An argument about the ineffectiveness of legal gun control

Dungheap said:
For a while poll taxes were considered perfectly legitimate pursuant to the Constitution. It took a constitutional amendment to ban the poll tax for good.

All rights are subject to reasonable regulations. Just like protesters oftentimes oftentimes have to pay a fee to exercise their right of peaceable assembly, requiring gun owners to pay a fee is constitutionally kosher.
Click to expand...
Protesters do not pay a fee for the right to assemble. They pay a fee for the use of public or private facilities in which they assemble just as any other group pays. Though I have little doubt that extremists in power will do all they can to limit the rights of the people more and more.

And there will always be those mindless little government-is-my-mommy drones cheering them on. There are always those who somehow think a right is not "needed" and therefore subject to "reasonable" limitations - where the definition of reasonable is left to those who don't believe it should be a right in the first place.


The point was that poll taxes (ie: fees on a person's constitutional right) were found to be wrong. The valid conclusion to draw from that is it is wrong to impose fees of any kind on ANY enumerated constitutional right.
 
Dungheap said:
For a while poll taxes were considered perfectly legitimate pursuant to the Constitution. It took a constitutional amendment to ban the poll tax for good.

All rights are subject to reasonable regulations. Just like protesters oftentimes oftentimes have to pay a fee to exercise their right of peaceable assembly, requiring gun owners to pay a fee is constitutionally kosher.
Click to expand...
Time Place and Manner are the ONLY restrictions on free speech. SOmetimes you have to get a permit to pay for the extra security your anti capitalism protests will require.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, but they may be required to put insurance bonds down.
Click to expand...
negative ghost rider. if something is an enumerated individual right, no insurance could possibly qualify. you fail.

Watermark said:
And gun nuts aren't protected by the constitution. You should all be in prison.
Click to expand...
right of the people, slaveboy, right of the people. that would mean YES INDEED we are protected. Learn to read the fricking document.

we'd rather just blow your socialist ass away, like we did all of your ancestors in the late 1700s. Don't worry though. We will come after you again.
 
The right is especially important since the SCOTUS agreed that it was an individual right, and not a collective right. (finally)


That decision should haunt the anti-gun crowd for quite some time.
 
Good Luck said:
Protesters do not pay a fee for the right to assemble. They pay a fee for the use of public or private facilities in which they assemble just as any other group pays. Though I have little doubt that extremists in power will do all they can to limit the rights of the people more and more.

And there will always be those mindless little government-is-my-mommy drones cheering them on. There are always those who somehow think a right is not "needed" and therefore subject to "reasonable" limitations - where the definition of reasonable is left to those who don't believe it should be a right in the first place.


The point was that poll taxes (ie: fees on a person's constitutional right) were found to be wrong. The valid conclusion to draw from that is it is wrong to impose fees of any kind on ANY enumerated constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Well understand the nature of government. It's not governments job to protect our rights. That your job (and mine). Let's be clear on some universal norms about governments. #1 All governments are coercive and #2 all governments limit peoples rights.

Now having cleared that. It should be understood that no "right" is absolute. To use a cliche, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

So the 64 million dollar question is, how do you balance individual rights with the public interest?
 
Mottleydude said:
Well understand the nature of government. It's not governments job to protect our rights.
Click to expand...
Actually, per the constitution, it is governments job to secure our rights. It's never worked that way, but there it is.

Mottleydude said:
That your job (and mine). Let's be clear on some universal norms about governments. #1 All governments are coercive and #2 all governments limit peoples rights.
Click to expand...
I agree on all counts.

Mottleydude said:
It should be understood that no "right" is absolute. To use a cliche, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Click to expand...
That doesn't correlate to absolute rights. All of my rights are absolute just as yours are. The rights we have from our creator do not include the right to infringe on the rights of others, therefore my right ending where yours begins still means absolute rights.

Mottleydude said:
So the 64 million dollar question is, how do you balance individual rights with the public interest?
Click to expand...

You don't. The founders formed this nation with personal liberty as the highest regard. There is no balancing rights with public interest. Todays version of the balancing act is a red herring put upon you by a government that seeks to take your rights.
 
The Bill of Rights was written specifically to protect individual liberties from being taken away by the government.

To say that our freedoms and rights are absolute and forever might be a stretch. But as long as this nation exists under our constitution, they are absolute.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Actually, per the constitution, it is governments job to secure our rights. It's never worked that way, but there it is.

I agree on all counts.

That doesn't correlate to absolute rights. All of my rights are absolute just as yours are. The rights we have from our creator do not include the right to infringe on the rights of others, therefore my right ending where yours begins still means absolute rights.



You don't. The founders formed this nation with personal liberty as the highest regard. There is no balancing rights with public interest. Todays version of the balancing act is a red herring put upon you by a government that seeks to take your rights.
Click to expand...

Oh please, that's complete ideological nonsense. Our government plays a balancing act all the time between our individual rights vs the public interest.
 
If the public is made up of individuals, how can the loss of individual freedoms be good for the public?

The so-called public interest is simply another word for an orderly society that can be easily managed by the government.
 
