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

[TurtleDude]

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.

I had a scan a few years ago and had an abnormality in lymph node size so I had to repeat it 6 weeks later. The doctor noted he would not allow me to have another one after that for at least 5 years due to the small but noted chance of cancer from drinking that radioactive swill. As to MRIs- I have had at least 8, 3 on my knees, three on my neck, one on my shoulder and one on my elbow and none of the orthopedic or radiology doctors have shown the least concern so you are correct

 

[plutonium]

no but we do need better gun laws definite background check needed on al buyers of guns ...I live in ca. 10 day wait and background check.. + short course for handgun .. I am more scared of the police than a citizen with a gun lol....but now I think we need a medical database for certain types of mental illness and suicide attempts to be put in by qualified doctors in a special database..if your name is on it no gun!!!! get the report and have it cleared by a doctor and a judge.. then pick up your gun...I have a colt ar15 2 savage rifles and moss 12 gauge ...you cannot stop all crime and mass murders but you can save a few lives and that is worth it...but I don't appreciate that I cant buy me a m50 in ca

 

[TurtleDude]

no but we do need better gun laws definite background check needed on al buyers of guns ...I live in ca. 10 day wait and background check.. + short course for handgun .. I am more scared of the police than a citizen with a gun lol....but now I think we need a medical database for certain types of mental illness and suicide attempts to be put in by qualified doctors in a special database..if your name is on it no gun!!!! get the report and have it cleared by a doctor and a judge.. then pick up your gun...I have a colt ar15 2 savage rifles and moss 12 gauge ...you cannot stop all crime and mass murders but you can save a few lives and that is worth it...but I don't appreciate that I cant buy me a m50 in ca View attachment 67191215

there seems to be a disconnect between your calling for more restrictions on people which you seem to think will save a few lives with stupid rules that impact you that were imposed by people who used the same reasoning you did

 

[plutonium]

I own a gun ...but I think some people love guns more than there thing between their legs!!! if they had to give one up I wonder what it would be!!!!lol life and death at you fingertips hmmm is this a I am god thing????

 

[plutonium]

look at the restriction on cars trucks big rigs and aircraft

 

[plutonium]

there are restrictions on how food is prepared and stored maybe saved your life

 

[AGENT J]

I've already suggested strict gun control to make every weapon in this country accountable. That is the only way to stop them from falling into the wrong hands.

LMAO you got a lot more work to do than that, this is the REAL world not fantasy


How do you make them all accountable?
What about the ones already out there?
Why will bad guys/black market care?
How will that stop them from falling into the wrong hands?

*****Crickets*****

 

[Citizen.Seven]

I had a scan a few years ago and had an abnormality in lymph node size so I had to repeat it 6 weeks later. The doctor noted he would not allow me to have another one after that for at least 5 years due to the small but noted chance of cancer from drinking that radioactive swill. As to MRIs- I have had at least 8, 3 on my knees, three on my neck, one on my shoulder and one on my elbow and none of the orthopedic or radiology doctors have shown the least concern so you are correct

The risk of induced cancers comes from ionizing radiation, which CTs produce: that's how the imaging works. It's essentially a bunch of xrays done 360°, and then put together with some mathematical manipulation to produce a 3 dimensional image, usually viewed as a series of slices through the body. MRIs use a completely different physical process, lining up all the magnetic moments of the nucleus of atoms (hydrogen, though it can set it for different materials) with a strong magnet, and then "pinging" them with another magnetic pulse. This sends out an electromagnetic signal that is collected from all sides and, again through some mathematical manipulation, reconstructed into a 3d image. Generally speaking, CTs are better for bone, while MRIs are better for soft tissue.

If you drank radioactive swill rather than CT contrast (usually a variation on Barium, allows better imaging in certain anatomical regions), it sounds like you may have had a PET or PET/CT. PET is another imaging modality that operates on yet another physical principle: a positron (anti-particle to electron) emitting radioactive material (I think an isotope of flourine) is chemically attached to a material which, due to higher metabolic rate of cancers, is taken up in areas where cancer exist much faster than normal tissues. You get a whole body image, kind of ghosty everywhere except with bright spots where there's higher uptake. That can mean that cancers are there, or, in some somewhat unusual cases, just might mean that there's higher uptake due to some other metabolic reason.

 

[mmi]

your disjointed and meandering posts are hard to follow.

Difficult for you perhaps. Funny how libruls don't seem to have that problem. Can you point to any specific element?

>>its stupid to hate inanimate objects.

You didn't say how you feel about cancer. Mr. Reagan had a strong dislike of nuclear weapons. Was he stupid?

>>its known as hoplophobia.

