Is it time to start talking about repealing the second amendment?

[tech30528]

If they risk going to the black market, neither politicians, nor gun sellers, nor the rest of ordinary 2A gun users would be held liable. It would just be a legal issue.

You mean like murder?

 

[mmi]

You're not required to register your car. You can have a car unregistered sitting on your property for years and years and the law won't say a thing. The only time it is required is when you are using public roads which is a privilege. You voluntarily give up your right to privacy when you want to use it on a public road.

OK, well I just used that as an example. As you know, licenses are required for a very long list of things, typically things that involve public safety. I don't see a problem with requiring a license to possess a firearm. They're very dangerous, lethal.

>>Guns are a different matter. One, we have a right to carry them on our person.

Requiring a license wouldn't interfere with that. Besides, although I don't have the strength to carry my car, it does carry me.

>>Two, guns are not dependent on roads and other things which are privileges.

I'm not sold on this "privilege" element. I figure public safety requires a careful attention to guns in particular.

If you need a license to exercise right, it's no longer a right but a state-granted privelege. This is contrary to "shall not be infringed".

I don't see it that way. In my view we have "a right" to do lots of things that still allow for gubmint regulation. I have rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the DOI, but those are limited. Under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, the SCOTUS has identified/recognized a right to privacy, but that too is limited. I'd say no right is absolute.

>>by this logic, the state has the power to require "first amendment licenses" which would be required [for] any sort of speech exercise

I'd say that's an exaggeration. Free speech is not totally unrestricted, as you know. E.g., some public safety restrictions are deemed appropriate.

If the anti gun folk would like to work on actually keeping the wrong people from acquiring firearms, instead of punishing law abiding citizens while doing nothing to actually keep the wrong people from acquiring firearms, THAT would be great.

I see this a rhetoric. Nobody hates guns more than me, but I realize that people have a right to possess them. I'm not anti-gun in my policy preference, I'm pro-public safety. (Not sure how to hyphenate that.) A large part of my goal is exactly "keeping the wrong people from acquiring firearms," and I have no interest in "punishing law abiding citizens."

Ownership of cars doesn't have "shall not be infringed" protection.

I'd say an overly strict interpretation of that language is part of the problem here. And the "militia" is supposed to be "well-regulated," right?

Please detail a law that would have prevented the Oregon shooter from "getting guns and going on rampages". Please be specific, and detailed. Spell it out.

I don't know if there is one, but would you agree that changes to public policy that increase public safety are worthy of consideration? Surely there is no "magic" law that would stop all this killing. But can we do something to at least limit it? And much of what needs to be done may involve social attitudes that go beyond legal requirements, things like dealing more effectively with mental illness.

There is no law that can be made that can keep an inanimate object from getting into hands that plan to do harm.

Can it be made more difficult?

. Government employees are somehow better than the rest of us.

I'm a government worker. It's not entirely my fault if I'm better than those who aren't.

I thought the guns belonged to his mother.

My understanding is that some were owned by family members and some he purchased himself.

many "gun control" advocates simply wish to impose sufficient infringements (usually called "reasonable restrictions") to the legal ownership and carrying of a gun.

You need to be careful when yer deciding what motivates other people. I, like most gun-control advocates, wish to increase public safety. You say "sufficient restrictions." Sufficient for what?

>>hamper all legal gun sales/ownership - their true goal.

Nonsense.

>>they clearly see this "discriminatory burden" when talking about voter ID laws yet ignore that argument completely when talking about gun control laws.

There is no voter fraud at polling places. Rank-and-file supporters of voter ID laws may be well-intentioned, but the legislators and policy advocates who get those laws enacted are simply pursuing partisan interests.

 

[mmi]

under Comrade Obama, we need to be able to defend ourselves more than ever!

It won't do you any good. The methods will will employ will easily overwhelm yer weak defences.

>>I have less confidence in the safety of my life and property as an American citizen now than ever before in my life

And properly so. I'm sure yer on the list for internment.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

I don't see it that way. In my view we have "a right" to do lots of things that still allow for gubmint regulation. I have rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the DOI, but those are limited. Under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, the SCOTUS has identified/recognized a right to privacy, but that too is limited. I'd say no right is absolute.

