What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[Fair&Balanced]

I support providing ID for gun purchases.

And if I don't provide the ID you demand, you want government to infringe my right to keep and bear arms?

that is it.

It is? So now you DON'T want me to have to provide you a reason why I should be able to exercise my right, any more? What you insisted on before, is no longer true?

You need to get your stories straight.

The rest is just crap you attribute to me.

No, it's stuff you've said yourself. I just pointed out your own words to you.

If it's "crap", whose fault is that?

And what's more it's the law of the land and yoiu'll just have to deal with it.

Were you about to point out where in the Constitution it requires us to provide ID to buy a gun?

Sure, right after you post where in the COTUS it requires us to provide ID to vote..............

 

[Little-Acorn]

That's why I prefer people be registered as an eligible gun buyer the exact same way we register as an eligible voter.

And if they don't register, then you'll use government force to infringe their right to keep and bear arms?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

That's why I prefer people be registered as an eligible gun buyer the exact same way we register as an eligible voter.

Voter registration is a relic from a bygone era. Just show a valid ID when you vote, your address will CLEARLY be listed and if you are at the correct precinct, you vote. Simple as that.

 

[Contumacious]

The devices allegedly prohibited by 26 USC 5845(f) were used against the Davidians in 1993. Furthermore, if and when Americans conclude that the government has become a tyranny they may required those devices.

Landmines, grenades, lethal gases, RPG's, bombs and other dangerous and explosive devices listed you want to be made available under the colour of Amendment II? Talk about giving a boost to domestic terrorism!

Have you thought that through or do you just not give a shit?

It's not that I haven't thought about it OR that I don't give a shit! The thing is I'm not afraid of my shadow and I don't see black helicopters hovering everywhere. You can live your life in foolish, misplaced distrust of everything in this cruel, cruel world if you wish, but I'll choose freedom and reject your self imposed prison of your fears!

Again , Uncle Sam will be more that happy to use any of those devices against you. Ask the Davidians.


You don't see helicopters hovering everywhere but unfortunately the Davidians did.

Helicopters were spraying the compound from overhead. All that in order to serve a "peaceful" warrant.

It is your prerogative to be naive and gullible.

.

More importantly, it's my choice to live fully and free, unencumbered by paralyzing fears of the boogeyman under my bed! We are both free to choose for ourselves, but your quaking is the price for your choice.

We are not being governed by angels , you snooze , you lose.

.

Ever vigil for sure, that was never suggested or implied. Ever in fear is for timid fools and cowards. You're the one who is full of fear of the tyrant looking back at you from every facet of the jewel.

Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

--Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4,1777

 

[Little-Acorn]

Were you about to point out where in the Constitution it requires us to provide ID to buy a gun?

Sure, right after you post where in the COTUS it requires us to provide ID to vote..............

But I never said it did.

But, If I don't point out a Voter-ID requirement, then you won't find requirement for IDs for gun buyers?

Are you on some prescription medication we should be aware of?

Nothing else explains the weird twists and loop-de-loops you keep going through in this thread.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Were you about to point out where in the Constitution it requires us to provide ID to buy a gun?

Sure, right after you post where in the COTUS it requires us to provide ID to vote..............

But I never said it did.

But, If I don't point out a Voter-ID requirement, then you won't find requirement for IDs for gun buyers?

Are you on some prescription medication we should be aware of?

Nothing else explains the weird twists and loop-de-loops you keep going through in this thread.

No weird twists, just common sense, if you say "we won't allow X to exercise certain rights" then obviously you either have some test for X, or else why bother?

So, I believe you have said you believe criminals should lose their second amendment rights, how do we make sure they aren't buying guns without checking ID?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
No weird twists, just common sense, if you say "we won't allow X to exercise certain rights" then obviously you either have some test for X, or else why bother?

You do not understand the issue.
It is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns.
1: The fact that it is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns in no way necessitates that we must prevent felons from doing so
2: Having to prove that you are not breaking the law when trying to exercise your rights is prior restraint and violates the constitution.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

[
No weird twists, just common sense, if you say "we won't allow X to exercise certain rights" then obviously you either have some test for X, or else why bother?

You do not understand the issue.
It is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns.
1: The fact that it is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns in no way necessitates that we must prevent felons from doing so
2: Having to prove that you are not breaking the law when trying to exercise your rights is prior restraint and violates the constitution.

