What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[Foxfyre]

That's your opinion and you'r not alone, in fact most people use originalism when it suits them. Finding a quote from a framer to support a modern position can be a powerful way to advance their point of view

The counterpoint to this argument is how relevant can The Constitution be if only viewed through 18th Century eyes? We have over 200 years of history and legal rulings not privy to our forefathers and have as much trouble thinking like them as they would have in thinking like us.

If most people use originalism then the odds are that you are wrong.

The argument that the people who wrote the constitution did not know about computers, and that, as a result, the 4th Amendment does not apply to computers, is an outgrowth of the living constitution scool of thought, not the originailists. Originilism is not about arguing that, because the constitution does not say something, we need to make something up to make it work. Originilism is about saying that the intent of the document is to prevent search of peoples documents, even if they are electronic.

Do you honestly think that, if we resurrected the founders, and taught them everything they need to know to flourish in modern society, they would see a massive need to rewrite the constitution to adapt to technology? I have a specific challenge for you, tell me what, exactly, needs to change in the constitution in order to adapt it to 2012, and then explain why we should trust the courts to make those changes rather than actually amending the constitution.

Just because you are blinded by the lies told by people who want to abolish the rule of law, that does not mean everyone, or even most people, are equally blinded.

Exactly. To the modern American conservative, the principles apply whether people are in a relatively unsophisticated late 18th or early 19th Century society or applied in the high tech world of the 21st century. The common defense is the common defense regardless of the nature or sophistication of the enemy. Whether dealing with poor share croppers or pig farmers of their time or the mega corporations of now, the general welfare still applies equally to all rather than to targeted individuals or groups. Our unalienable rights are no different now than they were then, and the role of the federal government should be to secure them now as it was then.

If the Federal government was operating now as it was intended to operate by the Founders, I believe we would have far fewer societal problems now because I believe the people would have found far more ingenious ways to solve them than anything government can come up with on its own.

The fact that the government has been overstepping its intended authority and corrupting the constitutional intent for about 100 years now does not mean that the original concepts are not as sound now as they were then. We just aren't paying enough attention to them or embracing them now.

 

[Wiseacre]

It's Congress that decides who win and who loses and they are wholly owned by those who win. It's call Plutocracy.

I thought you lefties believed it's all the fault of the Wall Streeters who own the pols.

That's exactly what I suggested. Wall Streeters = Plutocrats. btw, I'm not a lefty.

You kinda come across as somebody well left of center. So, if Wall Street runs the whole place, how in hell did we have this bad of a recession and such a poor recovery? A lotta rich guys lost a bunch of money you know.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's your opinion and you'r not alone, in fact most people use originalism when it suits them. Finding a quote from a framer to support a modern position can be a powerful way to advance their point of view

The counterpoint to this argument is how relevant can The Constitution be if only viewed through 18th Century eyes? We have over 200 years of history and legal rulings not privy to our forefathers and have as much trouble thinking like them as they would have in thinking like us.

If most people use originalism then the odds are that you are wrong.

The argument that the people who wrote the constitution did not know about computers, and that, as a result, the 4th Amendment does not apply to computers, is an outgrowth of the living constitution scool of thought, not the originailists. Originilism is not about arguing that, because the constitution does not say something, we need to make something up to make it work. Originilism is about saying that the intent of the document is to prevent search of peoples documents, even if they are electronic.

Do you honestly think that, if we resurrected the founders, and taught them everything they need to know to flourish in modern society, they would see a massive need to rewrite the constitution to adapt to technology? I have a specific challenge for you, tell me what, exactly, needs to change in the constitution in order to adapt it to 2012, and then explain why we should trust the courts to make those changes rather than actually amending the constitution.

Just because you are blinded by the lies told by people who want to abolish the rule of law, that does not mean everyone, or even most people, are equally blinded.

I suspect if they were resurrected they would serioulsly amend the 2nd Amendment, given the daily carnage across our nation.