>>by this logic, the state has the power to require "first amendment licenses" which would be required [for] any sort of speech exercise

I'd say that's an exaggeration. Free speech is not totally unrestricted, as you know. E.g., some public safety restrictions are deemed appropriate.

Yes, there are limitations to any right. However, requiring a license to exercise a right is beyond a limitation, it's a positive requirement which makes the exercise of the "right" unlawful if done without it. That is no longer a right, it's a privilege granted by the state. And, while you may think the application to speech is an "exaggeration", that is exactly the power you are granting to the government to regulate the right to bear arms. If they have the authority it for the 2A, they have it for the 1A, and the only thing at that point to stop them is political support. It's not a self-evident truth of an individual right if it relies on popular support, which means the BOR is pretty much out the window or can be overturned/thwarted/ignored by a simple majority vote.

 

[TurtleDude]

No need cause out positions match regarding how the current version of backround checks has failed in decreasing crimes. Hence the necessary upgrade that now involves brain scans.

you don't seem to worry about giving governments more and more powers over everyone do you. I don't like being treated like a sheep myself

why not just give truth injections to the accused to find out if they are guilty

does that bother you as well

 

[tech30528]

OK, well I just used that as an example. As you know, licenses are required for a very long list of things, typically things that involve public safety. I don't see a problem with requiring a license to possess a firearm. They're very dangerous, lethal.

>>Guns are a different matter. One, we have a right to carry them on our person.

Requiring a license wouldn't interfere with that. Besides, although I don't have the strength to carry my car, it does carry me.

>>Two, guns are not dependent on roads and other things which are privileges.

I'm not sold on this "privilege" element. I figure public safety requires a careful attention to guns in particular.



I don't see it that way. In my view we have "a right" to do lots of things that still allow for gubmint regulation. I have rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the DOI, but those are limited. Under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, the SCOTUS has identified/recognized a right to privacy, but that too is limited. I'd say no right is absolute.

>>by this logic, the state has the power to require "first amendment licenses" which would be required [for] any sort of speech exercise

I'd say that's an exaggeration. Free speech is not totally unrestricted, as you know. E.g., some public safety restrictions are deemed appropriate.



I see this a rhetoric. Nobody hates guns more than me, but I realize that people have a right to possess them. I'm not anti-gun in my policy preference, I'm pro-public safety. (Not sure how to hyphenate that.) A large part of my goal is exactly "keeping the wrong people from acquiring firearms," and I have no interest in "punishing law abiding citizens."



I'd say an overly strict interpretation of that language is part of the problem here. And the "militia" is supposed to be "well-regulated," right?



I don't know if there is one, but would you agree that changes to public policy that increase public safety are worthy of consideration? Surely there is no "magic" law that would stop all this killing. But can we do something to at least limit it? And much of what needs to be done may involve social attitudes that go beyond legal requirements, things like dealing more effectively with mental illness.



Can it be made more difficult?



I'm a government worker. It's not entirely my fault if I'm better than those who aren't.



My understanding is that some were owned by family members and some he purchased himself.



You need to be careful when yer deciding what motivates other people. I, like most gun-control advocates, wish to increase public safety. You say "sufficient restrictions." Sufficient for what?

>>hamper all legal gun sales/ownership - their true goal.

Nonsense.

>>they clearly see this "discriminatory burden" when talking about voter ID laws yet ignore that argument completely when talking about gun control laws.

There is no voter fraud at polling places. Rank-and-file supporters of voter ID laws may be well-intentioned, but the legislators and policy advocates who get those laws enacted are simply pursuing partisan interests.

It seems that the common thread in these shooting are access to firearms and mental illness. So why not look at the mental illness side? To be clear, anyone who thinks 300+ million firearms are just going to disappear because a law is written that would not prevent the shootings used as excuses for new laws is ****ing unstable. In this case liberal politicians should all be disarmed for public safety.

 

[TurtleDude]

OK, well I just used that as an example. As you know, licenses are required for a very long list of things, typically things that involve public safety. I don't see a problem with requiring a license to possess a firearm. They're very dangerous, lethal.

>>Guns are a different matter. One, we have a right to carry them on our person.

Requiring a license wouldn't interfere with that. Besides, although I don't have the strength to carry my car, it does carry me.

>>Two, guns are not dependent on roads and other things which are privileges.