No shit moron it's illegal for felons to own firearms so how the fuck do you make sure they aren't , unless you check people's ID? Duh

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
No weird twists, just common sense, if you say "we won't allow X to exercise certain rights" then obviously you either have some test for X, or else why bother?

You do not understand the issue.
It is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns.
1: The fact that it is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns in no way necessitates that we must prevent felons from doing so
2: Having to prove that you are not breaking the law when trying to exercise your rights is prior restraint and violates the constitution.

No shit moron it's illegal for felons to own firearms so how the fuck do you make sure they aren't , unless you check people's ID? Duh

Nor sure why you do not understand this part:
The fact that it is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns in no way necessitates that we must prevent felons from doing so
Is it because you cannot, or do not want to?

 

[Contumacious]

[
No weird twists, just common sense, if you say "we won't allow X to exercise certain rights" then obviously you either have some test for X, or else why bother?

You do not understand the issue.
It is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns.
1: The fact that it is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns in no way necessitates that we must prevent felons from doing so
2: Having to prove that you are not breaking the law when trying to exercise your rights is prior restraint and violates the constitution.

No shit moron it's illegal for felons to own firearms so how the fuck do you make sure they aren't , unless you check people's ID? Duh

Excuse me dingle berry.

But the police state has criminalized numerous acts in which there are no victims.

WHY should someone convicted of a smoking a joint or similar victimless crime be deprived of owning a firearm?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

[
No weird twists, just common sense, if you say "we won't allow X to exercise certain rights" then obviously you either have some test for X, or else why bother?

You do not understand the issue.
It is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns.
1: The fact that it is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns in no way necessitates that we must prevent felons from doing so
2: Having to prove that you are not breaking the law when trying to exercise your rights is prior restraint and violates the constitution.

No shit moron it's illegal for felons to own firearms so how the fuck do you make sure they aren't , unless you check people's ID? Duh

Excuse me dingle berry.

But the police state has criminalized numerous acts in which there are no victims.

WHY should someone convicted of a smoking a joint or similar victimless crime be deprived of owning a firearm?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Not sure why the name calling, but this thread isn't about crimes that you think aren't crimes, I think all adults realize that when any of say criminals shouldn't have guns, we're talking about felons.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Not sure why the name calling, but this thread isn't about crimes that you think aren't crimes, I think all adults realize that when any of say criminals shouldn't have guns, we're talking about felons.

Is this silly person still posting mindless and self-contradictory nonsense?

 

[FA_Q2]

The FACT is that there are MASSIVE controls on guns. From controls on how, who and where they are able to be sold to extensive controls on the manufacture and distribution of firearms. Gun control exists and in a big way. If there is any reason that we cannot have an adult conversation on this matter it is because so many refuse to acknowledge that gun control is already here, has been tried all over the planet in various capacities and almost no one that argues for grater controls uses hard data that is not manipulated.

I'm not reading you... So you think we have gun control? Agreed, though I'm not sure what "MASSIVE" means.

Yes, we do.

Massive means that we have a lot of gun control. Guns are controlled in almost every way possible.

Do you want more or less control, I can't tell?

Depends on the area. There are many locations throughout the nation where the gun control laws are either blatantly unconstitutional or they are over restrictive without gain. There are a few things we could do better but not much.

Do you have a better plan to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, schizophrenics, psychopaths or children?

We need a better system for dealing with people that are unstable. There is not a whole lot we can do there though - most of these big news killings are done with people that have evaded detection and we are not going to fix that. We also have a problem with repeat offenders. The entire prison system needs a MASSIVE rework. We do not need to keep weapons out of the hands of violent criminals - we need to have those violent criminals in prison (where the question is moot) or reformed after getting our of prison. Currently the system is set up to KEEP you a criminal rather than return you as a valuable member of society. Children getting weapons is not a state issue - it is a shitty parenting issue. The state cannot fix this.

 

[FA_Q2]

You did not answer either pert of my question.
Why do you believe it is necessary to prevent these people from breaking the law, and why do you think you can accomplish this by passing another law?

Not sure what you're asking? Isn't it necessary to prevent people from breaking all laws? It is called enforcement.

Law enforcement comes in -after- the law is broken; it does not -prevent- people from breaking the law.
Murder is illegal -- what laws do we have to prevent people form committing murder?
Assault is illegal - what laws do we have to prevent people from committing assalt?
Rape is illegal - what laws do we have to prevent people from committing rape?