I see you did not actually take up my challenge, I find it interesting that you think the constitution is a living document that needs to adapt to the times, yet you have no real idea exactly what needs to change.

I seriously doubt the founders would let fear mongering change their minds that an armed populace are citizens and that an unarmed populace are subjects. They would probably be intelligent enough to look at the numbers and see that deaths by automobile far outstrip deaths by guns, and they might even be smart enough to notice that the UK is concerned about the massive amount of knife crime, and that they are seriously considering making laws against carrying a knife more stringent.

If you could get your head out of your liberal misconceptions you would realize that gun control laws make things worse, not better.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If most people use originalism then the odds are that you are wrong.

The argument that the people who wrote the constitution did not know about computers, and that, as a result, the 4th Amendment does not apply to computers, is an outgrowth of the living constitution scool of thought, not the originailists. Originilism is not about arguing that, because the constitution does not say something, we need to make something up to make it work. Originilism is about saying that the intent of the document is to prevent search of peoples documents, even if they are electronic.

Do you honestly think that, if we resurrected the founders, and taught them everything they need to know to flourish in modern society, they would see a massive need to rewrite the constitution to adapt to technology? I have a specific challenge for you, tell me what, exactly, needs to change in the constitution in order to adapt it to 2012, and then explain why we should trust the courts to make those changes rather than actually amending the constitution.

Just because you are blinded by the lies told by people who want to abolish the rule of law, that does not mean everyone, or even most people, are equally blinded.

I suspect if they were resurrected they would serioulsly amend the 2nd Amendment, given the daily carnage across our nation.

I see you did not actually take up my challenge, I find it interesting that you think the constitution is a living document that needs to adapt to the times, yet you have no real idea exactly what needs to change.

I seriously doubt the founders would let fear mongering change their minds that an armed populace are citizens and that an unarmed populace are subjects. They would probably be intelligent enough to look at the numbers and see that deaths by automobile far outstrip deaths by guns, and they might even be smart enough to notice that the UK is concerned about the massive amount of knife crime, and that they are seriously considering making laws against carrying a knife more stringent.

If you could get your head out of your liberal misconceptions you would realize that gun control laws make things worse, not better.

My liberal misconceptions? Lets' examine your argument. Cars kill people yet guns don't because people kill people, isn't that what your kind believes?

Yet cars are much safer today because pragmatic people required that they be made safer, that seat belts and child restraints be installed and the use mandated by law.

I don't have a problem with a home owner owning firearms as a means of protection, or a hobbiest having firearms who engages in target shooting on Saturday mornings. Nor do I object to hunters owning appropriate firearms.

I object to anyone of those persons having the ability to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm who has been convicted of DUI's or been detained per 5150 W&I (Ca Law) as someone a mental health professional determined has been a danger to them self or others, or those convicted of domestic violence or any crime of violence against a person.

How much fire power does a homeowner need to protect his home and family?

How many rounds per load is sufficient for a target shooter to engage in his/her hobby?

How many firearms must a hunter carry to safely engage in his/her sport?

Guns kill people as surely as cars do, and we at least try to keep drunks off the road.

 

[Intense]

If most people use originalism then the odds are that you are wrong.

The argument that the people who wrote the constitution did not know about computers, and that, as a result, the 4th Amendment does not apply to computers, is an outgrowth of the living constitution scool of thought, not the originailists. Originilism is not about arguing that, because the constitution does not say something, we need to make something up to make it work. Originilism is about saying that the intent of the document is to prevent search of peoples documents, even if they are electronic.

Do you honestly think that, if we resurrected the founders, and taught them everything they need to know to flourish in modern society, they would see a massive need to rewrite the constitution to adapt to technology? I have a specific challenge for you, tell me what, exactly, needs to change in the constitution in order to adapt it to 2012, and then explain why we should trust the courts to make those changes rather than actually amending the constitution.

Just because you are blinded by the lies told by people who want to abolish the rule of law, that does not mean everyone, or even most people, are equally blinded.

