Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

[dviss1]

The DNC says they should be able to vote, so you better afford them all other rights citizens have.

Again, they've paid for their crime and deserve a fresh start. That's another difference our FREE COUNTRY has with the rest of the world.

If you don't think they've paid for their crime, tell your reps to enforce our current laws to their fullest.

The entire reason Oregon has a few mandatory minimum laws is because our mostly liberal activist judges refused to hand out appropriate sentences, so we voted in the atrocious Measure 11 to take the "judgement" out of the "judges" hands.

A better idea would be to legislate a better way to seat judges, and an easier process for removing them when their personal/political views impede their duty.

Wait, are we talking undocumented immigrants here or felons?

I believe felons should not have their voting rights stripped.

 

[SportsAndWhine]

No problem. I think we agree on this much

The Natural Right to life simply means the government can't kill people they don't like. People are free to live their lives.

I suppose it has to be interpreted this way given the capitalist system the government operates in; it's cruel and heartless but at least it's not hypocritical.

 

[SportsAndWhine]

A natural right is one that does not have to be provided to you. Your right to life does not guarantee the government's provision of all resources necessary to ensure continuance of that life. That logic would also necessitate the government providing all your basic needs.

*ding ding ding* Exactly. Basic income, universal healthcare. Any aspect of citizen life that involves the right to life should not be handled by a system designed to ignore the health and wellbeing of the citizenry.

 

[Denny Crane]

*ding ding ding* Exactly. Basic income, universal healthcare. Any aspect of citizen life that involves the right to life should not be handled by a system designed to ignore the health and wellbeing of the citizenry.

You don't have a natural right to someone else's labor.

That's where these ideas fail.

 

[SportsAndWhine]

You don't have a natural right to someone else's labor.

That's where these ideas fail.

Governmental systems are opt-in; technically even capitalism is opt-in. If you don't like it you can leave. It's in the EULA that we'll all be sharing income.

 

[MarAzul]

Let see, Dumbass for hire.

Now what do you do with one of those? Does it have a right to life, even when no one hires it?

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

My definition is in Law. The constitution was all about Law, not written by novices. They used specific words and terms for specific reasons.

"Shall not be infringed" is exactly one of those legal terms. They were being quite specific that government was not to deny the right, pass laws against that right, and so on.

You might consider that the 2nd is part of the Bill of Rights and why the Bill of Rights was even added to the Constitution. They wanted to be extra sure there was no confusion about the limits of the rights of the people and power of the government.

Then, by YOUR “twisty logic”, “a well regulated militia” is also exactly one of those terms. Sounds pretty specific to me. You’ll throw anything against the wall if it means “winning” a debate......

 

[Further]

It's a crime to drive drunk. We don't ban alcohol to prevent people from doing so.

I'm not seeing these parallels the way you guys present it.

Well I’m not interested personally in banning all guns, I’m interested in restricting how, when and who can access and use firearms and with which safeguards. Just like I’m not interested in banning cars, or banning alcohol but I am interested in regulating how, when and who can drive and drink and te combination.

 

[dviss1]

 

[MarAzul]

Well I’m not interested personally in banning all guns, I’m interested in restricting how, when and who can access and use firearms and with which safeguards. Just like I’m not interested in banning cars, or banning alcohol but I am interested in regulating how, when and who can drive and drink and te combination.

I have ask several people now to make their suggestion as to an amendment that they think would serve their needs and would pass through the process.
No one to date has done so.

Why do you thing this is so?

 

[Denny Crane]

Then, by YOUR “twisty logic”, “a well regulated militia” is also exactly one of those terms. Sounds pretty specific to me. You’ll throw anything against the wall if it means “winning” a debate......

If they wanted it only to be for militias, they would have said so explicitly. What they wrote was one of many reasons, not the exclusive reason. That is how the courts have historically ruled, how lawmakers have made laws, etc.

I do not ignore the centuries of history on the subject, the common law, that guns were never outlawed or denied anyone in the United States for 200+ years. If the founders intended gun rights restricted, they would have done it when the first standing army was raised (pretty much right away).

So yeah, I call it "twisty logic" when you ignore the part that says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." For no reason.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well I’m not interested personally in banning all guns, I’m interested in restricting how, when and who can access and use firearms and with which safeguards. Just like I’m not interested in banning cars, or banning alcohol but I am interested in regulating how, when and who can drive and drink and te combination.

You can make laws about driving and drinking or otherwise regulate it, but it doesn't prevent people from driving and drinking.

That's where this line of thinking fails me.

 

[dviss1]

Again, you can say whatever you want whenever you want. It's not regulated.

Speech can be a crime, but only after you say something, though some people seem to be able to read the accuseds' minds.

Only after you say something.

These "regulations" you claim do not prevent the person from yelling "fire."

By your logic, I repeat, you would cut out everyone's tongue to prevent them from yelling "fire" in the first place.

Your argument is a major fail. You should maybe try something different.

Regulation and prevention are two completely different things. Please stop conflating the two.

 

[Denny Crane]

Regulation and prevention are two completely different things. Please stop conflating the two.

We live in a supposedly free society. Why subject ourselves to elimination of our liberty (without due process) at all? Especially if prevention isn't the successful outcome?

All you end up with is less liberty. That's not a gain, but a loss.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I have ask several people now to make their suggestion as to an amendment that they think would serve their needs and would pass through the process.
No one to date has done so.

Why do you thing this is so?

