Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Rigby5]

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

I also don’t recall any right to bear arms in any scripture.

The people grant rights through the government.

No, they don't. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "rights", or the difference between them and privileges.

Correct!
Rights can not be granted or taken away like privileges can.
The fact rights can be restricted due to the needs of the rights of others, is not by or for government, and does not mean government can take rights away.

Wrong. Rights can be respected or violated. If the government passes a law against you expressing you opinion, it has violated your right. It hasn't taken it away.

We are not disagreeing.
Government can't take away rights because rights are inherent and preceded the existence of government.
We created government, and we can not create something that can do what we can not.
And since we can not legally violate rights, neither can the government we created that is running under our authorization.

But we can restrict the rights of others.
We can insist they detour around our yard, that they no carry a gun into our store, that they do not slander or libel us in public, etc.
Restricting rights is when the rights of someone else temporarily supersedes, and is not the same as a violation.

 

[Rigby5]

I know this isn't part of the discussion, but I went to my local news site and found this story; like the hundreds if not thousands of similar stories every year, nobody hears about them except the locals, and that's only on a slow news day.

AKRON, Ohio– Akron police were called to a burglary that happened on Crosby Street just after 5 a.m. Tuesday.

When officers got to the scene, the 73-year-old resident was holding the suspect at gunpoint.

The victim told police he heard his doorbell ring several times, but did not answer. Moments later, he heard the suspect inside his home so he detained the man until police arrived.

73-year-old homeowner holds burglary suspect at gunpoint

Yes, things like this happen often, about 2.5 million times a year in the US.
So gun control has to weigh the additional crimes it would cause, and against any imagined good it might do?

 

[Rigby5]

The man, who does have a valid handgun carry permit, said he was unaware that it was against the law to carry in the school. The law is posted on the door when entering the school, Brandon said.

You're not defending this guy are you?

Yes, a person who has passed the background check to carry concealed is supposed to legally be able to carry into a school because they essentially are part of the authorized state militia or posse.
The concealed carry permit has a much safer record then the open carry security guards schools often hire.
And far better record than the police.
In fact, in some states those with concealed carry permits have yet to have committed a harmful crime while carrying.

 

[Rigby5]

The man, who does have a valid handgun carry permit, said he was unaware that it was against the law to carry in the school. The law is posted on the door when entering the school, Brandon said.

You're not defending this guy are you?

No, but you're sure willing to make him a felon and throw the book at him for a mistake that was harmless--like about 75% of all gun laws do (see lawmaker who unlawfully made an SBR and was not prosecuted, but let it be one of us, and you commie cocksuckers have no problem sending us to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison).

See why we don't trust you fucking cocksuckers. There will be no compromise, thanks to you and your ilk.

.

Carrying without a permit is no minor deal buddy

He had a permit, so it is irrelevant.
And open carry requires no permit in about half the states.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I know this isn't part of the discussion, but I went to my local news site and found this story; like the hundreds if not thousands of similar stories every year, nobody hears about them except the locals, and that's only on a slow news day.

AKRON, Ohio– Akron police were called to a burglary that happened on Crosby Street just after 5 a.m. Tuesday.

When officers got to the scene, the 73-year-old resident was holding the suspect at gunpoint.

The victim told police he heard his doorbell ring several times, but did not answer. Moments later, he heard the suspect inside his home so he detained the man until police arrived.

73-year-old homeowner holds burglary suspect at gunpoint

Yes, things like this happen often, about 2.5 million times a year in the US.
So gun control has to weigh the additional crimes it would cause, and against any imagined good it might do?

If the left gets our firearms at some point, imagine what might have happened to this old guy.

Even if the intruder was not armed, he could have caused serious damage or even death to this elderly gentleman with bare hands or just picking up a chair to strike him with. Criminals don't like witnesses because witnesses could land them in prison.

 

[Rigby5]

No, but you're sure willing to make him a felon and throw the book at him for a mistake that was harmless--like about 75% of all gun laws do (see lawmaker who unlawfully made an SBR and was not prosecuted, but let it be one of us, and you commie cocksuckers have no problem sending us to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison).

See why we don't trust you fucking cocksuckers. There will be no compromise, thanks to you and your ilk.

.

Carrying without a permit is no minor deal buddy

Get your facts straight, BUDDY.

You fucking moron.

.

Fuck off "buddy". I stand by what I said

"The man, who does have a valid handgun carry permit"



This gets so tiring. Keep up.

.

Illegal to carry in a school...and signs were posted

Just as an undercover cop can carry concealed in a school or where posted that guns are not desired by the owner, so can a person with a concealed carry permit in many states. They are certified as part of the local militia or posse.