Exactly. To the modern American conservative, the principles apply whether people are in a relatively unsophisticated late 18th or early 19th Century society or applied in the high tech world of the 21st century. The common defense is the common defense regardless of the nature or sophistication of the enemy. Whether dealing with poor share croppers or pig farmers of their time or the mega corporations of now, the general welfare still applies equally to all rather than to targeted individuals or groups. Our unalienable rights are no different now than they were then, and the role of the federal government should be to secure them now as it was then.

If the Federal government was operating now as it was intended to operate by the Founders, I believe we would have far fewer societal problems now because I believe the people would have found far more ingenious ways to solve them than anything government can come up with on its own.

The fact that the government has been overstepping its intended authority and corrupting the constitutional intent for about 100 years now does not mean that the original concepts are not as sound now as they were then. We just aren't paying enough attention to them or embracing them now.

Value, Principle, Ideal, are Timeless. Government functions best when it functions Impartially, putting Truth and Justice ahead of It's Indulgences and Selfish Interests.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you could get your head out of your liberal misconceptions you would realize that gun control laws make things worse, not better.

That’s not the issue.

At issue is what restrictions or regulations are appropriate in the context of the Constitutional right to self-defense, can the state demonstrate a compelling reason as to why a given regulation or restriction is needed.

As Scalia noted in Heller:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Clearly the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill or convicted felons.

Less clear would be restrictions on cosmetic configuration, ammunition capacity, and waiting periods.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you could get your head out of your liberal misconceptions you would realize that gun control laws make things worse, not better.

That’s not the issue.

At issue is what restrictions or regulations are appropriate in the context of the Constitutional right to self-defense, can the state demonstrate a compelling reason as to why a given regulation or restriction is needed.

As Scalia noted in Heller:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Clearly the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill or convicted felons.

Less clear would be restrictions on cosmetic configuration, ammunition capacity, and waiting periods.

How can the state exercise their "compelling interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill or convicted felons"? Any effort to "control" firearms is met with a massive response and a nearly hysterical cry that "They" want to take away our guns.

Every state requires those who drive cars to be licensed, any effort to make those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm will be met by the full force of the NRA, a very powerful lobby. A lobby which has become the role model for the Republican Party, btw, for compromise is not part of its makeup.

It's clear the Second Amendment is sacrosanct; and I'm not advocating it's repeal. I believe that if the founding fathers had witnessed the carnage which exists in our nation, and the types of 'arms' available, that the Second would have been written differently.

 

[Intense]

I suspect if they were resurrected they would serioulsly amend the 2nd Amendment, given the daily carnage across our nation.

I see you did not actually take up my challenge, I find it interesting that you think the constitution is a living document that needs to adapt to the times, yet you have no real idea exactly what needs to change.

I seriously doubt the founders would let fear mongering change their minds that an armed populace are citizens and that an unarmed populace are subjects. They would probably be intelligent enough to look at the numbers and see that deaths by automobile far outstrip deaths by guns, and they might even be smart enough to notice that the UK is concerned about the massive amount of knife crime, and that they are seriously considering making laws against carrying a knife more stringent.

If you could get your head out of your liberal misconceptions you would realize that gun control laws make things worse, not better.

My liberal misconceptions? Lets' examine your argument. Cars kill people yet guns don't because people kill people, isn't that what your kind believes?

Yet cars are much safer today because pragmatic people required that they be made safer, that seat belts and child restraints be installed and the use mandated by law.

I don't have a problem with a home owner owning firearms as a means of protection, or a hobbiest having firearms who engages in target shooting on Saturday mornings. Nor do I object to hunters owning appropriate firearms.

I object to anyone of those persons having the ability to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm who has been convicted of DUI's or been detained per 5150 W&I (Ca Law) as someone a mental health professional determined has been a danger to them self or others, or those convicted of domestic violence or any crime of violence against a person.

How much fire power does a homeowner need to protect his home and family?

How many rounds per load is sufficient for a target shooter to engage in his/her hobby?