I'm not sold on this "privilege" element. I figure public safety requires a careful attention to guns in particular.



I don't see it that way. In my view we have "a right" to do lots of things that still allow for gubmint regulation. I have rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the DOI, but those are limited. Under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, the SCOTUS has identified/recognized a right to privacy, but that too is limited. I'd say no right is absolute.

>>by this logic, the state has the power to require "first amendment licenses" which would be required [for] any sort of speech exercise

I'd say that's an exaggeration. Free speech is not totally unrestricted, as you know. E.g., some public safety restrictions are deemed appropriate.



I see this a rhetoric. Nobody hates guns more than me, but I realize that people have a right to possess them. I'm not anti-gun in my policy preference, I'm pro-public safety. (Not sure how to hyphenate that.) A large part of my goal is exactly "keeping the wrong people from acquiring firearms," and I have no interest in "punishing law abiding citizens."



I'd say an overly strict interpretation of that language is part of the problem here. And the "militia" is supposed to be "well-regulated," right?



I don't know if there is one, but would you agree that changes to public policy that increase public safety are worthy of consideration? Surely there is no "magic" law that would stop all this killing. But can we do something to at least limit it? And much of what needs to be done may involve social attitudes that go beyond legal requirements, things like dealing more effectively with mental illness.



Can it be made more difficult?



I'm a government worker. It's not entirely my fault if I'm better than those who aren't.



My understanding is that some were owned by family members and some he purchased himself.



You need to be careful when yer deciding what motivates other people. I, like most gun-control advocates, wish to increase public safety. You say "sufficient restrictions." Sufficient for what?

>>hamper all legal gun sales/ownership - their true goal.

Nonsense.

>>they clearly see this "discriminatory burden" when talking about voter ID laws yet ignore that argument completely when talking about gun control laws.

There is no voter fraud at polling places. Rank-and-file supporters of voter ID laws may be well-intentioned, but the legislators and policy advocates who get those laws enacted are simply pursuing partisan interests.

when you talk about how much you hate guns, that suggests to me some sort of mental issue. why would a rational person hate an object. TO claim there is no voter fraud, that is another sign your arguments cannot be taken seriously. we had several cases where people were convicted in Ohio of voting twice.

when someone claims to hate guns, one really must be vigilant in assessing the person's claims that their schemes don't violate a right they detest

 

[Kal'Stang]

The brain patterns of predatory and impulsive murderers mention in the reference are not as fluid as thoughts. They are static representations of who people are. You have there brain network representations of how a psychopathic mind (i.e., predatory mind) looks like, and how a impulsive one looks like. People that are similar to those brains are predators and impulsive murderers. They should not get guns.

They are representations of those people. Nothing in those links indicated that this is the way it is with even 1/4 of murderers. Nor is it an indication that those with those patterns are factually dangerous and will kill people.

Once they risk purchasing guns in the black market they: 1) Become an issue of the law rather than politics, 2) the gun producers will not get blamed by association any longer, and 3) 2A users will not feel guilty from being put into the same group of gun purchasers just like mass murderers do (i.e., the 2A abusers will be separated from the 2A users).

1: law is that people have a right to own guns. It is also law that people are innocent until proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Your proposal skips all of that and automatically condemns everyone to be criminals.

2: Gun producers should not get blamed anyways. To do so is idiotic. Besides, both you and I know that they will still get blamed. Nothing short of an absolute ban on civilian gun ownership will be tolerated by anti-gun folks.

3: 2A users don't currently feel guilty about that. Since they know that they are not the ones to blame.

 

[Kal'Stang]

OK, well I just used that as an example. As you know, licenses are required for a very long list of things, typically things that involve public safety. I don't see a problem with requiring a license to possess a firearm. They're very dangerous, lethal.

First off, I don't believe that licenses are constitutional as even a simple glitch can deny a person that is lawfully legal to carry from owning a gun until you go through enough red tape to clear your name. Anyways, there is a difference between a gun license and gun registration. A gun license the person carries around and shows it to a cop if necessary and that is that. No files are kept by the federal government. A gun registration on the other hand isn't about licensing. Its about knowing who has guns.

Besides, Canada proved how useless a gun registration system is. That's why they got rid of theirs.

