Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I think that you've got part of that backwards. The creation of the modern liberal was to bug gun owners.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Maybe, not all liberals are idiots?
- Thread starter Freedom1Man
- Start date
I think that you've got part of that backwards. The creation of the modern liberal was to bug gun owners.
papa bear
Regular Member
FREEDOM, one of the biggest things that strike me in the conversation, is she leaves out a lot of the majority opinion. in which the ones that won the vote sided on the side of "citizens have the right to firearms"
another thing, even though , minor in the argument. is the statement that a "firearm is most dangerous thing a person can own". not only is that a ridiculous thing to say, it is not even near accurate. there are thousands of thing far more dangerous then a firearm. a car for instance, how many people have had a friend or family member killed or maimed by cars. how many kids are drowned in pools every year. how many lawn mowers accidents happen?. if you use the analogy she uses, a book is far more dangerous then any guns, and killed million of people
i have a feeling, if this person is really a liberal, you are going to run into emotional argument soon, and/or name calling
another thing, even though , minor in the argument. is the statement that a "firearm is most dangerous thing a person can own". not only is that a ridiculous thing to say, it is not even near accurate. there are thousands of thing far more dangerous then a firearm. a car for instance, how many people have had a friend or family member killed or maimed by cars. how many kids are drowned in pools every year. how many lawn mowers accidents happen?. if you use the analogy she uses, a book is far more dangerous then any guns, and killed million of people
i have a feeling, if this person is really a liberal, you are going to run into emotional argument soon, and/or name calling
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
I didn't read the next days' conversations but in the first couple of back-and-forths she seemed pretty open minded and friendly to me... Definitely misguided (assault rifles and high capacity mags - LOL - clearly taken directly from a liberal news article), but not quite "gone."
Probably what I would have done is taken this "I believe strongly in human rights and the freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy, so long as it does not infringe on those same rights for others." and stuck with it. Ask her why this is. What is the basis for this belief. Because it is the root of this belief on which gun rights are founded. Once she realizes that, she must give up her support of human rights and freedom to pursue happiness, or conceed that gun rights are equally valid.
Probably what I would have done is taken this "I believe strongly in human rights and the freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy, so long as it does not infringe on those same rights for others." and stuck with it. Ask her why this is. What is the basis for this belief. Because it is the root of this belief on which gun rights are founded. Once she realizes that, she must give up her support of human rights and freedom to pursue happiness, or conceed that gun rights are equally valid.
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Oh man, yes. As soon as you said that I just had a rush of things run through my mind that are far more dangerous - and cheaper and easier to obtain. Certain drugs came to mind immediately. Just my personal wild estimation - a common problem drug like meth is probably no more than 3 phone calls away from (nearly) anyone in the US at any given time. Edit: well, anyone my age at least. I'm confident I could have any street drug in my hands in less than 12 hours, and I don't have any history with the stuff. POINT IS, it is insanely available. I'd be curious to know her position on additional drug regulation, she's already spoken of it as if it was reasonable but I don't think that's typical of a liberal-leaning mind.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
LOL!!!
Its probably a hive thing. The coordination of a buncha bugs.
Reminds me of a joke. How can you tell an Amish horse? Amish horses have a buggy behind.
Last edited:
MKEgal
Regular Member
Here's an article disussing some of the federal legislation which was proposed & quashed
recently:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344763/turning-gun-owners-felons-dave-kopel
He goes into great detail about transfers which would have been felonies if the law had passed.
Here's an article from 2005, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. It explains that there is no evidence that gun-control laws of any sort, alone or in combination, lower the rate of violent crime.
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf
A 2007 article from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, explaining that firearms laws do not reduce violence, including murder & suicide. They looked at evidence from around the world.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
She doesn't seem to understand what "background check" and "waiting period" mean.
When's the last time the pharmacy did a criminal background check of a gov't database (looking for arrests, convictions, restraining orders) when you had a prescription filled?
They'll check to make sure the doctor's info is correct, it's not a forged prescription, but the wait is mostly for the pharmacy staff to count the pills & do their paperwork.
If they're doing a background check, why? Are there any laws which prohibit certain people from having certain medicine?
Explain that the background check for buying a firearm through a dealer is a state & federal check of criminal & court records, and the waiting period is after that comes back clean, and after you've paid for your property. Then it has to sit in the dealer's safe for X many hours/days before you can take your property home with you (even if you already own other firearms, and maybe even if you're carrying one).
"More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials."