How many firearms must a hunter carry to safely engage in his/her sport?

Guns kill people as surely as cars do, and we at least try to keep drunks off the road.

Not too far off.

My liberal misconceptions? Lets' examine your argument. Cars kill people yet guns don't because people kill people, isn't that what your kind believes?

People Power both Cars and Guns. It's about responsibility.

Yet cars are much safer today because pragmatic people required that they be made safer, that seat belts and child restraints be installed and the use mandated by law.

I voted for Ralph Nader in the past. Were I President I would put him in charge of cleaning up a few agencies, starting with the IRS. Let reason and circumstance be the guide.

I don't have a problem with a home owner owning firearms as a means of protection, or a hobbiest having firearms who engages in target shooting on Saturday mornings. Nor do I object to hunters owning appropriate firearms.

Neither do I. Unfortunately Bureaucracies grow, where I live, I cannot own a gun for that purpose, without paying large fee's for each. Where I live, to defend myself, if attacked, could result with me being charged with a crime arbitrarily, for using anything as a weapon. Sometimes the power of the State or municipality goes to far WC. I'm not asking you to agree here, just consider the ramifications of over control.

I object to anyone of those persons having the ability to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm who has been convicted of DUI's or been detained per 5150 W&I (Ca Law) as someone a mental health professional determined has been a danger to them self or others, or those convicted of domestic violence or any crime of violence against a person.

Maybe for a time period after a DUI conviction. Was the person in possession of a loaded fire arm while drunk? That I would view differently. Mental Illness should disqualify a person from possessing a Fire Arm. I agree with you there. Should a Doctor or Court be able to determine if there are circumstances where rulings can be reversed. I would think so.

How much fire power does a homeowner need to protect his home and family?

Against what? Against who? That is a factor. Thief, Rapist, Gang, Riot, Anarchy?

How many rounds per load is sufficient for a target shooter to engage in his/her hobby?

Good Question. Shelf Life is an issue here too. Storage, safety, fire safety. Should there be standards? Yes. Maybe more a State issue?

How many firearms must a hunter carry to safely engage in his/her sport?

Individual Preference. Circumstance?

Guns kill people as surely as cars do, and we at least try to keep drunks off the road.

Do we? Where is Alcohol not sold? Medicines containing alcohol, even. Drunk Driving has gone down drastically, agreed. Yet it is still a problem, the outcome too often reflected upon who you are, who you are related to, or who you know. That's just life in the real world.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I see you did not actually take up my challenge, I find it interesting that you think the constitution is a living document that needs to adapt to the times, yet you have no real idea exactly what needs to change.

I seriously doubt the founders would let fear mongering change their minds that an armed populace are citizens and that an unarmed populace are subjects. They would probably be intelligent enough to look at the numbers and see that deaths by automobile far outstrip deaths by guns, and they might even be smart enough to notice that the UK is concerned about the massive amount of knife crime, and that they are seriously considering making laws against carrying a knife more stringent.

If you could get your head out of your liberal misconceptions you would realize that gun control laws make things worse, not better.

My liberal misconceptions? Lets' examine your argument. Cars kill people yet guns don't because people kill people, isn't that what your kind believes?

Yet cars are much safer today because pragmatic people required that they be made safer, that seat belts and child restraints be installed and the use mandated by law.

I don't have a problem with a home owner owning firearms as a means of protection, or a hobbiest having firearms who engages in target shooting on Saturday mornings. Nor do I object to hunters owning appropriate firearms.

I object to anyone of those persons having the ability to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm who has been convicted of DUI's or been detained per 5150 W&I (Ca Law) as someone a mental health professional determined has been a danger to them self or others, or those convicted of domestic violence or any crime of violence against a person.

How much fire power does a homeowner need to protect his home and family?

How many rounds per load is sufficient for a target shooter to engage in his/her hobby?

How many firearms must a hunter carry to safely engage in his/her sport?

Guns kill people as surely as cars do, and we at least try to keep drunks off the road.

