Do you think....?

I'm not talking about taking his rights away. I'm talking about not being able to immediately sell him a handgun on the spot, until issues pertaining to his alleged stalking are clarified or addressed.


No you are taking rights he has away if you are treating the person differently than a person who doesn't have a complaint. It is easy to file a complaint there is not judicial review of it. I am surprised to see two liberal posters advocate skirting our judicial system frankly.
 
uscitizen said:
Put it as ballot measures ?
Click to expand...

We could do that, but plenty of states have tough gun control laws. So what do you do about a state like VA, which has the most lax gun laws in the country? We don't live in isolation. Anyone can go buy a gun in VA and bring it into any state on the East coast, very easily.

People are always saying, oh we have laws but people break the laws. Well, duh. What kind of resources are we using to enforce these laws? A law doesn't mean much if you are not expending resources to enforce it. And the NRA had far too much to say on this. I am so sick and tired of the NRA. Can we have sane people participate in this national discussion?
 
Darla said:
"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."

I saw someone write that we should sign all of the handgun owners up for their state militia and then send them to Iraq.

I do think there is some room for debate in that amendment, and I'd like to have that debate. And if it is decided that it truly means that the people refers to everyone not in a their state's guard, then we can talk about revisiting this amendment. It's interesting to me that we can hold a national debate about amending the constitution regarding gay marriage, but we can't have this debate.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting amendment. Open to lots of debate.

From what I've read, Thomas Jefferson (and others) were oppossed to large, standing professional armies. And the right of the people to bear arms, was intended to promote citizen-militias to defend the nation; citizen-soldiers defending the nations, as opposed to professional mercenaries.

In fact, Jefferson was evidently quite open to the concept of requiring universal compulsory service in the citizen militias.

I've alway found it interesting, that the Second Amendment goes out of its way, to explicity cite the need for well regulated citizen militias, as the qualifier for the right of citizens to bear arms.
 
Individuals / militilitias were the majority of the freedom fighters in our revoloutionary era.
Most every non city household had guns then and knew how to use them.
And most households were non city.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I'm not talking about taking his rights away. I'm talking about not being able to immediately sell him a handgun on the spot, until issues pertaining to his alleged stalking are clarified or addressed.


No you are taking rights he has away if you are treating the person differently than a person who doesn't have a complaint. It is easy to file a complaint there is not judicial review of it. I am surprised to see two liberal posters advocate skirting our judicial system frankly.
Click to expand...

Why? Do conservatives advocate skirting our judicial system as a matter of course?

If our current laws are not working, there is nothing wrong with going back and inserting some more safeguards. I don't think that a man who has been dumped, or whose wife has finally gotten the guts to leave him after years of abuse, should be able to get a gun if he is stalking her. I don't think that having an extensive background check and an additional waiting period triggered, is such a big burden. If you want to get a job IHG, the prospective employer has a right to ask you for references from (usually 3) people you have known for 5 years or more. Would it be so horrible to make this a requirment of getting a handgun?
 
IHateGovernment said:
I'm not talking about taking his rights away. I'm talking about not being able to immediately sell him a handgun on the spot, until issues pertaining to his alleged stalking are clarified or addressed.


No you are taking rights he has away if you are treating the person differently than a person who doesn't have a complaint. It is easy to file a complaint there is not judicial review of it. I am surprised to see two liberal posters advocate skirting our judicial system frankly.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of cases, where the state acts in the best interests of public or personal safety, without an actual criminal conviction.

Children can be taken from parents (temporarily), for which there is credible evidence of drug use, or child abuse - without an actual criminal conviction being established.

You can credibly argue that citizens have the right to own a handgun.

I think its less credible to suggest they have a right to walk into a store, and buy a handgun immediately. On the spot.
 
Cypress said:
It's an interesting amendment. Open to lots of debate.

From what I've read, Thomas Jefferson (and others) were oppossed to large, standing professional armies. And the right of the people to bear arms, was intended to promote citizen-militias to defend the nation; citizen-soldiers defending the nations, as opposed to professional mercenaries.