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics
No stats on how many of those are false positives - there wasn't a reason to deny them their right, similar name, records not updated to show a not guilty judgment, etc. - and they were eventually allowed to take their property home from the store.
In the case of people who shouldn't have been able legally to buy a gun, but did it anyway, that shows even further that the checks are a waste of time & money. They catch people who are perfectly legal, causing hassles, costing money (for every check), and criminals who want to harm people can still buy from a dealer (and of course, most of the ones criminals use are stolen).
The government not knowing what property I own has no link to crime. Nobody has died because the gov't is unaware of what tools I possess.
If the gov't had a complete inventory of every bit of property I own, down to the last can of cat food (which reminds me... need to get more), it would not change the rate of crime.
Also, having a database showing which law-abiding citizen bought which firearm would do nothing to catch criminals, since they largely steal their guns or buy from someone who stole them. A very small percentage are straw purchases (which would lead police to a criminal who used it in a crime), and an even smaller percentage are bought by criminals from dealers.
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html
Compromise requires that both sides give & both sides get. So far, all gun laws have done is take away our freedom. (With the possible exception of things like FOPA.)
For self-defense, more power is better. At the same speed, a larger caliber is better than a smaller one, and at the same bullet weight a faster one is better than a slower one.
I don't know of any ammo clips which hold more than 10 rounds.
Magazines hold varying amounts of cartridges, and are sized to the gun they work with.
If she's trying the "high-capacity" meme, explain about self-defense shootings...
Let's consider a NY-legal 7 round magazine.
Even highly trained police miss with about half their shots under stress, so they're going to hit with 3 or maybe 4 shots.
That will most likely stop one attacker.
Meanwhile, his accomplice can still smash your head with a baseball bat.
Criminals often work in packs.
With my normal carry pistol, I have 18 rounds, so 9 on target, which would probably stop 3
attackers.
I'd work to make it harder for criminals to plea-bargain, especially if their crime involved harming someone, threatening harm, or if there was a weapon used. [That doesn't mean that a drunk who had a holster in a pistol gets the weapon enhancement, but if he points it at someone he would.]
I'd make the risk of immediate consequences higher (armed citizens), and the long-term consequences more punishing (longer sentences, no frills in prison).
Prison should have educational opportunities, vocational training, chores to keep the prison running (gardening, mowing, raising food for the prisoners to eat, raising flowers to sell, shoveling snow, laundry...), extensive libraries, and twice-weekly opportunities to participate in religious ceremonies if they choose. The leaders of those ceremonies would vary among whichever pastors/congregations sign up. Could be christian, bahai, moslem, jewish, pastafarian, hindi, jainism...
See above, about the very few people who are even initially denied on a BG check. And then most of them it turns into only a delay while NICS sorts out some problem like a similar name.
If police stopped 1000 drivers and found that 7 of them either were not carrying their license or didn't have a valid license, do you think that's OK? Courts have already said it's not.
And no, even if infringements were shown to cause lower crime, they're still wrong. They're still infringements. If the gov't required everyone to have an English degree & pass a test before they're allowed to speak in public or write their elected representatives, because we want a more literate society and we don't want people to have to listen to or read substandard English, would that be legal?
It starts with improving the home life, creating more attentive & involved parents, lowering access to illegal drugs & gangs.
Phase 2 is letting would-be criminals know that many people out here in society are able & willing to fight back, they won't be victims, and the criminal is risking his life every time he commits a crime.
Phase 3 is punishment, confinement, keeping convicted criminals out of society. Hopefully there could be some rehabilitation. Once they're cured, when they've paid their debt to society, they're released and have all rights restored.
They do nothing by themselves, they are neither good nor evil, nor are they dangerous.
If used by the wrong person, they can cause injury.
If handled by someone who's not trained, they can cause injury.
Used by good people, they can prevent injury, crime, death.
They are not a threat to anyone's rights, unless you're thinking of the right to life of the criminal who tries to attack an armed citizen.
He chose to risk his life by committing a crime. He gave up his right to not be injured.
Just like the restriction on your freedom of speech which says you're not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater which is not on fire.
For 2010, the rate of violent crime per 100,000 people was:
Alaska 638.8
Arizona 408.1
DC 1330.2
Maryland 547.7
Michigan 490.3
NY 392.1
Vermont 130.2
Since criminals largely steal their guns, or buy stolen guns from other criminals, doing checks on everyone who buys from a dealer is asinine. It does nothing to stop criminals from getting guns. Even the very few felons who have been 'caught' trying to buy from a dealer usually didn't know they were prohibited.