Not too far off.


People Power both Cars and Guns. It's about responsibility.




I voted for Ralph Nader in the past. Were I President I would put him in charge of cleaning up a few agencies, starting with the IRS. Let reason and circumstance be the guide.




Neither do I. Unfortunately Bureaucracies grow, where I live, I cannot own a gun for that purpose, without paying large fee's for each. Where I live, to defend myself, if attacked, could result with me being charged with a crime arbitrarily, for using anything as a weapon. Sometimes the power of the State or municipality goes to far WC. I'm not asking you to agree here, just consider the ramifications of over control.




Maybe for a time period after a DUI conviction. Was the person in possession of a loaded fire arm while drunk? That I would view differently. Mental Illness should disqualify a person from possessing a Fire Arm. I agree with you there. Should a Doctor or Court be able to determine if there are circumstances where rulings can be reversed. I would think so.





Against what? Against who? That is a factor. Thief, Rapist, Gang, Riot, Anarchy?





Good Question. Shelf Life is an issue here too. Storage, safety, fire safety. Should there be standards? Yes. Maybe more a State issue?

How many firearms must a hunter carry to safely engage in his/her sport?

Individual Preference. Circumstance?

Guns kill people as surely as cars do, and we at least try to keep drunks off the road.

Do we? Where is Alcohol not sold? Medicines containing alcohol, even. Drunk Driving has gone down drastically, agreed. Yet it is still a problem, the outcome too often reflected upon who you are, who you are related to, or who you know. That's just life in the real world.

Good response and great questions. Do I have all the answers? Nope, as you are quite correct, the devil is in the details.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you could get your head out of your liberal misconceptions you would realize that gun control laws make things worse, not better.

That’s not the issue.

At issue is what restrictions or regulations are appropriate in the context of the Constitutional right to self-defense, can the state demonstrate a compelling reason as to why a given regulation or restriction is needed.

As Scalia noted in Heller:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Clearly the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill or convicted felons.

Less clear would be restrictions on cosmetic configuration, ammunition capacity, and waiting periods.

How can the state exercise their "compelling interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill or convicted felons"? Any effort to "control" firearms is met with a massive response and a nearly hysterical cry that "They" want to take away our guns.

Every state requires those who drive cars to be licensed, any effort to make those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm will be met by the full force of the NRA, a very powerful lobby. A lobby which has become the role model for the Republican Party, btw, for compromise is not part of its makeup.

It's clear the Second Amendment is sacrosanct; and I'm not advocating it's repeal. I believe that if the founding fathers had witnessed the carnage which exists in our nation, and the types of 'arms' available, that the Second would have been written differently.

Keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and convicted felons is in the interest of the general welfare. That secures our rights, not limit or violate them. The problem comes when the interest becomes to limit the rights of everybody and not just those who obviously should not have access to guns. It should be obvious to all but the mentally ill that gun control has not eliminated or even cut down on the carnage you mention. In fact, there is less carnage and mayhem committed in those places in which the citizenry is the most heavily and legally armed but the focus is on only those who should not be allowed access to guns in the interest of protecting eveybody else's rights.

Ditto for requiring people to pass a drivers' test and obtain a license to drive before turning them loose in a potentially dangerous machine on roads that are shared by all. That is in the interest of the general welfare--not rich, not poor, not any special group but all the people as all must share those roads. If the person restricts their driving to their own private property, then no license is required and that is the way it should be.

We cannot protect everybody against the stupid or hateful or negligence or careless acts of a few, but we can hold the people accountable and responsible for damage resulting from that. We can't wrap people in bubbles to protect them from every possible problem or calamity, but we can encourage or even demand that reasonable precautions and safety measures be utilized in those areas that are shared by all and otherwise allow people to accept the consequences for the stupid or wrong choices they make. Hence requirements for reasonably well maintained automobiles on public roads or control of toxic emissions into air that we all must breath is reasonable within the social contract. Requiring reasonable safety precautions for children is reasonable within the social contract. Requiring adults to wear safety belts or helmets or whatever is entering a gray area that can be legitimately debated by free people, however.

