right when you committed a crime.

Rights can not really be denied, but they can be restricted as necessary in order to protect the rights of others.

As for the Constitution, you misunderstand what the Constitution was for.
It said nothing at all about what states can do, and in fact it says clearly in the 9th and 10th amendments that the purpose of the constitution is just to establish what the federal government is authorized to do, and everything else is left up to the states.
There was a slight change after the Civil War, when the 14th amendment came out and the SCOTUS started incorporating the Bill of Rights as individual, and to also prohibit state infringement. But there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits states from doing anything. It is just the SCOTUS interpretation of what they decide must be individual rights.

The Constitution doesn't tell you what the government can do, it tells you what the government can't.

If the Constitution were to tell you what government could do, it would be longer than the Mueller report.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If rights do not come from the government, then where do they come from? If you say God or nature, then why do countries that rule under Communism or Dictatorships not have those rights to their citizens? It's because government doesn't provide those rights no matter where you think they came from.

Because we're the only nation in the world which specifically bases it's form of government on the notion that all men are created...endowed by their creator. It says so right there in the document. It doesn't matter what other countries do in this regard.

Understood, but the point I'm making is that it is the government that grants you rights, just like it's the government that creates laws. They don't appear out of thin air and our rights are not applicable in every other country in the world. They are applicable to our citizens under our Constitution where those rights were written by government.

 

[Rigby5]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It doesn't, but taking away rights is part of the sentence you get when you committed a crime you knew would deny you those rights. In that sense, it was an option to no longer have those rights that you chose.

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

y

Technically traffic laws are voluntary contractual obligations when you accept the license. That is because driving itself, is not really a right.
But government has no authority of its own.
So government can only act in the defense of the rights of others.
That means that it can incarcerate you when you harm others, in order to protect others.
But once out, there no longer is a legal valid justification for harming the convicted felon.
Government does not have that authority, as it defends no one.
In fact, by denying the right to vote, government is committing the crime of taxation without representation,

Yes, but again, you did have these rights to being with. You willingly surrendered them when you decided to commit a felony. It's like I mentioned about my line of work. I willingly forfeited some constitutional rights when I went into this career.

For instance, state troopers pull me over for no reason at all. I didn't violate any law. When I ask what I did wrong, they tell me "nothing is wrong, I pulled you over to find something wrong!" Then they proceed to check out my truck, look into the trailer to inspect the cargo, look into my cab to inspect paperwork, and even a few times, looked under the hood of my truck. It's a clear violation of my fourth amendment rights, but again, that's something I forfeited when taking the job.

Outside of my job, police can hold me to different OVI standards as well. You and I have a few drinks at a bar. After leaving the bar and following each other, we run into a sobriety checkpoint. They test you and you are far from the legal limit, so they send you on your way. They check me and I have the same breathalyzer results as you did, but they arrest me for DUI because CDL standards for DUI are much lower, even though I'm only driving my car. It's a clear violation of my constitutional rights of equal protection.

The point I'm making is that you can and do surrender your constitutional rights. You are not guaranteed those rights if you willingly surrender them.

Surrendering driving privileges is different because it is not a right.
But to arrest for DUI when not over the limits, is illegal.
The most they should be able to do legally is pull the CDL.
The government does far too many illegal things already, and it getting much worse all the time.
If for example they try an assault weapons ban, there will be blood.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes it does. But a country can provide you with rights, but that doesn't mean you have to accept them.

So, you're saying rights come from the federal government? There's something scwewy about that, Ray, that doesn't sound right.

If rights do not come from the government, then where do they come from? If you say God or nature, then why do countries that rule under Communism or Dictatorships not have those rights for their citizens? It's because government doesn't provide those rights no matter where you think they came from.

Rights can never come from government because then how could people have the right to create the government in the first place?
Why do some countries no protect rights?
Because they have a criminal police department and military that will harm people if they do not comply.
It is not up to government to provide anything.
It is up to the people to fire or kill criminal governments.

 

[Rigby5]

It doesn't say it anywhere in the constitution. Which you correctly stated first. So any buts are superceded. Irrelevant. But you said but.

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

That is not true.
If you had no rights when imprisoned, then someone could murder you and there would be no charges.
You rights can only legally be curtailed as necessary to defend the rights of others.

State authority does not have to be in the Constitution, only federal authority has to be explicitly granted in the Constitution.

Wrong. States cannot implement laws that violate the US Constitution. It's part of being a member of the union.

For instance let's say my state created a law that said homosexuals can be discriminated against by state government and businesses. They can't do that because it would violate the US Constitution.

I never said you had no rights when in prison, I said you are denied certain rights, just like you willingly surrendered your right when you committed a crime.