Requiring a license wouldn't interfere with that. Besides, although I don't have the strength to carry my car, it does carry me.

Thought we were talking about gun registration vs car registration? Not licensing. And btw; your right to privacy extends to the inside of your car also. Cops must have a warrant to search it unless they have an articulateable probable cause to search it without a warrant.

I'm not sold on this "privilege" element. I figure public safety requires a careful attention to guns in particular.

Which is more important? Public safety? Or peoples Rights? Which one did the colonials die for in our Revolutionary war? Why did they die for that particular thing?

Can it be made more difficult?

I don't know, you tell me....how is the war on drugs doing? How did the prohibition go? But even with laws that make it to where getting ahold of a gun is harder, who is it actually making it harder on? Innocents? Or criminals?

 

[Kal'Stang]

If they risk going to the black market, neither politicians, nor gun sellers, nor the rest of ordinary 2A gun users would be held liable. It would just be a legal issue.

Why should any of those be held liable? It is not any one of those groups faults that some wacko goes and kills people with an inanimate object. Who did you blame for the Boston Bombing? Or 9/11? The Bombs? The planes? Or the people that committed the atrocities? (this said regardless if you're into conspiracy theories or not) Why would you blame these groups just because its a gun being used if you won't blame the objects used in the aforementioned atrocities?

 

[mmi]

when you talk about how much you hate guns, that suggests to me some sort of mental issue.

The attitude you have about guns suggests some sort of mental issue to me.

>>why would a rational person hate an object.

Because of the damage it can inflict. How do you feel about cancer?

>>TO claim there is no voter fraud, that is another sign your arguments cannot be taken seriously. we had several cases where people were convicted in Ohio of voting twice.

Unsubstantiated, and even if it were true, the percentage would be infinitesimal.

>>when someone claims to hate guns, one really must be vigilant in assessing the person's claims that their schemes don't violate a right they detest

Yer not very good at language and logic, are you? I never said I hate the right to bear arms. In fact, I've explicitly acknowledged its propriety.

A gun registration on the other hand isn't about licensing. Its about knowing who has guns.

And I have no problem with that.

>>Which is more important? Public safety? Or peoples Rights?

People have a right to be safe. I see this as a false choice.

 

[TurtleDude]

The attitude you have about guns suggests some sort of mental issue to me.

>>why would a rational person hate an object.

Because of the damage it can inflict. How do you feel about cancer?

>>TO claim there is no voter fraud, that is another sign your arguments cannot be taken seriously. we had several cases where people were convicted in Ohio of voting twice.

Unsubstantiated, and even if it were true, the percentage would be infinitesimal.

>>when someone claims to hate guns, one really must be vigilant in assessing the person's claims that their schemes don't violate a right they detest

Yer not very good at language and logic, are you? I never said I hate the right to bear arms. In fact, I've explicitly acknowledged its propriety.



And I have no problem with that.

>>Which is more important? Public safety? Or peoples Rights?

People have a right to be safe. I see this as a false choice.

your disjointed and meandering posts are hard to follow. its stupid to hate inanimate objects. its known as hoplophobia.
and its silly to pretend that peoples' rights are contrary to public safety. You don't have a RIGhT to be safe. That is among the most stupid things I have ever seen. Ranking right behind wanting to get rid of rights so you can pretend you are safer

 

[Lursa]

Which is why psychological evaluations should be mandatory and dealers, sellers, and gifters should be criminally liable if they do not do their due diligence in verifying eligibility before giving someone a gun. Charge them with criminal negligence and accessory to murder.

And people should totally be doing that when they sell cars too! They kill and injure way more people, after all, and many of those have DUI records, are on prescription drugs, have been pulled over for texting, have mental illness records. Check it ALL! Please please please...make me safer on the road!

I mean, we dont need any medical privacy laws in the US, right? Except in rare circumstances even the police cant access unauthorized medical records in homicides, but everyone should be able to when selling a firearm :doh



"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

 

[Lursa]

Most of these recent wacko's have no mental health treatment history. So good luck with that. Go ahead and try though.

Actually a great number of them are on anti-depressants and other prescription mood-enhancing drugs. So they do have records reflecting mental issues. They are just private.