 

[Rigby5]

Another example of bat shit crazy gun control laws. "Reasonable" gun control laws are never reasonable.

Man arrested with gun, magazines, knife in school in Clarksville

Man arrested with gun, magazines, knife in school in Clarksville

A man who was picking up a student walked into Byrns Darden Elementary School packing a handgun, two spare magazines and a knife on Monday.

School Resource Officers with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office stopped the man and arrested him for possessing a firearm inside an elementary school, according to a news release.

At 3:18 p.m., the 53-year-old man entered the school to pick up a student, according to Sandra Brandon, MCSO spokeswoman. Front office staff noticed what looked to be the outline of a firearm under his clothing and notified the School Resource Officer.

While waiting for the SRO, faculty, staff and administrators monitored the man from the office and remotely via cameras, according to Anthony Jordan, CMCSS spokesman.

The man, who does have a valid handgun carry permit, said he was unaware that it was against the law to carry in the school. The law is posted on the door when entering the school, Brandon said.

I have to say that even I have a problem with this.

First off, you need to know the laws when carrying a concealed weapon, and also have to accept the consequences if you decide to break the law. It doesn't mean you have to approve of the laws, but just abide by them.

The problem here is that if this guy was a kook who did have a permit, allowed to enter the school armed, he could use that permit to carry out a mass murder of students. That's why there's a law against going to certain places with a firearm which of course excludes authority.

Making a law so that you CAN arrest someone who was an actual problem, does NOT mean you SHOULD arrest someone who acted reasonably and was not a problem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Carrying without a permit is no minor deal buddy

Get your facts straight, BUDDY.

You fucking moron.

.

Fuck off "buddy". I stand by what I said

"The man, who does have a valid handgun carry permit"



This gets so tiring. Keep up.

.

Illegal to carry in a school...and signs were posted

Just as an undercover cop can carry concealed in a school or where posted that guns are not desired by the owner, so can a person with a concealed carry permit in many states. They are certified as part of the local militia or posse.

Outside of college campuses, what state allows anybody with a CCW to carry a firearm in a primary school with children?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Another example of bat shit crazy gun control laws. "Reasonable" gun control laws are never reasonable.

Man arrested with gun, magazines, knife in school in Clarksville

Man arrested with gun, magazines, knife in school in Clarksville

A man who was picking up a student walked into Byrns Darden Elementary School packing a handgun, two spare magazines and a knife on Monday.

School Resource Officers with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office stopped the man and arrested him for possessing a firearm inside an elementary school, according to a news release.

At 3:18 p.m., the 53-year-old man entered the school to pick up a student, according to Sandra Brandon, MCSO spokeswoman. Front office staff noticed what looked to be the outline of a firearm under his clothing and notified the School Resource Officer.

While waiting for the SRO, faculty, staff and administrators monitored the man from the office and remotely via cameras, according to Anthony Jordan, CMCSS spokesman.

The man, who does have a valid handgun carry permit, said he was unaware that it was against the law to carry in the school. The law is posted on the door when entering the school, Brandon said.

I have to say that even I have a problem with this.

First off, you need to know the laws when carrying a concealed weapon, and also have to accept the consequences if you decide to break the law. It doesn't mean you have to approve of the laws, but just abide by them.

The problem here is that if this guy was a kook who did have a permit, allowed to enter the school armed, he could use that permit to carry out a mass murder of students. That's why there's a law against going to certain places with a firearm which of course excludes authority.

Making a law so that you CAN arrest someone who was an actual problem, does NOT mean you SHOULD arrest someone who acted reasonably and was not a problem.

If you are breaking the law, you are a problem.

 

[Rigby5]

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

I also don’t recall any right to bear arms in any scripture.

The people grant rights through the government.

No, they don't. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "rights", or the difference between them and privileges.

Correct!
Rights can not be granted or taken away like privileges can.
The fact rights can be restricted due to the needs of the rights of others, is not by or for government, and does not mean government can take rights away.

Wrong. Rights can be respected or violated. If the government passes a law against you expressing you opinion, it has violated your right. It hasn't taken it away.

I agree.
But you also have to all the rights of others to limit what you do.
For example, to protect the rights of others to not have their reputation unfairly ruined, you accept the limitation of not committing libel or slander.
That is not a violation of your first amendment rights of free speech, because you do not have the right to lie to cause harm.

 

[jc456]

We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.

Yea,,,in a mass murder attack with an assault rifle

what is an assault rifle exactly?