Rights can not really be denied, but they
can be restricted as necessary in order to protect the rights of others.

As for the Constitution, you misunderstand what the Constitution was for.
It said nothing at all about what states can do, and in fact it says clearly in the 9th and 10th amendments that the purpose of the constitution is just to establish what the federal government is authorized to do, and everything else is left up to the states.
There was a slight change after the Civil War, when the 14th amendment came out and the SCOTUS started incorporating the Bill of Rights as individual, and to also prohibit state infringement. But there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits states from doing anything. It is just the SCOTUS interpretation of what they decide must be individual rights.

The Constitution doesn't tell you what the government can do, it tells you what the government can't.

If the Constitution were to tell you what government could do, it would be longer than the Mueller report.

Only the Bill of Rights was about restrictions, and even that was only intended to restrict the federal government.
But the whole point is that the federal government was only supposed to a do a very small set of things.
The federal government is way out of hand, and need to be stopped.
For example, there was to be no federal firearm or drug laws at all.

Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Read the 9th and 10th amendments again.

 

[Rigby5]

If rights do not come from the government, then where do they come from? If you say God or nature, then why do countries that rule under Communism or Dictatorships not have those rights to their citizens? It's because government doesn't provide those rights no matter where you think they came from.

Because we're the only nation in the world which specifically bases it's form of government on the notion that all men are created...endowed by their creator. It says so right there in the document. It doesn't matter what other countries do in this regard.

Understood, but the point I'm making is that it is the government that grants you rights, just like it's the government that creates laws. They don't appear out of thin air and our rights are not applicable in every other country in the world. They are applicable to our citizens under our Constitution where those rights were written by government.

That is incorrect.
We, you and I, and others, create government.
It is subordinate and inferior in terms of authority to us.
We hire government to do certain things for us, but government can never be superior to its employers, us,
Governments do NOT really create laws at all.
Laws are supposed to be based simply on the pragmatic requirements necessary in order to protect individual inherent rights.
That is abstracted in to a constitution, and then legislators can pen laws in order to implement those inherent and pre-established protections of rights.
A government can never write a constitution, because a government does not exist yet before the Constitution is written.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A semiautomatic rifle is just a rifle nothing more

Your histrionics and hyperbole do not change that fact

So let me get this straight Your solution has nothing to do with guns just the mentally ill? Seems that's trumps solution After talking wit NRA

So you want to do nothing about the mentally ill and think telling people who aren't mentally ill they can't own one specific type of gun will solve the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

We need a group or a party not afraid of the NRA and starts looking for cures to our mass killing problems

What mass killing problem? We had a grand total of 12 in 2018, with 93 killed....cars killed over 38,000.....we have a car killing problem......knives kill over 1,500 every single year...

93 vs. 1,500...

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Yea asshole..there's no mass murder problem...sure

If Public Safety is the objective, and banning the instrument is the means, why are you NOT screaming and hollering for banning all automobiles. They kill WAY more people.

Because you're a cock sucking motherfucking lying piece of shit fuck gun grabbing commie ass licker who needs to be exiled.

.

 

[Blues Man]

The "vast majority" leaves hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) sold without background checks.

And you think another law will change that?

Can you spell naive?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

How many mass shootings do we endure and not do anything?? Can you spell stupid?

So how does a new background check law stop a mass shooting?

So far haven't most mass shooters been able to pass a background check?

And if they can't pass a background check do you think that will stop them from illegally obtaining a gun?

How about getting weapons of mass destruction off the streets Or will NRA spank Trump again if he dares suggest it?

Weapon of mass destruction? Since when are these guys using Sarin Gas...?

Didn't you know we invaded Iraq because they had semiautomatic rifles?

 

[Blues Man]

A semiautomatic rifle is just a rifle nothing more

Your histrionics and hyperbole do not change that fact

So let me get this straight Your solution has nothing to do with guns just the mentally ill? Seems that's trumps solution After talking wit NRA

So you want to do nothing about the mentally ill and think telling people who aren't mentally ill they can't own one specific type of gun will solve the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

We need a group or a party not afraid of the NRA and starts looking for cures to our mass killing problems

What mass killing problem? We had a grand total of 12 in 2018, with 93 killed....cars killed over 38,000.....we have a car killing problem......knives kill over 1,500 every single year...

93 vs. 1,500...

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Yea asshole..there's no mass murder problem...sure

Mass shootings account for 1% or less of all murders

SO no it's really not the problem

 

[Blues Man]

So we shouldn't worry about events like El Paso, Dayton, Tree of Life, Parksville, Vegas,Sandy Hook, and on and on...meh...

You have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun.

Is that worth worrying about?