Second, if you had to have a background check & pay a tax or get a permission slip from the gov't when you wanted to post on the internet, would you be OK with that? What about if you wanted to write your elected representatives? Or go to church? Or vote? Or refuse to incriminate yourself at trial?
Civil rights are civil rights. While the Second protects them all, they're all important.
Using groups whose reason for existance is to prevent citizens from having firearms isn't good research.
There's a PDF free at this site http://www.gunfacts.info/ which is over 100 pages long and gives conclusions from and citations to research and news from around the world, all of which disprove various gun-related myths.
recently:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344763/turning-gun-owners-felons-dave-kopel
He goes into great detail about transfers which would have been felonies if the law had passed.
Yes, they do.
Here's an article from 2005, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. It explains that there is no evidence that gun-control laws of any sort, alone or in combination, lower the rate of violent crime.
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf
A 2007 article from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, explaining that firearms laws do not reduce violence, including murder & suicide. They looked at evidence from around the world.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Bologna.her said:
She doesn't seem to understand what "background check" and "waiting period" mean.
When's the last time the pharmacy did a criminal background check of a gov't database (looking for arrests, convictions, restraining orders) when you had a prescription filled?
They'll check to make sure the doctor's info is correct, it's not a forged prescription, but the wait is mostly for the pharmacy staff to count the pills & do their paperwork.
If they're doing a background check, why? Are there any laws which prohibit certain people from having certain medicine?
Explain that the background check for buying a firearm through a dealer is a state & federal check of criminal & court records, and the waiting period is after that comes back clean, and after you've paid for your property. Then it has to sit in the dealer's safe for X many hours/days before you can take your property home with you (even if you already own other firearms, and maybe even if you're carrying one).
According to the BATFE website, they admit to catching 7 in 1000 people as initial denials for the initial BG check.
"More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials."
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics
No stats on how many of those are false positives - there wasn't a reason to deny them their right, similar name, records not updated to show a not guilty judgment, etc. - and they were eventually allowed to take their property home from the store.
In the case of people who shouldn't have been able legally to buy a gun, but did it anyway, that shows even further that the checks are a waste of time & money. They catch people who are perfectly legal, causing hassles, costing money (for every check), and criminals who want to harm people can still buy from a dealer (and of course, most of the ones criminals use are stolen).
It wouldn't. Check with Canada. They used to have a registry, but very quickly realized that it was an enormous waste of time & money and did nothing to help solve crimes.
It's not an either-or, because the two are not linked.
The government not knowing what property I own has no link to crime. Nobody has died because the gov't is unaware of what tools I possess.
If the gov't had a complete inventory of every bit of property I own, down to the last can of cat food (which reminds me... need to get more), it would not change the rate of crime.
Also, having a database showing which law-abiding citizen bought which firearm would do nothing to catch criminals, since they largely steal their guns or buy from someone who stole them. A very small percentage are straw purchases (which would lead police to a criminal who used it in a crime), and an even smaller percentage are bought by criminals from dealers.
Read LawDog's allegory of the cake, then get back to us about 'compromise'.
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html
Compromise requires that both sides give & both sides get. So far, all gun laws have done is take away our freedom. (With the possible exception of things like FOPA.)
So she's putting forth uninformed opinions, & is upset that people don't agree with her?
For self-defense, more power is better. At the same speed, a larger caliber is better than a smaller one, and at the same bullet weight a faster one is better than a slower one.
There's no reason to keep track of the lawful citizens. That frees up time & money to keep track of the criminals. Having a record of all the cars sold will do you no good when you're trying to find a stolen car.
Assault rifles are rare & very expensive to purchase, plus there's a horrendously invasive background check and a high tax.
I don't know of any ammo clips which hold more than 10 rounds.
Magazines hold varying amounts of cartridges, and are sized to the gun they work with.
If she's trying the "high-capacity" meme, explain about self-defense shootings...
Let's consider a NY-legal 7 round magazine.
Even highly trained police miss with about half their shots under stress, so they're going to hit with 3 or maybe 4 shots.
That will most likely stop one attacker.
Meanwhile, his accomplice can still smash your head with a baseball bat.
Criminals often work in packs.
With my normal carry pistol, I have 18 rounds, so 9 on target, which would probably stop 3
attackers.
I'd reduce overall crime by making it easier for citizens to protect themselves from criminals.
I'd work to make it harder for criminals to plea-bargain, especially if their crime involved harming someone, threatening harm, or if there was a weapon used. [That doesn't mean that a drunk who had a holster in a pistol gets the weapon enhancement, but if he points it at someone he would.]