The Sturmgewehr 44 is an assault rifle--- in fact it is THE assault rifle (the only one actually named "assault rifle")

Sturmgewehr 44 - StG 44 - Wikipedia

bet those babies are just lying around.

In fact, they are.
The characteristics of the Sturmgewehr 44 is that it is a cheaply made, stamped steel, light, weak, rifle.
They can easily be made by converting a pistol.
They are the most common because they are easiest to make.

But it is no different than any other gun! It works the same as each of the others!

 

[Rustic]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

To put your mind at ease, we don't hate Al gun owners as bad. We just hate you.

 

[Rustic]

To put your mind at ease, we don't hate Al gun owners as bad. We just hate you.

Lol
I don’t “hate” anyone, it’s a wasted effort.
But when Congress gets back, an all out firearm confiscation will be pursued. Progressives will not be happy till that is accomplished.
Mandatory firearm buy back will be demanded, were it will be tax payer funded. Giving people pennies on the dollar for their firearms.

It will backfire

 

[Blues Man]

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

Since government does not create or grant rights, it can not take them away.
When a person is incarcerated, their rights are restricted, but not by government.
The authority is coming from those others the government is obligated to protect.
And if another inmate murders a prisoner, the other inmate is charged with murder, so you still have rights, even if restricted,

Constitutional guaranteed rights such the 1st and 2nd amendment are not absolute. Government can suspend the guarantee of those rights in certain circumstances. A person is not guaranteed freedom to cry fire in crowded auditorium nor is a convicted felon guaranteed the right to bear arms. Governments have the right and obligation to protect it's people. If that requires suspension of constitutional rights for prisoners, those convicted of felons, and the mentally ill so be it.

It is not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater.

It never was

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

All depends on what you deliberately cause others to do?
If for example, you are in a play on stage, and when you yell "fire" no one panics because they know it is not real, then it is not illegal.
But if you deliberately act in such as way as to cause unnecessary harm and panic, that would be illegal.
However, it is also local laws that would be used to determine if legal or not.

You will never be charged for yelling fire you might be charged with inciting a riot or some sort of endangerment.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

 

[Rigby5]

Get your facts straight, BUDDY.

You fucking moron.

.

Fuck off "buddy". I stand by what I said

"The man, who does have a valid handgun carry permit"



This gets so tiring. Keep up.

.

Illegal to carry in a school...and signs were posted

Just as an undercover cop can carry concealed in a school or where posted that guns are not desired by the owner, so can a person with a concealed carry permit in many states. They are certified as part of the local militia or posse.

stacle
Outside of college campuses, what state allows anybody with a CCW to carry a firearm in a primary school with children?

Probably all of them.
All schools have the legal responsibility to protect our children while at school, and instead of hiring expensive private security guards, licensed parent volunteers are becoming a more acceptable alternative after the paid guard in FL fled from the shooting.

The federal law specifically allows states and local areas to choose who they want armed at schools, so there is no obstacle in law.

 

[Rigby5]

Another example of bat shit crazy gun control laws. "Reasonable" gun control laws are never reasonable.

Man arrested with gun, magazines, knife in school in Clarksville

Man arrested with gun, magazines, knife in school in Clarksville

A man who was picking up a student walked into Byrns Darden Elementary School packing a handgun, two spare magazines and a knife on Monday.

School Resource Officers with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office stopped the man and arrested him for possessing a firearm inside an elementary school, according to a news release.

At 3:18 p.m., the 53-year-old man entered the school to pick up a student, according to Sandra Brandon, MCSO spokeswoman. Front office staff noticed what looked to be the outline of a firearm under his clothing and notified the School Resource Officer.

While waiting for the SRO, faculty, staff and administrators monitored the man from the office and remotely via cameras, according to Anthony Jordan, CMCSS spokesman.

The man, who does have a valid handgun carry permit, said he was unaware that it was against the law to carry in the school. The law is posted on the door when entering the school, Brandon said.

I have to say that even I have a problem with this.

First off, you need to know the laws when carrying a concealed weapon, and also have to accept the consequences if you decide to break the law. It doesn't mean you have to approve of the laws, but just abide by them.

The problem here is that if this guy was a kook who did have a permit, allowed to enter the school armed, he could use that permit to carry out a mass murder of students. That's why there's a law against going to certain places with a firearm which of course excludes authority.

Making a law so that you CAN arrest someone who was an actual problem, does NOT mean you SHOULD arrest someone who acted reasonably and was not a problem.

If you are breaking the law, you are a problem.