But considering every government law, regulation, initiative, process within the prism of 1) Does it provide the common defense? 2) Does it promote the general welfare? 3) Does it secure and protect the unalienable rights of the citizen? If yes, then it is a legitimate function of the federal government. If not, it is not. Each state or community, however, should establish its own rules and processes to implement the social contract adopted by the people.

That is how you apply the basic principles of modern American conservatism to issues that arise within the social contract.

 

[peach174]

Jared Loughner was mentally ill.
The kid should have been put in an institution and had drug treatment.

The absurdity of the left is to outlaw that Glock in which he used.
It takes AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.

The idea that the mentally ill should not be locked up because of their rights is totally opposite of what state and fed government should do.
The criminally insane need to be institutionalized and get treatment, not take away the rights of law abider's and sane citizens.

 

[Dragon]

I'm going to make some predictions, consistent with the thread title, about the conservatives of the 2050s.

Conservatives of the 2050s will accept gay marriage as the norm. They may or may not accept polyamorous unions. They will almost certainly reject unions between human beings and artificial intelligence entities. Only liberals will promote such unions.

Conservatives of the 2050s will accept the Next New Deal of the 2020s as a good thing, including strict regulation of the financial industry, strong unions, progressive taxation, narrowed income gaps. They will reject and oppose attempts to implement socialist measures involving public ownership of big corporations, intended to resolve the problems arising from advancing automation.

Conservatives of the 2050s will accept the idea of a green, sustainable economy. In fact, they will adopt environmentalism wholeheartedly, and on the basis of it look with great skepticism towards new developments in nanotechnology and genetic engineering which seem to to pull us away from a "natural" approach.

Conservatives of the 2050s (speaking of genetic engineering) will resist making uplifted chimpanzees, dolphins, and parrots citizens. The more extreme right-wingers will sponsor legislation and/or Constitutional amendments defining those organisms of human origin whose modified genes depart from "natural human norms" as non-persons.

Conservatives of the 2050s will accept the peacekeeping role of the new Union of Democratic States, and argue for keeping the U.S. military small and oriented towards the defense of the United States rather than projecting American military power abroad. They will resist efforts by some liberals to abolish the U.S. military altogether.

That will do for starters.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I suspect if they were resurrected they would serioulsly amend the 2nd Amendment, given the daily carnage across our nation.

This is true only if you have reason to believe that the misuse of firearms was unknown at the time and, more importantly, that said misuse would be, in their eyes. sufficient to warrant plenary limitations on the rights of the people, especially the law abiding.

I'm sure you, out of hand, have reason to believe this; what you lack, unsurprisingly, in the capacity to show any specific basis for that belief.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I suspect if they were resurrected they would serioulsly amend the 2nd Amendment, given the daily carnage across our nation.

I see you did not actually take up my challenge, I find it interesting that you think the constitution is a living document that needs to adapt to the times, yet you have no real idea exactly what needs to change.

I seriously doubt the founders would let fear mongering change their minds that an armed populace are citizens and that an unarmed populace are subjects. They would probably be intelligent enough to look at the numbers and see that deaths by automobile far outstrip deaths by guns, and they might even be smart enough to notice that the UK is concerned about the massive amount of knife crime, and that they are seriously considering making laws against carrying a knife more stringent.

If you could get your head out of your liberal misconceptions you would realize that gun control laws make things worse, not better.

My liberal misconceptions? Lets' examine your argument. Cars kill people yet guns don't because people kill people, isn't that what your kind believes?

Awesome strawman.

Yet cars are much safer today because pragmatic people required that they be made safer, that seat belts and child restraints be installed and the use mandated by law.

Please explain, specifically, how this concept should/would apply to firearms.

I don't have a problem with a home owner owning firearms as a means of protection, or a hobbiest having firearms who engages in target shooting on Saturday mornings. Nor do I object to hunters owning appropriate firearms.