My guess would be that the issue is so polarizing that it's nearly impossible to come up with an alteration that would carry the 2/3 majority necessary for an amendment.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

We live in a supposedly free society. Why subject ourselves to elimination of our liberty (without due process) at all? Especially if prevention isn't the successful outcome?

All you end up with is less liberty. That's not a gain, but a loss.

I'm curious--are you also opposed to drivers licensing?

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm curious--are you also opposed to drivers licensing?

Driving isn't a right enumerated in the constitution.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Driving isn't a right enumerated in the constitution.

Of course not. Are you suggesting that liberty only includes those rights enumerated in the constitution? As you may recall, that was one of Madison's primary concerns with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

Still, you didn't answer the question.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

If they wanted it only to be for militias, they would have said so explicitly. What they wrote was one of many reasons, not the exclusive reason. That is how the courts have historically ruled, how lawmakers have made laws, etc.

I do not ignore the centuries of history on the subject, the common law, that guns were never outlawed or denied anyone in the United States for 200+ years. If the founders intended gun rights restricted, they would have done it when the first standing army was raised (pretty much right away).

So yeah, I call it "twisty logic" when you ignore the part that says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." For no reason.

The start of that sentence is, “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. So I’m not the one ignoring the obvious, YOU are. You take a piece of a much longer sentence (with obvious implications) and run with that as proof positive that it supports your narrative. I can’t help but feel that the sheer terror and hostility these gun enthusiasts are exhibiting over a much needed debate is pretty much solid evidence that deep down they know their positions are no longer valid in today’s world and are therefore insupportable and untenable......and it gets even more obvious with every mass shooting. I don’t give two shits how the courts have ruled in the past. I DO care about how the courts rule in the present and in the future.

 

[Further]

I have ask several people now to make their suggestion as to an amendment that they think would serve their needs and would pass through the process.
No one to date has done so.

Why do you thing this is so?

I don’t think an amendment is needed. Just look at Justice Scalia’s words.

 

[Denny Crane]

I should add to my previous post that I'm not convinced we need to license driving.

It's funny you brought it up, since even with licensing, deaths on the road are significantly higher than deaths by gun. 1.3M/year. So I have to ask what benefit is the licensing? It's a way to make government jobs and raise revenue. That's all I see in it.

There are a similar number of cars (268M) as guns (300M).

 

[riverman]

I should add to my previous post that I'm not convinced we need to license driving.

 

[Denny Crane]

The start of that sentence is, “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. So I’m not the one ignoring the obvious, YOU are. You take a piece of a much longer sentence (with obvious implications) and run with that as proof positive that it supports your narrative. I can’t help but feel that the sheer terror and hostility these gun enthusiasts are exhibiting over a much needed debate is pretty much solid evidence that deep down they know their positions are no longer valid in today’s world and are therefore insupportable and untenable......and it gets even more obvious with every mass shooting. I don’t give two shits how the courts have ruled in the past. I DO care about how the courts rule in the present and in the future.

I've answered this over and over.

It's in the bill of rights for a reason. For whatever reason, the right shall not be infringed. It makes no difference what example they chose.

The constitution should be read as plainly as possible. It was written that way. They didn't write, "the right of the people to bear arms to form militias shall not be infringed." That would be a serious rewrite and it takes twisty logic to read it that way.

For whatever reason, the right shall not be infringed.

You might want to consider what "security of a free state" means. Free includes the right to bear arms. Militia means all men between 18 and 48 years old.

 

[Denny Crane]

So what? Driver's license regulation didn't prevent it. Thanks for supporting my point.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I should add to my previous post that I'm not convinced we need to license driving.

It's funny you brought it up, since even with licensing, deaths on the road are significantly higher than deaths by gun. 1.3M/year. So I have to ask what benefit is the licensing? It's a way to make government jobs and raise revenue. That's all I see in it.

There are a similar number of cars (268M) as guns (300M).

I appreciate the answer. I've heard others suggest that submitting to licensure requirements is nothing more than a concession of liberty. I might tend to agree with this position, but where public health and welfare is concerned, I generally think the government has a responsibility to be involved.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So what? Driver's license regulation didn't prevent it. Thanks for supporting my point.

I think this "regulation doesn't prevent all wrongdoing" strawman really needs to die.

 

[Denny Crane]

I appreciate the answer. I've heard others suggest that submitting to licensure requirements is nothing more than a concession of liberty. I might tend to agree with this position, but where public health and welfare is concerned, I generally think the government has a responsibility to be involved.

The government is involved. They tax you, then they provide services after the fact. That's the nature of government - close the gate after the horse has left the corral. Pardon my metaphor.

 

[riverman]

So what? Driver's license regulation didn't prevent it. Thanks for supporting my point.

more unskilled, untrained motorists...just what the world needs....passing a driver's exam has more purpose than generating income for the govt...and has some direct responsibility for public safety....nice try though...

 

[Denny Crane]

I think this "regulation doesn't prevent all wrongdoing" strawman really needs to die.

It doesn't seem to prevent anything we should care about though.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I've answered this over and over.

It's in the bill of rights for a reason. For whatever reason, the right shall not be infringed. It makes no difference what example they chose.

The constitution should be read as plainly as possible. It was written that way. They didn't write, "the right of the people to bear arms to form militias shall not be infringed." That would be a serious rewrite and it takes twisty logic to read it that way.

For whatever reason, the right shall not be infringed.

You might want to consider what "security of a free state" means. Free includes the right to bear arms. Militia means all men between 18 and 48 years old.

And the band played on.........