 

[Riveroaks]

Actually a great number of them are on anti-depressants and other prescription mood-enhancing drugs. So they do have records reflecting mental issues. They are just private.

Doctor privilege, you're right. Thanks.

 

[Riveroaks]

your disjointed and meandering posts are hard to follow. its stupid to hate inanimate objects. its known as hoplophobia.
and its silly to pretend that peoples' rights are contrary to public safety. You don't have a RIGhT to be safe. That is among the most stupid things I have ever seen. Ranking right behind wanting to get rid of rights so you can pretend you are safer

Hoplos is a Greek word meaning armor. That's why ancient Greek infantry were called Hoplites -- they were heavily armed.

Not to be confused with the lite infantry, the slingers, and the archers.

 

[Lursa]

No and irrelevant to the point,

Background checks are occurring, but they fail at stopping legal guns from getting into the hands of mass murderers. Time to upgrade background checks with brain scans that should not fail to do that if done properly.

Brain scans can predict crimes and/or uncontrolled mental illness based behavior? Really?

And of course we still have the $$ factor which is a burden and the fact that we have a Constitutional right to medical privacy and due process.

 

[Lursa]

No, cause sane people still get to own guns for defense. The insane people do not get to use them for offense.

No sane person trusts the govt with their 'brain scans.'

 

[Kal'Stang]

And I have no problem with that.

Obviously. Or you wouldn't be arguing for it.

People have a right to be safe. I see this as a false choice.

Yes they do. That includes the right to be safe from government tyranny. You see, its not a false choice because without our Rights preventing government tyranny then there will be government tyranny. Wouldn't you rather die than allow that? The moment we give up our own Rights just for the sake of a bit more safety then we lose those Rights and are subject to the whim of those in power.

 

[Lursa]

People have a right to be safe. I see this as a false choice.

Where is that in the Constitution? People do however, have a right to life and liberty. It doesnt mean the govt provides those things, it means it protects our RIGHT to those things, which includes protecting *ourselves, * taking responsibility* for our own safety and that of our families. The govt protects our rights to the means to make ourselves safe, it's not responsible for our safety.


"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Brain scans can predict crimes and/or uncontrolled mental illness based behavior? Really?

And of course we still have the $$ factor which is a burden and the fact that we have a Constitutional right to medical privacy and due process.

And, you need a physician prescription for either a CT or MRI. Those are only suppose to be for medical necessity, like any other type of prescription. I suspect, very strongly, the state medical board would de-license and probably bring up on ethical charges any physician who orders either for a "background check", and the radiologist reading them would be subject to losing American Board of Radiology certification. There's no medical necessity.

 

[TurtleDude]

Brain scans can predict crimes and/or uncontrolled mental illness based behavior? Really?

And of course we still have the $$ factor which is a burden and the fact that we have a Constitutional right to medical privacy and due process.

using his logic-anytime someone is arrested, they should be "brain scanned" and given truth serum/ Heck, lets just get rid of a jury of their peers. after all its FOR PUBLIC SAFETY

 

[TurtleDude]

And, you need a physician prescription for either a CT or MRI. Those are only suppose to be for medical necessity, like any other type of prescription. I suspect, very strongly, the state medical board would de-license and probably bring up on ethical charges any physician who orders either for a "background check", and the radiologist reading them would be subject to losing American Board of Radiology certification. There's no medical necessity.

plus lots of us buy dozens of guns a year. so if I get brain cancer from all those scans, can I sue the pants off the clowns who imposed such a requirement?

 

[blackjack50]

Gun supporters have made it quite clear once again that they refuse to do anything regarding gun control.

They have made it quite clear they think we should have to deal with potentially anyone having a firearm at any time.

For those of us who do not welcome a future that involves every 3rd person having a gun on their hip to protect us from anyone that might have a gun; that leaves us only one choice.

Is it time to begin the process of drumming up support to repeal the 2nd amendment?

Is it time to start repealing the 4th amendment since if you aren't guilty you shouldn't have anything to hide? 5th too?

 

[Citizen.Seven]

plus lots of us buy dozens of guns a year. so if I get brain cancer from all those scans, can I sue the pants off the clowns who imposed such a requirement?

If the scan is an MRI, there's no evidence that they can induce cancers. If it's a CT, every scan adds a cumulative risk to cancer induction.