An argument about the ineffectiveness of legal gun control

[Socrtease]

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 ?

These are both valid points but you want to use the fact that a small group of people with a "history of violence" should impinge on all of our rights.

 

[uscitizen]

These are both valid points but you want to use the fact that a small group of people with a "history of violence" should impinge on all of our rights.

No but that is always the way it is. Some drive crazy so all must have insurance. Same for speed limits, thievery, child abuse, etc..

A few usually spoil it for all of us.

the background checks are to catch those few.

A few assholes hijacked planes, so now we all pay. Xraying our nipple rings and dildos, no bottles of shampoos, etc... Should we not do that ?

 

[Good Luck]

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.

Absolutely, hence the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The militia phrase has been corrupted by gun grabbers to insinuate this is the right of the states, as they control the "militia". Wrong.

By the standards of the 1780s, our state national guards are NOT militia, but rather standing armies. They are organized by the government, the members are bound by a contract to a term of service even in peace time, they hold regular formal organizational meetings, etc. That is NOT what a militia was in 1780.

You say it is our job to protect our rights. I absolutely agree, as did Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and many others responsible for the document we turn to when discussing what the government can or cannot do to us.

But how do you propose we defend our rights (after all, our own government is one entity against which we are forced to defend our rights) if we are to be disarmed, minimally armed, or licensed so government knows where to attack first?

 

[Good Luck]

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.

Again, we fully agree. No one human's rights extend to the point of interfering with the rights of another living human.

However, you need to show how my possession of firearms of my desire in any way interfere with your rights. Until you can, then you cannot justify using government to interfering with MY rights when I have not interfered with yours.

And no, the fact that some other person has used a firearm to harm others does not work. If you want to use that argument, then ALL rights can be essentially zeroed out because someone will always abuse their freedoms. According to the "someone might abuse the right" reasoning, the fact that riots have occurred is justification to limit the right to assembly and protest. Can't hold protest meetings any more because ti MIGHT turn into a riot. That someone has incited violence, thus abusing free speech is justification for limiting that right. No one can say what they want about the government anymore, as it MIGHT incite violence.

Blanketing a right against all because people have abused it goes against every principle of our country. We do NOT limit speech because of what someone MIGHT say. We have laws in place so society can take action against people AFTER they have abused the right of free speech, not BEFORE. We have laws that hold people criminally accountable for purposely inciting a riot. But the prosecution takes place only AFTER someone has broken the law, not BEFORE.

But what gun control advocates support are laws that infringe on 2nd amendment right BEFORE any criminal or harmful action has taken place.

So, the limit on liberty being emplaced at the point where one infringes on another is well and good. But that is not a limit which can be practically applied to the legal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens. Mere ownership and lawful use of firearms in no way infringes on any one else's rights.

 

[Good Luck]

No but that is always the way it is. Some drive crazy so all must have insurance. Same for speed limits, thievery, child abuse, etc..

A few usually spoil it for all of us.

the background checks are to catch those few.

A few assholes hijacked planes, so now we all pay. Xraying our nipple rings and dildos, no bottles of shampoos, etc... Should we not do that ?

I believe most here already agreed that background checks are a good idea. It is the licensing (including license fees), waiting periods, etc, etc, etc that we oppose. It is banning types of firearms because someone used them to commit a crime we object to.

He who is willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.

And: NO, we should NOT be subject to harassment, warrantless search and seizure of our personal property, and smelling someones foot oder as they prove their shoes are not explosive. IMO, allowing armed people to travel would do more to curb the danger of hijackings than trying to disarm everyone. Just make sure they carry frangible ammo.

 

[Good Luck]

Been mulling things over, and have come to the conclusion that 2nd amendment rights need to be pushed as soon as possible. And I would like to see the push focus on firearms licensing fees - based on the Heller decision that proclaimed 2nd amendment rights pertain to the individual. As an individual, enumerated right, posing fees in order for one to exercise that right is no different than poll taxes, or leaving accused criminals on their own to pay for legal counsel.

I am fortunate to live in a state that recognizes 2nd amendment rights, so there are no ridiculous licensing fees or such to worry about. However, that means I, personally, cannot file any suit against firearms licensing fees. How about some of the rest of you who do live in totalitarian mommy-government states? Want to take a whack at giving our 2nd Amendment another boost? I'm certain the NRA would be glad to jump in and help with legal fees, etc.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

attacking license fees is coming. First we need to get an incorporation case and that will either be Nordyke v. King in California or it will be the chicago handgun ban. Once incorporation is settled, then license fees can be attacked.

 

[Good Luck]

attacking license fees is coming. First we need to get an incorporation case and that will either be Nordyke v. King in California or it will be the chicago handgun ban. Once incorporation is settled, then license fees can be attacked.

Any reason incorporation needs to go first, or is it just because they are already in process?

I was looking at the approach of individual (non commercial) rights being the first to be firmly established.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Any reason incorporation needs to go first, or is it just because they are already in process?

I was looking at the approach of individual (non commercial) rights being the first to be firmly established.

currently, if circuit courts continue to rule stare decisis, the 2nd doesn't apply to the states, so states licenses and fees aren't in play as of yet. Given the right case (nordyke v. king) the 9th might actually incorporate it. The 5th I'm sure would follow suit, considering the wording by scalia in heller.

Now, here in TX, we're trying to get open carry decriminalized. If the legislature does that, then i'm not going to worry about the CHL costs if I can open carry, however, if they require license and training crap for open like they do concealed, then I'll be filing the lawsuit in the 5th to incorporate.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

As an individual, enumerated right, posing fees in order for one to exercise that right is no different than poll taxes, or leaving accused criminals on their own to pay for legal counsel.