I'd make the risk of immediate consequences higher (armed citizens), and the long-term consequences more punishing (longer sentences, no frills in prison).
Prison should have educational opportunities, vocational training, chores to keep the prison running (gardening, mowing, raising food for the prisoners to eat, raising flowers to sell, shoveling snow, laundry...), extensive libraries, and twice-weekly opportunities to participate in religious ceremonies if they choose. The leaders of those ceremonies would vary among whichever pastors/congregations sign up. Could be christian, bahai, moslem, jewish, pastafarian, hindi, jainism...
She's expressing her opinion. As long as she doesn't try to force you to do or not to do X, it's all good.
No. Courts have already ruled that in order for an infringement on a civil right to be legal & enforceable, there must be a strong correlation between the infringement and the good of society.
See above, about the very few people who are even initially denied on a BG check. And then most of them it turns into only a delay while NICS sorts out some problem like a similar name.
If police stopped 1000 drivers and found that 7 of them either were not carrying their license or didn't have a valid license, do you think that's OK? Courts have already said it's not.
And no, even if infringements were shown to cause lower crime, they're still wrong. They're still infringements. If the gov't required everyone to have an English degree & pass a test before they're allowed to speak in public or write their elected representatives, because we want a more literate society and we don't want people to have to listen to or read substandard English, would that be legal?
Criminal control.
It starts with improving the home life, creating more attentive & involved parents, lowering access to illegal drugs & gangs.
Phase 2 is letting would-be criminals know that many people out here in society are able & willing to fight back, they won't be victims, and the criminal is risking his life every time he commits a crime.
Phase 3 is punishment, confinement, keeping convicted criminals out of society. Hopefully there could be some rehabilitation. Once they're cured, when they've paid their debt to society, they're released and have all rights restored.
BS. Guns are inanimate objects.
They do nothing by themselves, they are neither good nor evil, nor are they dangerous.
If used by the wrong person, they can cause injury.
If handled by someone who's not trained, they can cause injury.
Used by good people, they can prevent injury, crime, death.
They are not a threat to anyone's rights, unless you're thinking of the right to life of the criminal who tries to attack an armed citizen.
He chose to risk his life by committing a crime. He gave up his right to not be injured.
There are already laws that prohibit wrongfully shooting someone, or killing without just cause, or even just pointing a gun at a person who's not trying to harm you.
Just like the restriction on your freedom of speech which says you're not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater which is not on fire.
Here's the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports data tool http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/
For 2010, the rate of violent crime per 100,000 people was:
Alaska 638.8
Arizona 408.1
DC 1330.2
Maryland 547.7
Michigan 490.3
NY 392.1
Vermont 130.2
And yet unlicensed people do drive, do cause damage & death. And stopping a car just to check to see if the driver is unlicensed is illegal. SCOTUS said so.
Bologna.
Since criminals largely steal their guns, or buy stolen guns from other criminals, doing checks on everyone who buys from a dealer is asinine. It does nothing to stop criminals from getting guns. Even the very few felons who have been 'caught' trying to buy from a dealer usually didn't know they were prohibited.
No, that would be the anti-gun zealots. They run on emotion instead of looking at information, statistics, studies, real life.
First, people are having to prove that they are innocent of crimes, rather than the gov't proving we are guilty before denying us a right.
Second, if you had to have a background check & pay a tax or get a permission slip from the gov't when you wanted to post on the internet, would you be OK with that? What about if you wanted to write your elected representatives? Or go to church? Or vote? Or refuse to incriminate yourself at trial?
Civil rights are civil rights. While the Second protects them all, they're all important.
If you could find any serious research to support the anti-rights position, yes, I expect you to have it, be able to referece & cite it.
Using groups whose reason for existance is to prevent citizens from having firearms isn't good research.
There's a PDF free at this site http://www.gunfacts.info/ which is over 100 pages long and gives conclusions from and citations to research and news from around the world, all of which disprove various gun-related myths.
Last edited:
arentol
New member
I know the conversation has moved on, but on the cigarettes vs. guns subject....
Guns owned for self defense fulfill their purpose simply by being present while Cigarettes only fulfill their purpose when they are smoked. So the end result is that all cigarettes cause harm while few guns do, and even this is offset fully by the people saved from harm by guns....