In fact, Jefferson was evidently quite open to the concept of requiring universal compulsory service in the citizen militias.

I've alway found it interesting, that the Second Amendment goes out of its way, to explicity cite the need for well regulated citizen militias, as the qualifier for the right of citizens to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Right, and all of that has changed. We certainly have a standing army now. The people are not defending their states. This is all goes back to the group of people who believes they might have to one day overthrow the government. And you know, that is a possibility, that this need could arise. The problem is, it's never going to happen. So when are we going to admit this?

You want to overthrow your government? First of all, VOTE. Second of all, get your ass out onto the streets. You don't need a gun to stage a revolution. We have the majority of Americans firmly against sending more troops to Iraq. What have they done about it? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They haven't even bothered to join an anti-war march.

But we are to believe that these same people are going to need guns to stage a violent revolution! Don't make me laugh!
 
Umm the group that are that strongest Pro gun are also the strongest pro Iraq war....
They are also the ones that promote police state leaning laws .....

Go figure....
 
uscitizen said:
Umm the group that are that strongest Pro gun are also the strongest pro Iraq war....
They are also the ones that promote police state leaning laws .....

Go figure....
Click to expand...

If they're so for the Iraqi war, and they already have guns, enlist them in their state's guard unit, and send them to Iraq.
 
Darla said:
Right, and all of that has changed. We certainly have a standing army now. The people are not defending their states. This is all goes back to the group of people who believes they might have to one day overthrow the government. And you know, that is a possibility, that this need could arise. The problem is, it's never going to happen. So when are we going to admit this?

You want to overthrow your government? First of all, VOTE. Second of all, get your ass out onto the streets. You don't need a gun to stage a revolution. We have the majority of Americans firmly against sending more troops to Iraq. What have they done about it? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They haven't even bothered to join an anti-war march.

But we are to believe that these same people are going to need guns to stage a violent revolution! Don't make me laugh!
Click to expand...


Yeah, I hate it when the gun nuts claim the second amendment was established to give citizens the ability to overthrow the federal goverment.

As stated, the primary function of the second amendment in national defense, through citizen militias. Not to rebel against the federal government.

And as you correctly stated, armed "insurgencies" are almost never the right solution anyway. Almost ALL postive change in this country, took place through relatively peacefull means: civil disobedience, protests, voter registration, etc. Everything from women's sufferage, to civil rights, the the environmental movment. You're spot on for pointing that out.

And frankly, who generally wins in armed insurrections? The people with the best democratic ideals and values? Or, the people with the biggest and baddest guns?

Honestly, I've found that people who worship a culture of guns and violence, are not neccessarily the crowd that embodies the best democratic ideals and values.
 
Why? Do conservatives advocate skirting our judicial system as a matter of course?

The current regime and its supporters do. Like the Patriot act.

I don't think that a man who has been dumped, or whose wife has finally gotten the guts to leave him after years of abuse, should be able to get a gun if he is stalking her.

Stalking has to be proven. If we use such logic we give those in power to punish without judicial oversight. This is what we have been fighting against in the Bush administration for years. The prisoners at Guantanamo are not given justice because they are merely branded enemy combatants because another soldiers says they are.

I'm sure someone will poo poo this and say denying the right to buy a gun is not equivalent. It doesn't have to be though. It is about a principle. Only being arrested and then convicted should be grounds to take any right of ours away no matter how small.

Should a man merely accused of molestation not be permitted to be around children?

Should a muslim who is a radical be denied entrance to certain government buildings?

No on all of these. It is for the courts and the courts alone to determine if any single one right of an individual needs to be limited.

If you want to get a job IHG, the prospective employer has a right to ask you for references from (usually 3) people you have known for 5 years or more. Would it be so horrible to make this a requirment of getting a handgun?

I might not support it but it would only be fair if it applied to everyone. Equal justice equality before the law.
 