Why do you believe it is necessary to prevent criminals et al, from breaking the laws that make it illegal for them to own guns, and why do you think you can accomplish this by passing another law?

You are not completely correct here M14 IMHO. Laws do, in fact, prevent people from doing things. They are not and can never be 100 percent effective - murder being illegal does not prevent all murders. HOWEVER, the simple fact that murder is illegal and therefore there is a consequence attached means that there will be fewer people willing to risk those consequences - IOW, prevented. I am sure that the majority of law abiding citizens have felt at one time or another that someone deserved a good swift kick in the ass but decided that such was not worth administering because of the consequences involved. I know that I have.

This dies not work with weapon laws but not because such is not a deterrent. It is because what they are doing with the weapon IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. IOW, the deterrent factor is already present and they have ignored it. Adding another law on top of that is meaningless. Someone willing to murder another person or rob a store certainly is not going to avoid the crime because of a weapons law - they are already ignoring the law. That does not mean that laws do not inherently prevent some actions through deterrence.

 

[FA_Q2]

LOL, liberals can't read at a high school level.

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Note the form of the sentence,

Because A, B

In that form, it's saying for the reason of A, B is true. A is not a qualifier for B, it's an explanation of B

So the founding fathers said

Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State"

Note again that's an explanation, not a restriction or a qualifier

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

You're welcome for this English lesson that apparently government schools didn't give you when you were 12 as they should have done

Here's the elephant-in-the-room flaw in that theory:

The Amendment doesn't *NEED* to justify its own reasoning. A Constitutional Amendment is a simple flat declaration, not a court argument or a point asserted in a debate. There is literally no need to do that. The conditional phrase could have been struck altogether, if that were the purpose.

And if you look around, you'll find none of the other Amendments take the trouble to explain their reasoning either. Not a single one. Nor do they need to.

That renders the theory quite dubious, and suggests the phrase is there for another reason. Would that they had stated it clearly but ----- they didn't.

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

No, it is not. You are trying to read the second in a manner that agrees with what you want it to mean rather than what it does.

No matter how you slice the first clause it does not negate the rest of the amendment or the fact that it directly protects the right of the people. That is exactly what you are trying to do by connecting the right with the militia - something that the language of the second completely and utterly avoids doing. It is very clear.

Further, when you look into what the founders considered the 'militia' then the argument that the right is not a personal right to bear arms is even more nonsensical. The SCOTUS has said as much as well.

You may believe that the right is outdated. You may believe that it cannot be applied to today's realities as the use and function of firearms has changed so much. Those are valid points. They are not, however, points that allow one to violate the amendment. There is a clear method to changing outdated or incorrect portions of the constitution. Should anyone believe that the second should not confer a personal right they should not be trying to argue that the meaning is something it is not - they should simply be changing it.

Ummm..... I don't have a "way I want it to mean", and I stated that from the outset. This point is about how English works. The fact remains, there is no known reason a Constitutional Amendment needs to explain itself. Prove me wrong. That makes the theory of its purpose as proposed still viable but unlikely, which leads us to consider other possibilities.

And as I also made clear, none of those possibilities can be proven since the Amendment does not spell out what it meant.

So I'm not the one dismissing viable possibilities here. Nor am I the one presuming what my intentions are. That's a hint.

You seem to be rejecting the fact that the second protects a personal right to bear arms unconnected with the militia. Am I incorrect about that?

 

[FA_Q2]

The fifth amendment says your rights cannot be restricted without due process of law.

That's ridiculous, it doesn't say that. Where did you come up with that?

It says that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The right to keep and bear arms is neither life, liberty, nor property.

?

You do understand what liberty is right? The right to keep and bear arms falls directly under liberty (and property for that matter).

 

[Pogo]

And therein summarizes the failure of liberal ideology. The belief that we can somehow "figure out" how to stop people from killing. How to prevent hunger. How to prevent homelessness. That we can build utopia.

My dear....after tens of thousands of years of mankind and it's history, I can tell you unequivocally that there will never come a day where we can figure out how to stop man from killing. Evil will always exist. Always. There will always be sociopaths. There will always be mental illness. And there will always be pure, unadulterated evil.

Nice red herring, but we ain't talking about "evil". We're talking about gun fetishism. And more broadly about a culture that worships violence and thinks the solution to every challenge is to overpower it, to blow it up, to smash it to smithereens.