Solitary said:
The Bill of Rights was written specifically to protect individual liberties from being taken away by the government.

To say that our freedoms and rights are absolute and forever might be a stretch. But as long as this nation exists under our constitution, they are absolute.
Click to expand...

So you are saying I can walk into a crowded theater and scream "Fire" or walk into any bar with a concealed handgun because those rights under the bill of rights are absolute?
 
Mottleydude said:
So you are saying I can walk into a crowded theater and scream "Fire" or walk into any bar with a concealed handgun because those rights under the bill of rights are absolute?
Click to expand...

No, I am saying that the government will often use the "public good" argument in order to limit freedoms.

The act of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is causing harm to other people. That is something that is regulated.

The problem is when the government wants to use the "public good" argument to remove rights from individuals because they MIGHT cause harm.
 
Mottleydude said:
So you are saying I can walk into a crowded theater and scream "Fire" or walk into any bar with a concealed handgun because those rights under the bill of rights are absolute?
Click to expand...

do you get gagged before you walk in to that theater? I'm thinking not. so yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theater, however, you will be responsible for any and all damages that occur as a result.

Do you walk through metal detectors or get strip searched before going in to a bar? I'm thinking not. however, in the first century of life for this country, concealed weapons were considered the mark of someone with criminal intent. You could walk in to a saloon OPEN CARRYING and nobody thought anything of it. Now, could you walk in to a bar openly carrying a handgun? in some states you actually can, however, in most states you are going to grab negative attention. That doesn't mean you no longer have that right, it's just being denied to you by the powers that be. so stand up and fight brother, stand up and fight. take back your absolute rights and knock the liberal nanny staters off their babysitting horse. :usflag:
 
SmarterThanYou said:
do you get gagged before you walk in to that theater? I'm thinking not. so yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theater, however, you will be responsible for any and all damages that occur as a result.

Do you walk through metal detectors or get strip searched before going in to a bar? I'm thinking not. however, in the first century of life for this country, concealed weapons were considered the mark of someone with criminal intent. You could walk in to a saloon OPEN CARRYING and nobody thought anything of it. Now, could you walk in to a bar openly carrying a handgun? in some states you actually can, however, in most states you are going to grab negative attention. That doesn't mean you no longer have that right, it's just being denied to you by the powers that be. so stand up and fight brother, stand up and fight. take back your absolute rights and knock the liberal nanny staters off their babysitting horse. :usflag:
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a situation that occurred here in the late 90's. It was Summer and I was out of school but the weather was still coolish. Got up one Friday morning about 6:30 and went to the local store to have a cup of coffee and visit with the old-timers. A bicycle ride was going through our area and the folks were stopping in at the store for breakfast bars, gatorade and such. About 8:00 I decided to go squirrel hunting so I went home, strapped on the pistol, saddled the horse then loaded him and the dogs. I had a low tire on the horse trailer so I went back to the store to get some air for it. While I was there some of the other old-timers came in so I was talking to them and decided to get another cup of coffee. A quick stop for air turned into a 40 minutes or so. I must have made 2 or 3 trips into the store for coffee and finally some guy approaches me.

He said, "Excuse me sir are you Law-enforcement?" "No." "Are you a gang member?" I laughed and said, "No, I'm just a math teacher and a preacher at the local church down the road." He then wanted to take my picture and gave his explanation for wanting to do so. He said, "I am from Chicago and no one is ever going to believe that some guy is walking around and in and out of a convenience store drinking coffee and visiting while wearing a gun on his hip......and no one seems to mind or even notice."

So somewhere in Chicago is a picture of me, my horse and my dogs (all of which have gone on to better woodlands) floating around. Some lady from California also got a picture of my horse for some reason.
 
leaningright said:
I must have made 2 or 3 trips into the store for coffee and finally some guy approaches me.

He said, "Excuse me sir are you Law-enforcement?" "No." "Are you a gang member?" I laughed and said, "No, I'm just a math teacher and a preacher at the local church down the road." He then wanted to take my picture and gave his explanation for wanting to do so. He said, "I am from Chicago and no one is ever going to believe that some guy is walking around and in and out of a convenience store drinking coffee and visiting while wearing a gun on his hip......and no one seems to mind or even notice."

So somewhere in Chicago is a picture of me, my horse and my dogs (all of which have gone on to better woodlands) floating around. Some lady from California also got a picture of my horse for some reason.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. The star-telegram did an article on open carry in texas and had my picture on it with me carrying a holstered Glock 23. I naturally grabbed several copies and sent one home to my father and grandmother. The day they got it I got a couple of terrified telephone calls asking if I was going to get arrested for wearing a gun outside. They live in Illinois. I spent the next 30 minutes explaining the difference between freedom and Illinois.
 
Solitary said:
No, I am saying that the government will often use the "public good" argument in order to limit freedoms.

The act of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is causing harm to other people. That is something that is regulated.

The problem is when the government wants to use the "public good" argument to remove rights from individuals because they MIGHT cause harm.
Click to expand...

If someone is nuts or has a history of violence. alloowing them to posess a gun is a very strong might.

Should child predators be allowed to work in child care centers ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top