For every person harmed by a gun used aggressively two or more are unharmed because they, or someone near them, used a gun defensively. Meanwhile, virtually nobody has been saved from harm by a cigarette while hundreds of millions have been harmed by them. This is why cigarette laws don't equate. They serve no positive purpose at all while guns do indeed achieve a net positive gain in or society.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Guns owned for self defense fulfill their purpose simply by being present while Cigarettes only fulfill their purpose when they are smoked. So the end result is that all cigarettes cause harm while few guns do, and even this is offset fully by the people saved from harm by guns....
For every person harmed by a gun used aggressively two or more are unharmed because they, or someone near them, used a gun defensively. Meanwhile, virtually nobody has been saved from harm by a cigarette while hundreds of millions have been harmed by them. This is why cigarette laws don't equate. They serve no positive purpose at all while guns do indeed achieve a net positive gain in or society.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
These are good arguments within their sphere. But, that's as far as they go. They depend on utility for validity.
Even better is to simply question the validity of one human being rendering another defenseless. Its a no-lose argument. The other guy may not accept your argument, but you won't lose. Its really simple--no one is so morally superior that he is justified making others defenseless. Nor can any group of people, for example a majority, aquire legitimate authority to render another human being defenseless.
All the discussion about social benefit and social utility have the underlying false premise that the discussers have authority to render someone defenseless if they can dream up a "good enough" reason. Of course, they are sole determiners of whether their reason is good enough. And, if the affected defenders object, its back to the will of the majority, another invalid premise.
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Thanks for your input on this.
I believe that this next posting will be the end of the gun conversation between her and I.
I have been reading your comments and they have been good.
I hope this will help you all in the future and any additional added value comments are welcome.
I believe that this next posting will be the end of the gun conversation between her and I.
I have been reading your comments and they have been good.
I hope this will help you all in the future and any additional added value comments are welcome.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
The end, for now.....
(her)
You miss my point in bringing up dogs and windshields. They are unrelated, and example of why using metaphors doesn't prove the original argument.
Regarding licenses... we have the right to travel, but to drive ourselves is a privilege.
[[ Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 30 Cal. 3d 70 (1981)
In support of his argument, plaintiff maintains that the "right to drive" is a "fundamental constitutional right" under the California Constitution, comparable in status, for example, to the constitutional right of free speech or freedom of religion, so that legislative enactments which limit an individual's freedom to drive are to be subjected to "strict scrutiny" by the judiciary. Relying on precedents arising primarily in the context of legislation limiting freedom of speech or privacy, plaintiff asserts that our court should invalidate section 13353 on the ground that the Legislature could have achieved the purposes of the legislation through the adoption of an alternative sanction "less restrictive" of an individual's right to drive than the six-month license suspension provided by the current provision.
As we shall explain, we find plaintiff's constitutional contention totally lacking in merit. Although automobile travel is without question an important aspect of life in contemporary California society and an individual's substantial interest in retaining his driver's license has properly been accorded a variety of legal protections, plaintiff has cited absolutely no authority, from California or elsewhere, which suggests that legislative regulation of either automobile driving or automobile drivers is in any manner constitutionally "suspect" or involves any of the considerations which in past cases have been viewed as justifying the extraordinary invocation of "strict judicial scrutiny" of the Legislature's substantive policy decisions. On the contrary, as we shall see, past authorities -- while fully cognizant of the practical importance of an individual's "right to drive" -- have uniformly recognized that the area of driving is particularly appropriate for extensive legislative regulation, and that the state's traditionally broad police power authority to enact any measure which reasonably relates to public health or safety operates with full force in this domain. Because, as plaintiff concedes, section 13353 bears a reasonable relation to the preservation of safety on California highways, we reject plaintiff's constitutional challenge. ]]
There are court cases that allowed for non-licensed personal driving, but those are not Supreme Court rulings guaranteeing that privilege when public safety is at risk.
The Supreme Court has only ruled in favor of individual rights to travel between states without fee, but it is up to the states to determine laws regulating travel modes. Driving yourself remains a privilege, not an entitlement.
As for whether the Constitution grants the government the right to require background/criminal record checks, please bear in mind that passing the onus of proof to me doesn't validate your argument. What Supreme Court ruling states the government can't?
For the purposes of this discussion, here's the info on the kind of check required for firearm purchase (the NCIS): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System
In the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993), the Supreme Court put the NCIS into place, but in further appeals it was determined that the Federal Government could not require the states to use it. The States, however, maintain the right to choose whether or not to perform background checks.