As I believe you're about to demonstrate for us next:

The best way to survive and thrive is to carry a gun.

And there it is, QED. "The best way to fight a fire is to throw gasoline on it". One throws up one's hands and declines to think.

This is exactly what I mean when I say our problem is not legislative, but spiritual.

 

[FA_Q2]

Q. What is the end game

A. A safe and sane policy which reduces gun violence in America.

Gun violence has declined every year in the last 50.

The end game for you and your filthy party is to crush all civil rights.

How do you define gun violence?

The end game is common sense gun regulations, of course your kind rejects such an idea because your handlers have told you to protect the profits of the NRA and its advertisers by claiming "they" are after your guns. There are some extremists who want what you speculate, but the vast majority of Americans see a problem and seek a solution.

"Shall not be infringed" is hyperbole, the rights to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is legally restricted now and always has been. I get it, from reading posts from people like you, those whose one and only fall back is to quote this phrase, is an extreme, callous and self serving way to end intelligent debate, something the conservative set in American has made into a wedge issue (i.e. an emotional argument).

Really?

Quoting the constitution verbatim is "an extreme, callous and self serving way to end intelligent debate."

I question if you know what intelligent debate actually is...

 

[Pogo]

Here's the elephant-in-the-room flaw in that theory:

The Amendment doesn't *NEED* to justify its own reasoning. A Constitutional Amendment is a simple flat declaration, not a court argument or a point asserted in a debate. There is literally no need to do that. The conditional phrase could have been struck altogether, if that were the purpose.

And if you look around, you'll find none of the other Amendments take the trouble to explain their reasoning either. Not a single one. Nor do they need to.

That renders the theory quite dubious, and suggests the phrase is there for another reason. Would that they had stated it clearly but ----- they didn't.

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

No, it is not. You are trying to read the second in a manner that agrees with what you want it to mean rather than what it does.

No matter how you slice the first clause it does not negate the rest of the amendment or the fact that it directly protects the right of the people. That is exactly what you are trying to do by connecting the right with the militia - something that the language of the second completely and utterly avoids doing. It is very clear.

Further, when you look into what the founders considered the 'militia' then the argument that the right is not a personal right to bear arms is even more nonsensical. The SCOTUS has said as much as well.

You may believe that the right is outdated. You may believe that it cannot be applied to today's realities as the use and function of firearms has changed so much. Those are valid points. They are not, however, points that allow one to violate the amendment. There is a clear method to changing outdated or incorrect portions of the constitution. Should anyone believe that the second should not confer a personal right they should not be trying to argue that the meaning is something it is not - they should simply be changing it.

Ummm..... I don't have a "way I want it to mean", and I stated that from the outset. This point is about how English works. The fact remains, there is no known reason a Constitutional Amendment needs to explain itself. Prove me wrong. That makes the theory of its purpose as proposed still viable but unlikely, which leads us to consider other possibilities.

And as I also made clear, none of those possibilities can be proven since the Amendment does not spell out what it meant.

So I'm not the one dismissing viable possibilities here. Nor am I the one presuming what my intentions are. That's a hint.

You seem to be rejecting the fact that the second protects a personal right to bear arms unconnected with the militia. Am I incorrect about that?

I'm simply saying that that distinction is not clear, due to the impossibly vague construction of the language. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. There's no way to tell from the language itself. One can read it either way, but what one cannot do is declare an absolute that it means one and not the other.

 

[Pogo]

I agree, there is no reason a Constitutional amendment needs to explain itself. But they did. So what do you want for it, a cookie?

I don't see that they did; that is your THEORY.

What I did was explain why that theory is unlikely. And apparently, you agree that it's unlikely. Not sure where exactly that leaves you. But for the rest of us it leaves us to wonder, 'if that isn't the purpose of the conditional clause, then what might the purpose be?". But I repeat myself.

A logical person would think that explaining it would make it stronger, they felt so strongly they said how critical it is to a free people.

That's odd --- one sentence ago you just agreed it isn't necessary. How then would an element we've both agreed is irrelevant, make it "stronger"?

This returns us right back to my previous rhetorical question --- TO WHOM would such a justification be making its case? A Constitution has no need to explain itself; it simply declares, "this is how it's gonna be". There's no debate about it.

For some bizarre reason you think explaining how critical the right is makes it not really a right at all. But then you are a chick, all emotional and all.

I can't make a lick of sense out of these two sentences. Perhaps there's an English version. Perhaps not.