Voting isn't actually a right. The only thing the constitution says is that there are several reasons that voting rights cannot be abridged, and that the governments must be "republican" in nature. A poll tax was never ruled unconstitutional until the amendment was passed making it so.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I am fortunate to live in a state that recognizes 2nd amendment rights, so there are no ridiculous licensing fees or such to worry about. However, that means I, personally, cannot file any suit against firearms licensing fees. How about some of the rest of you who do live in totalitarian mommy-government states? Want to take a whack at giving our 2nd Amendment another boost? I'm certain the NRA would be glad to jump in and help with legal fees, etc.

I would not want to endanger myself by trying to give the totalitarian NRA and gun-nuts like you who terrorize the average citzreny even more say.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

He who is willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.

The get rid of police.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Absolutely, hence the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The militia phrase has been corrupted by gun grabbers to insinuate this is the right of the states, as they control the "militia". Wrong.

By the standards of the 1780s, our state national guards are NOT militia, but rather standing armies. They are organized by the government, the members are bound by a contract to a term of service even in peace time, they hold regular formal organizational meetings, etc. That is NOT what a militia was in 1780.

You say it is our job to protect our rights. I absolutely agree, as did Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and many others responsible for the document we turn to when discussing what the government can or cannot do to us.

But how do you propose we defend our rights (after all, our own government is one entity against which we are forced to defend our rights) if we are to be disarmed, minimally armed, or licensed so government knows where to attack first?

Yes, defending the white peoples against the negro-JEW-controlled INTERNATIONAL FASCIST US GOV.

 

[Good Luck]

Does Watermark EVER say anything that is in actual debate? Or is all his crap like the above, with moronic sides and ridiculous claims?

 

[Good Luck]

currently, if circuit courts continue to rule stare decisis, the 2nd doesn't apply to the states, so states licenses and fees aren't in play as of yet. Given the right case (nordyke v. king) the 9th might actually incorporate it. The 5th I'm sure would follow suit, considering the wording by scalia in heller.

Now, here in TX, we're trying to get open carry decriminalized. If the legislature does that, then i'm not going to worry about the CHL costs if I can open carry, however, if they require license and training crap for open like they do concealed, then I'll be filing the lawsuit in the 5th to incorporate.

Seems to me that is another thing that needs to be addressed.

Why should it take a court ruling to apply the 14th amendment to peoples' constitutional rights on a right by right basis? The whole "incorporate" requirement is, to me, a bunch of totalitarian nonsense. Government at all levels have to pay attention to constitutional protections. That was the intent and the wording of the 14th amendment.

Besides, would not Heller have set that precedent anyway, by first defining the 2nd as an individual right, and then overturning a municipal law that violated that right. If not, WHY not?

Some days shooting all the lawyers makes real sense.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Seems to me that is another thing that needs to be addressed.

Why should it take a court ruling to apply the 14th amendment to peoples' constitutional rights on a right by right basis? The whole "incorporate" requirement is, to me, a bunch of totalitarian nonsense. Government at all levels have to pay attention to constitutional protections. That was the intent and the wording of the 14th amendment.

It was indeed the intent of the 14th amendment, however, the sitting supreme court at that time would not play ball so they came up with the incorporation doctrine which let them decide which rights they wanted to apply to the states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine

Besides, would not Heller have set that precedent anyway, by first defining the 2nd as an individual right, and then overturning a municipal law that violated that right. If not, WHY not?

Heller was all about a federal district and had no 'state' authority. The only thing that heller accomplished was finally acknowledging that the 2nd was an individual right after all. They didn't specifically come out and say that it was a 'fundamental' right, thereby avoiding a level of scrutiny position, but Scalias wording strongly indicates that any law about guns would have to pass the strict scrutiny standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

At this point, incorporation is a must. Once that is accomplished, then no state or municipality can ban a weapon that is in common use, like handguns or even so called assault weapons. Eventually I see a case hitting a federal court that will strike down the 86 machine gun ban as long as they apply the right strategy.

 

[Good Luck]

It was indeed the intent of the 14th amendment, however, the sitting supreme court at that time would not play ball so they came up with the incorporation doctrine which let them decide which rights they wanted to apply to the states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine


Heller was all about a federal district and had no 'state' authority. The only thing that heller accomplished was finally acknowledging that the 2nd was an individual right after all. They didn't specifically come out and say that it was a 'fundamental' right, thereby avoiding a level of scrutiny position, but Scalias wording strongly indicates that any law about guns would have to pass the strict scrutiny standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

At this point, incorporation is a must. Once that is accomplished, then no state or municipality can ban a weapon that is in common use, like handguns or even so called assault weapons. Eventually I see a case hitting a federal court that will strike down the 86 machine gun ban as long as they apply the right strategy.

I would say that with the 2nd finally being defined as an individual right as opposed to collective right, incorporation should almost follow automatically. After all, we are talking a specifically enumerated right here, not one interpreted out of the language of the 9th.

Of course, libtard nazis often do not have the reading comprehension of a 1st grader when it comes to understanding enumerated constitutional rights. They are so used to pulling shit out of nowhere, like the "right" to kill babies in privacy, they don't remember how to read what is written.

That is why we need to move as fast as possible on this - before Obomination has the opportunity to change the courts system too heavily in favor of the nazi regime.

 

[ironhead]

The get rid of police.

A profoundly weak argument. One's natural rights can be violated by entities/individuals other than the government. Police, in theory at least, arrest/prosecute those who violate the rights of others. I'd argue that not having any government would result in the violation of rights just as it occurs when government exists.