The Federal Government may place bans on imported firearms, regulate interstate firearm commerce, and place ownership restrictions on certain categories of individuals (felons, fugitives, convicted drug users, the mentally ill, non-US citizens on non-immigrant visas, illegal aliens, ex-military with dishonorable discharges, ex-pats that renounced US citizenship, someone under restraining/protective order of bodily harm is reasonably feared).
The States may require conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, including NCIS checks, waiting periods, and bans on specific categories of firearms, or all firearms.
(myself)
First off the way a constitution work is like so, if the a power/authority is not specifically granted to the government then the government does not have that power/authority. So, in short the constitution (main body) is a list of shall dos and may dos, while the Bill or Rights was a list of shall nots.
So, again where is the authority found in the constitution to require licenses, limits, tax, and/or require background checks for the ownership/use of arms?
As for the "driving" I'll need proof that you understand semantics before we can continue that discussion. You seem to not understand the correct use of words. You have used the words "drive," "entitlement," and "license" totally incorrectly. You deflect my statements and refuse to note I never said you could "drive" without a license. I can use my automobile on the public roads without a license though. See Title 18 USC to understand what 'driving' is and what a 'driver' is.
As for registration of firearms. That is something that happens just before they, the firearms, become confiscated by the government. Look to, Canada, Australia, UK, and WWII Germany to see examples.
Then, in regards to the "Brady group" they are morally dishonest and you should not trust any information they put out. They flat out lie about their numbers. Then to include people well over 18 in statistics as "children" and then don't use the same age range to make comparisons. Most of the 'children' getting killed through the use of Brady's firearms death count, are gang bangers.
You, however have failed to cite any law requiring a background check, to purchase a firearm under the originally stated conditions.
You cite a California case, for traveling without ever having read the laws of that state.
As for trusting judges, I've seen judges flat out lie in the rulings they make.I can name three in Washington off of the top of my head.
(her)
You mentioned an outdated Arizona law earlier in this discussion, but I didn't check if you grew up there, too.
If we're going to get hung up on semantics, then let's iron them out now.
Title 18 of the USC is about motor vehicles used for commercial purposes on the highway, in regards to federal crimes and criminal procedures. Could you help me find the definitions you're speaking of, for 'driving' and 'driver'?
I think I see why you are nagged by the use of driver, as opposed to 'traveler' perhaps, as the legal definition is: "Driver - One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals." This does suggest commercial employment only.
However, "Driving Privilege" is the grant of authority by a jurisdiction to a person that allows that person to drive (or operate) a vehicle on highways within that jurisdiction.
A requirement of that driving privilege can be qualifications exams and licensing. The idea that there's a loophole in this is state-by-state, in small court rulings, but nothing that has changed the way the police operate. You say you don't trust judges, but that's the level this 'no licence required' movement is at.
I didn't quote Brandy's statistics, only the court ruling. To focus on their statistics-making is a straw-man distracting from the legal definitions resulting from that case.
If we suddenly jump now to "if they make us do a criminal records check, then they're going to register all our information, and then they're going to take away all our rights and guns in one fell swoop" is just a little bit paranoid, don't you think?
In the UK and Australia, guns are still permitted by regular citizens, though they must go through rigorous process to check their background and mental health status. They must also have a "Genuine Reason" for owning one, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.
You can be scared about things like WWII Germany, and modern day North Korea, but not because losing your guns will permit such things from happening. Both happened not due to gun-control laws, but charismatic leaders at the ballot-box. The 1928 gun law in Germany, pre-Nazi reign, were designed to reduce the violence of extremist groups, including the Nazis. The Nazis were not able to stage a military coup, but had to work their way into power by popularity. The expansion of those laws in 1938 was designed to prevent militia from forming to usurp them, but did not take guns away from the citizens, who were largely unarmed to begin with. Theirs was a control by psychology, spreading mistrust and fear.
(myself)
I study law, it's a hobby. The AZ law was directly gun related as to show that even Felons have rights once they are released from prison.
Guns in the UK are not allowed for defensive purposes. All self-defense is prohibited.
Incrementalism is how people become disarmed. It starts with prohibiting certain firearms (Sullivan Act), then it goes to prohibit certain people ("insta-check"), then it goes on to registration and then confiscation from anyone who is not lock step with the beliefs held by those who want to be in power. So, you mention the psychology of mistrust and fear. Why do you want back-ground checks? Who do you not trust with guns? Who do you fear owning them? It sounds like history all over again. Why do members of our government want the citizens disarmed? To prevent the militia from standing up to them. It's history all over again
As for automobiles, you just admitted that driving is a commercial activity. Commercial use of the road is a 'privilege." The law can only regulate what it talks about. Since non-commercial traveling is not regulated, it cannot be licensed. Unless the constitution of the state says that it can.