How nice of you.
Of course, your use of the term "appropriate" is a dead give away that you -do- have a problem in this regard.

I object to anyone of those persons having the ability to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm who has been convicted of DUI's or been detained per 5150 W&I (Ca Law) as someone a mental health professional determined has been a danger to them self or others, or those convicted of domestic violence or any crime of violence against a person.

Good news - existing state and federal law already covers this.

How much fire power does a homeowner need to protect his home and family?

A decision for him, not you. Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.

How many rounds per load is sufficient for a target shooter to engage in his/her hobby?

Aside from the fact that your chosen terminology here denotes an ignorance of the issue...
A decision for him, not you. Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.

How many firearms must a hunter carry to safely engage in his/her sport?

Aside form the fact that the 2nd amendment isnt related to hunting...
A decision for him, not you. Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.

Guns kill people as surely as cars do, and we at least try to keep drunks off the road.

Your statement here makes no sense.
If guns kill people as cars do, why aren't you trying to keep cars off the road?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you could get your head out of your liberal misconceptions you would realize that gun control laws make things worse, not better.

That’s not the issue.

At issue is what restrictions or regulations are appropriate in the context of the Constitutional right to self-defense, can the state demonstrate a compelling reason as to why a given regulation or restriction is needed.

As Scalia noted in Heller:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Clearly the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill or convicted felons.

Less clear would be restrictions on cosmetic configuration, ammunition capacity, and waiting periods.

How can the state exercise their "compelling interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill or convicted felons"? Any effort to "control" firearms is met with a massive response and a nearly hysterical cry that "They" want to take away our guns.

Another awesome strawman.
Few, if any, pro-gun groups support allowing convicted felons or the "mentally ill" to have guns; none to my knowledge have ever argued againt the provisions in state and federal laws that provide for this or advocated their repeal.

Every state requires those who drive cars to be licensed, any effort to make those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm...

-Driving a car on public roads is not a right; gun ownership is.
-You do not need a license to buy or own a car.
-You do not need a license to drive a car on private property.
-You do not need a license to transport a car on public property.
Your point, whatever is might have been, thusly, fails.

It's clear the Second Amendment is sacrosanct;

As are all of them - would you not agree?

I believe that if the founding fathers had witnessed the carnage which exists in our nation, and the types of 'arms' available, that the Second would have been written differently.

This has already garnered an effective response.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My liberal misconceptions? Lets' examine your argument. Cars kill people yet guns don't because people kill people, isn't that what your kind believes?

Did I hit a nerve? I have no idea how you can read my comment that death by automobiles far outstrip deaths by guns and conclude that I am saying that cars kill people and guns don't, but I don't have my head up my ass full of liberal misconceptions. Thanks for proving my point, by the way.

Yet cars are much safer today because pragmatic people required that they be made safer, that seat belts and child restraints be installed and the use mandated by law.

Which does nothing to change the simple fact that you are more likely to be killed in an automobile than you are by a gun. Yet, for some obscure reason that only makes sense to liberals, you want to treat guns as more dangerous than guns. That tells me that your bias against guns is not based on logic, it is based on fear.

I don't have a problem with a home owner owning firearms as a means of protection, or a hobbiest having firearms who engages in target shooting on Saturday mornings. Nor do I object to hunters owning appropriate firearms.

I object to anyone of those persons having the ability to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm who has been convicted of DUI's or been detained per 5150 W&I (Ca Law) as someone a mental health professional determined has been a danger to them self or others, or those convicted of domestic violence or any crime of violence against a person.

Let me get this straight, you think that someone who has been convicted of a traffic offense, or detained because he might have been having a bad day, should not be allowed to own guns. Do you have any evidence that people who get behind the wheel of a car after a couple of drinks are inherently more likely to use guns to commit crimes than people who do not?

How much fire power does a homeowner need to protect his home and family?