That is incorrect.
For example, once I simply forgot I was carrying concealed at a post office.
No one ever knew, and I did not discover it until later.
There was no problem.
There are lots of laws like that, which make something illegal without having as its basis, the need to defend the rights of others.
And when the rights of others are not harmed, there is no rational or justification for prosecuting.
The fact a law exists and it was violated, does not always means it should be enforced with prosecution.
For example, when there is a medical emergency, it would be foolish to obey speed limits.
No law is absolute, and all laws can legally and should be violated under certain circumstances.
As a general principle, the way to understand law is that if police can do something legally, then everyone can under the right circumstances.
That is because there is no legal basis for police being authorized any more than anyone.
Actually you can tell they can't be, because police are created by us, and we can not create that which has more authority than we have to give them.

 

[Rigby5]

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

Since government does not create or grant rights, it can not take them away.
When a person is incarcerated, their rights are restricted, but not by government.
The authority is coming from those others the government is obligated to protect.
And if another inmate murders a prisoner, the other inmate is charged with murder, so you still have rights, even if restricted,

Constitutional guaranteed rights such the 1st and 2nd amendment are not absolute. Government can suspend the guarantee of those rights in certain circumstances. A person is not guaranteed freedom to cry fire in crowded auditorium nor is a convicted felon guaranteed the right to bear arms. Governments have the right and obligation to protect it's people. If that requires suspension of constitutional rights for prisoners, those convicted of felons, and the mentally ill so be it.

It is not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater.

It never was

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

All depends on what you deliberately cause others to do?
If for example, you are in a play on stage, and when you yell "fire" no one panics because they know it is not real, then it is not illegal.
But if you deliberately act in such as way as to cause unnecessary harm and panic, that would be illegal.
However, it is also local laws that would be used to determine if legal or not.

You will never be charged for yelling fire you might be charged with inciting a riot or some sort of endangerment.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

I think the fire in a crowded theater is a good example to use.
It shows how words can be harmful to others, and it also shows that it is local laws that cover punishment for that potential harm.
The old catch all is likely "Disorderly Conduct".
And the point is people have to act responsibly.

The fact the argument should not have been sufficient to uphold the Alien and Sedition Act does not mean the argument should never be used.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

To put your mind at ease, we don't hate Al gun owners as bad. We just hate you.

Lol
I don’t “hate” anyone, it’s a wasted effort.
But when Congress gets back, an all out firearm confiscation will be pursued. Progressives will not be happy till that is accomplished.
Mandatory firearm buy back will be demanded, were it will be tax payer funded. Giving people pennies on the dollar for their firearms.

It will backfire

Ah, the doomsday defense. There's a commie behind every tree so let's cut down all the trees. The Rooskies have the bomb now so every home should have to be forced to have a bomb shelter. They're coming for all my guns so I had better make sure that everyone has more guns so that it will take them longer to come and get mine. No Gun Regulations at all because the NRA missed the oppurtunity to sell more guns to 5 year olds.

There has been fruitcakes among us forever. If you are shocked that we find you entertaining, you would be wrong. Your hatred is clean and present and it just makes you sound exactly like what you are.

 

[Blues Man]

Since government does not create or grant rights, it can not take them away.
When a person is incarcerated, their rights are restricted, but not by government.
The authority is coming from those others the government is obligated to protect.
And if another inmate murders a prisoner, the other inmate is charged with murder, so you still have rights, even if restricted,

Constitutional guaranteed rights such the 1st and 2nd amendment are not absolute. Government can suspend the guarantee of those rights in certain circumstances. A person is not guaranteed freedom to cry fire in crowded auditorium nor is a convicted felon guaranteed the right to bear arms. Governments have the right and obligation to protect it's people. If that requires suspension of constitutional rights for prisoners, those convicted of felons, and the mentally ill so be it.

It is not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater.

It never was

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

All depends on what you deliberately cause others to do?
If for example, you are in a play on stage, and when you yell "fire" no one panics because they know it is not real, then it is not illegal.
But if you deliberately act in such as way as to cause unnecessary harm and panic, that would be illegal.
However, it is also local laws that would be used to determine if legal or not.

You will never be charged for yelling fire you might be charged with inciting a riot or some sort of endangerment.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

I think the fire in a crowded theater is a good example to use.
It shows how words can be harmful to others, and it also shows that it is local laws that cover punishment for that potential harm.
The old catch all is likely "Disorderly Conduct".
And the point is people have to act responsibly.

The fact the argument should not have been sufficient to uphold the Alien and Sedition Act does not mean the argument should never be used.

The word itself isn't harmful

And what do you think would happen today if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater?

The guy yelling fire would be booed and told to STFU while people threw popcorn and other foodstuffs at him then he would be escorted out by security.

So it's really not a very good analogy any more