Since America was founded on freedom, I don't need to have any more reason to own I gun than the fact that I want to.
(her)
I think we've about hit the end of what we can expect from this particular discussion, else we'll be running in circles. I respect the point of view you've provided, and learned a lot from this exchange that's altered my stance. I will continue to think about those incremental steps, particularly since it relates to my current study of North Korea.
If you want to talk something else, that'd be welcome, but I need a break from firearms for awhile to absorb this.
And that is the end of the firearm/guns discussion, I will update if anything new pops up.
(her)
You miss my point in bringing up dogs and windshields. They are unrelated, and example of why using metaphors doesn't prove the original argument.
Regarding licenses... we have the right to travel, but to drive ourselves is a privilege.
[[ Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 30 Cal. 3d 70 (1981)
In support of his argument, plaintiff maintains that the "right to drive" is a "fundamental constitutional right" under the California Constitution, comparable in status, for example, to the constitutional right of free speech or freedom of religion, so that legislative enactments which limit an individual's freedom to drive are to be subjected to "strict scrutiny" by the judiciary. Relying on precedents arising primarily in the context of legislation limiting freedom of speech or privacy, plaintiff asserts that our court should invalidate section 13353 on the ground that the Legislature could have achieved the purposes of the legislation through the adoption of an alternative sanction "less restrictive" of an individual's right to drive than the six-month license suspension provided by the current provision.
As we shall explain, we find plaintiff's constitutional contention totally lacking in merit. Although automobile travel is without question an important aspect of life in contemporary California society and an individual's substantial interest in retaining his driver's license has properly been accorded a variety of legal protections, plaintiff has cited absolutely no authority, from California or elsewhere, which suggests that legislative regulation of either automobile driving or automobile drivers is in any manner constitutionally "suspect" or involves any of the considerations which in past cases have been viewed as justifying the extraordinary invocation of "strict judicial scrutiny" of the Legislature's substantive policy decisions. On the contrary, as we shall see, past authorities -- while fully cognizant of the practical importance of an individual's "right to drive" -- have uniformly recognized that the area of driving is particularly appropriate for extensive legislative regulation, and that the state's traditionally broad police power authority to enact any measure which reasonably relates to public health or safety operates with full force in this domain. Because, as plaintiff concedes, section 13353 bears a reasonable relation to the preservation of safety on California highways, we reject plaintiff's constitutional challenge. ]]
There are court cases that allowed for non-licensed personal driving, but those are not Supreme Court rulings guaranteeing that privilege when public safety is at risk.
The Supreme Court has only ruled in favor of individual rights to travel between states without fee, but it is up to the states to determine laws regulating travel modes. Driving yourself remains a privilege, not an entitlement.
As for whether the Constitution grants the government the right to require background/criminal record checks, please bear in mind that passing the onus of proof to me doesn't validate your argument. What Supreme Court ruling states the government can't?
For the purposes of this discussion, here's the info on the kind of check required for firearm purchase (the NCIS): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System
In the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993), the Supreme Court put the NCIS into place, but in further appeals it was determined that the Federal Government could not require the states to use it. The States, however, maintain the right to choose whether or not to perform background checks.
The Federal Government may place bans on imported firearms, regulate interstate firearm commerce, and place ownership restrictions on certain categories of individuals (felons, fugitives, convicted drug users, the mentally ill, non-US citizens on non-immigrant visas, illegal aliens, ex-military with dishonorable discharges, ex-pats that renounced US citizenship, someone under restraining/protective order of bodily harm is reasonably feared).
The States may require conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, including NCIS checks, waiting periods, and bans on specific categories of firearms, or all firearms.
(myself)
First off the way a constitution work is like so, if the a power/authority is not specifically granted to the government then the government does not have that power/authority. So, in short the constitution (main body) is a list of shall dos and may dos, while the Bill or Rights was a list of shall nots.
So, again where is the authority found in the constitution to require licenses, limits, tax, and/or require background checks for the ownership/use of arms?
As for the "driving" I'll need proof that you understand semantics before we can continue that discussion. You seem to not understand the correct use of words. You have used the words "drive," "entitlement," and "license" totally incorrectly. You deflect my statements and refuse to note I never said you could "drive" without a license. I can use my automobile on the public roads without a license though. See Title 18 USC to understand what 'driving' is and what a 'driver' is.