What gives you the right to tell someone else how much firepower they need? Do you think a person should have access to self defense only after getting a key, unlocking a gun safe, removing a locked trigger guard, and finally loading the weapon? What is the armed party of raiders supposed to do while the homeowner is going through that process, stand politely by and wait? If they don't will they loose points on the socre of the game we are playing?

Personally, I think a proper mode of self defense would include access to a weapon in every single room of the house, and more than one in larger rooms. I guess that means the proper answer to your question depends on the size of the house, and the neighborhood.

How many rounds per load is sufficient for a target shooter to engage in his/her hobby?

Wouldn't that depend on exactly what the hobby is? I know musket enthusiasts who use only one round, and that is plenty for them, but it really doesn't make much sense for skeet shooters to be restricted to one round.

How many firearms must a hunter carry to safely engage in his/her sport?

My experience is that hunters generally carry as little extra weight as they can get away with, so that is a pointless question. That said, it would depend on what, and where, they are hunting. Just because they are out hunting for ducks does not mean they will not run into a wolf or bear in a bad mood, and bird shot won't help much then.

Guns kill people as surely as cars do, and we at least try to keep drunks off the road.

Actually, neither kills anyone.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you could get your head out of your liberal misconceptions you would realize that gun control laws make things worse, not better.

That’s not the issue.

At issue is what restrictions or regulations are appropriate in the context of the Constitutional right to self-defense, can the state demonstrate a compelling reason as to why a given regulation or restriction is needed.

As Scalia noted in Heller:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Clearly the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill or convicted felons.

Less clear would be restrictions on cosmetic configuration, ammunition capacity, and waiting periods.

I asked before, but I do not believe you responded...

Regarding Heller and McDonald....
Did liberals come down on the side of protecting individual liberty or maintaining/increasing state power?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Jared Loughner was mentally ill.
The kid should have been put in an institution and had drug treatment.

The absurdity of the left is to outlaw that Glock in which he used.
It takes AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.

The idea that the mentally ill should not be locked up because of their rights is totally opposite of what state and fed government should do.
The criminally insane need to be institutionalized and get treatment, not take away the rights of law abider's and sane citizens.

Only the progressive retard laymen that are too dumb to know anything argue to ban guns because idiots get a hold of them and kill people.

The progressive politicians want to ban guns because guns get in their way of a totalitarian government where they run our lives.

Take a look at the UK....

They banned guns and now they're shoving all sorts of shit down their citizens throats... Now the citizens have no way of protecting their liberty....

Hell, I was reading one case out of the UK where a man (a farmer) killed a home intruder, then wounded his partner in crime. He got life in prison for murder and the wounded criminal (who got 3 years) sued the man (while he was in prison) and won the mans property.

And if I remember correctly the pair of criminals had extensive criminal records, and had been busted for burglary many times.... One of them was busted for burglary like 25-30 times..

The courts explanation on the ruling was: "you should have ran away."

I suppose in the UK when people walk into your home with intent to rob you - you should either run away or offer the criminals tea while they take your shit?

But that's how the progressives think over there across the pond...

They don't believe anyone has the right to protect their property and sanctuary...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wouldn't that depend on exactly what the hobby is? I know musket enthusiasts who use only one round, and that is plenty for them, but it really doesn't make much sense for skeet shooters to be restricted to one round.

Indeed. I can go though a couple hundred rounds for each of several rifles in a practice session - if you want to actually compete at NRA-Long Range, you need to practivce a lot, under differeing conditions.

Anyone familiar with any sort of competitve shooting will tell you the same thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That’s not the issue.

At issue is what restrictions or regulations are appropriate in the context of the Constitutional right to self-defense, can the state demonstrate a compelling reason as to why a given regulation or restriction is needed.

If that is the issue the answer is really simple, none are reasonable because my right to preserve my life outweighs any community interest in preventing me access to that right. You, however, have your head firmly up your ass of liberal misconceptions and think that the government somehow has the power to determine that it is reasonable for me to call the police for help, but it is unreasonable for me to purchase a gun in anticipation of the police not arriving in time.