Darla said:
If they're so for the Iraqi war, and they already have guns, enlist them in their state's guard unit, and send them to Iraq.
Click to expand...

those types are mostly mouth and are certain what they want is what everyone should want. They won't go to war....

Cheny got how many deferrments ?
 
Honestly, I've found that people who worship a culture of guns and violence, are not neccessarily the crowd that embodies the best democratic ideals and values.
//

Yep.
 
Children can be taken from parents (temporarily), for which there is credible evidence of drug use, or child abuse - without an actual criminal conviction being established.

Yes they get a court order. If a stalking victim can get a court order to limit the mans rights thats fine. But it can't just be an automatic once you are simply accused of a crime.

I think its less credible to suggest they have a right to walk into a store, and buy a handgun immediately. On the spot.

You can say that no one has that right. But if you make it a general right of the public you cannot terminate it without sufficient just cause. A mere complaint is insufficient in my opinion.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Why? Do conservatives advocate skirting our judicial system as a matter of course?

The current regime and its supporters do. Like the Patriot act.

I don't think that a man who has been dumped, or whose wife has finally gotten the guts to leave him after years of abuse, should be able to get a gun if he is stalking her.

Stalking has to be proven. If we use such logic we give those in power to punish without judicial oversight. This is what we have been fighting against in the Bush administration for years. The prisoners at Guantanamo are not given justice because they are merely branded enemy combatants because another soldiers says they are.

I'm sure someone will poo poo this and say denying the right to buy a gun is not equivalent. It doesn't have to be though. It is about a principle. Only being arrested and then convicted should be grounds to take any right of ours away no matter how small.

Should a man merely accused of molestation not be permitted to be around children?

Should a muslim who is a radical be denied entrance to certain government buildings?

No on all of these. It is for the courts and the courts alone to determine if any single one right of an individual needs to be limited.

If you want to get a job IHG, the prospective employer has a right to ask you for references from (usually 3) people you have known for 5 years or more. Would it be so horrible to make this a requirment of getting a handgun?

I might not support it but it would only be fair if it applied to everyone. Equal justice equality before the law.
Click to expand...

I'm not a constitutional scholar ihg, if it is determined that it would be unconstitutional to have a stalking complaints trigger these things, then make it across the board. What's wrong with that anyway? So you have to pony up some references to get a gun, have a waiting period, and an extensive and real background check. I don't have a problem with that. My question is, why does anybody?
 
Yeah, I hate it when the gun nuts claim the second amendment was established to give citizens the ability to overthrow the federal goverment.

Cypress I'm not a gun nut and I think I made my argument pretty clear and cogent. Our earlier debate was if it was the primary reason. Even if not a primary reason it remains a reason and to deny that it was on the minds of the founders in outright false.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm the group that are that strongest Pro gun are also the strongest pro Iraq war....
They are also the ones that promote police state leaning laws .....

Go figure....
Click to expand...

And the best defense against the extremely remote possiblity of a dictator taking over the federal government, are the State national guards - today's equivalent of citizen militias. The best defense is Not some fat, middle aged dude playing survivalist in rural Idaho.

the state guards are under the command of the governors - Not the president. I doubt all 50 governors are going to reliquish their the authority over the guard, to some military junta that takes over in Wash, DC.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Yeah, I hate it when the gun nuts claim the second amendment was established to give citizens the ability to overthrow the federal goverment.

Cypress I'm not a gun nut and I think I made my argument pretty clear and cogent. Our earlier debate was if it was the primary reason. Even if not a primary reason it remains a reason and to deny that it was on the minds of the founders in outright false.
Click to expand...

IHG, on this and other message boards, Cons are always citing a "rebellion against the federal government" as the reason for the second amendment.

Its ridicoulous.
 
Darla said:
I'm not a constitutional scholar ihg, if it is determined that it would be unconstitutional to have a stalking complaints trigger these things, then make it across the board. What's wrong with that anyway? So you have to pony up some references to get a gun, have a waiting period, and an extensive and real background check. I don't have a problem with that. My question is, why does anybody?
Click to expand...


Thank you for saying it much better than me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top