As for registration of firearms. That is something that happens just before they, the firearms, become confiscated by the government. Look to, Canada, Australia, UK, and WWII Germany to see examples.
Then, in regards to the "Brady group" they are morally dishonest and you should not trust any information they put out. They flat out lie about their numbers. Then to include people well over 18 in statistics as "children" and then don't use the same age range to make comparisons. Most of the 'children' getting killed through the use of Brady's firearms death count, are gang bangers.
You, however have failed to cite any law requiring a background check, to purchase a firearm under the originally stated conditions.
You cite a California case, for traveling without ever having read the laws of that state.
As for trusting judges, I've seen judges flat out lie in the rulings they make.I can name three in Washington off of the top of my head.
(her)
You mentioned an outdated Arizona law earlier in this discussion, but I didn't check if you grew up there, too.
If we're going to get hung up on semantics, then let's iron them out now.
Title 18 of the USC is about motor vehicles used for commercial purposes on the highway, in regards to federal crimes and criminal procedures. Could you help me find the definitions you're speaking of, for 'driving' and 'driver'?
I think I see why you are nagged by the use of driver, as opposed to 'traveler' perhaps, as the legal definition is: "Driver - One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals." This does suggest commercial employment only.
However, "Driving Privilege" is the grant of authority by a jurisdiction to a person that allows that person to drive (or operate) a vehicle on highways within that jurisdiction.
A requirement of that driving privilege can be qualifications exams and licensing. The idea that there's a loophole in this is state-by-state, in small court rulings, but nothing that has changed the way the police operate. You say you don't trust judges, but that's the level this 'no licence required' movement is at.
I didn't quote Brandy's statistics, only the court ruling. To focus on their statistics-making is a straw-man distracting from the legal definitions resulting from that case.
If we suddenly jump now to "if they make us do a criminal records check, then they're going to register all our information, and then they're going to take away all our rights and guns in one fell swoop" is just a little bit paranoid, don't you think?
In the UK and Australia, guns are still permitted by regular citizens, though they must go through rigorous process to check their background and mental health status. They must also have a "Genuine Reason" for owning one, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.
You can be scared about things like WWII Germany, and modern day North Korea, but not because losing your guns will permit such things from happening. Both happened not due to gun-control laws, but charismatic leaders at the ballot-box. The 1928 gun law in Germany, pre-Nazi reign, were designed to reduce the violence of extremist groups, including the Nazis. The Nazis were not able to stage a military coup, but had to work their way into power by popularity. The expansion of those laws in 1938 was designed to prevent militia from forming to usurp them, but did not take guns away from the citizens, who were largely unarmed to begin with. Theirs was a control by psychology, spreading mistrust and fear.
(myself)
I study law, it's a hobby. The AZ law was directly gun related as to show that even Felons have rights once they are released from prison.
Guns in the UK are not allowed for defensive purposes. All self-defense is prohibited.
Incrementalism is how people become disarmed. It starts with prohibiting certain firearms (Sullivan Act), then it goes to prohibit certain people ("insta-check"), then it goes on to registration and then confiscation from anyone who is not lock step with the beliefs held by those who want to be in power. So, you mention the psychology of mistrust and fear. Why do you want back-ground checks? Who do you not trust with guns? Who do you fear owning them? It sounds like history all over again. Why do members of our government want the citizens disarmed? To prevent the militia from standing up to them. It's history all over again
As for automobiles, you just admitted that driving is a commercial activity. Commercial use of the road is a 'privilege." The law can only regulate what it talks about. Since non-commercial traveling is not regulated, it cannot be licensed. Unless the constitution of the state says that it can.
Since America was founded on freedom, I don't need to have any more reason to own I gun than the fact that I want to.
(her)
I think we've about hit the end of what we can expect from this particular discussion, else we'll be running in circles. I respect the point of view you've provided, and learned a lot from this exchange that's altered my stance. I will continue to think about those incremental steps, particularly since it relates to my current study of North Korea.
If you want to talk something else, that'd be welcome, but I need a break from firearms for awhile to absorb this.
And that is the end of the firearm/guns discussion, I will update if anything new pops up.
papa bear
Regular Member
funny she acts as if the conversation is hers and she can dictate the rules. if i were you i would hit her with some pro defense literature and challenge her to read it. if then you want to break off the conversation go for it
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I believe I've got her thinking. I am trying to not 'beat it into her head' I am trying a nicer approach.
I have given her some reading. I believe that sometimes that they can be brought around to thinking.