That's not a word you'll find in dictionaries. It's something coined by reactionaries. And you should know that phobias are fears, not enmities. I have no (irrational) fear of guns. I simply detest them. Outside of a military or policing context, I see them as tools of criminals, neurotics, cowards, and lunatics.

>>its silly to pretend that peoples' rights are contrary to public safety.

I'm not pretending. I have the (licensed) right to drive a car. That right is limited by the requirement that I do so in a manner that is consistent with public safety.

>>You don't have a RIGhT to be safe.

Sure I do. The signers of the DOI, at the risk of their lives, asserted that I have a self-evident right to life.

>>That is among the most stupid things I have ever seen.

I can't comment on that properly without suffering another two-day suspension.

>>wanting to get rid of rights so you can pretend you are safer

Again, no pretending involved.

Hoplos is a Greek word meaning armor.

"The term hoplon sometimes denoted this piece of equipment [the rounded Argive shield], but that word found use most often in the plural (hopla) to describe all the tools of war (i.e., arms, with hoplites signifying a man at arms)." — Land Battles in 5th Century BC Greece: A History and Analysis of 173 Engagements, p. 9​

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

I'm so naturally contentious that I've been known to quarrel with myself.

>>That includes the right to be safe from government tyranny.

So you plan on defending yerself against DOD? Isn't it more realistic, now that we're beyond the Industrial Age, to depend upon the forbearance of our political and military leaders and our social influence over them?

Where is that in the Constitution?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, the general welfare clause.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I'm so naturally contentious that I've been known to quarrel with myself.

Anyone that likes debating will at least some of the time do that.

So you plan on defending yerself against DOD? Isn't it more realistic, now that we're beyond the Industrial Age, to depend upon the forbearance of our political and military leaders and our social influence over them?

Forbearance is preferable. But there is a limit to everything.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, the general welfare clause.

Actually the general welfare clause only relates to taxes between the states and foreign countries. The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with actual welfare issues such as ones health. If it did then SCOTUS wouldn't have explicitly said that the general welfare clause does not apply to the Mandate clause in Obamacare. They instead had to use taxation (16th amendment) as the reason to allow the Mandate to remain.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Hmm. Is my privacy violated when I'm required to register my car?

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. In order to exercise that privilege anywhere off your private property you are required to have a driver's license. You are also required to maintain either liability insurance, or a post a sizeable bond with the State.

Owning arms is a RIGHT linked with the inherent right of self-defense. This is why it is guaranteed by the Constitution.

We need common sense gun regulations. I don't see why firearms shouldn't be registered and licensed, just like cars and driving privileges. To my thinking, those requirements don't conflict with the right to keep and bear arms, so there's no unreasonable infringement involved.

Registration is always the goal of a central government. That way it knows exactly what weapons are located exactly where. This makes it easier to collect and confiscate them when the time comes.

Licensing is a method of limiting access to people that the government decides merit the privilege.

A right does not need licensing. Otherwise it is NOT a "Right."

 

[shrubnose]

You can talk about it all you want but it's not going to happen.

 

[mmi]

the general welfare clause only relates to taxes

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people just can't stop getting in the way of progress.

OK, we'll impose a $10K tax on all unregistered firearms. I figure Turtledude would cough it up, not without strenuous objection of course. But the vast majority of folks would comply. Or else get a nasty letter from the IRS.

And we could withhold all federal aid from states that fail to cooperate in our firearm registration scheme.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

Rights have limits.

>>Registration is always the goal of a central government. That way it knows exactly what weapons are located exactly where. This makes it easier to collect and confiscate them when the time comes.

"The time"? This strikes me as bizarrely paranoid. If the gubmint embarked on a mass confiscation program, what would you do with yer guns? Would you assault the local military base or police station? If you used them in self-defence, authorities in the area would hear the … retort? Then they'd come and get 'em, right?

>>A right does not need licensing. Otherwise it is NOT a "Right."

I'm required to register to vote. If I'm eighteen and a citizen, I have that right. Sure, it's not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, but it's as firmly implied as you can get.

People in prison typically can't vote. Many still can't when they get out, at least for a time. How can that right be constitutionally denied?

There are many restrictions on gun ownership.

• under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year
• fugitives from justice
• unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance
• declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution
• illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa
• dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
• renounced their United States citizenship
• subject to certain types of restraining orders
• convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
• with limited exceptions, under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.

Why are those restrictions constitutional? I assume you guys are old hands at dismissing these points.

 

[Riveroaks]

Difficult for you perhaps. Funny how libruls don't seem to have that problem. Can you point to any specific element?

>>its stupid to hate inanimate objects.

You didn't say how you feel about cancer. Mr. Reagan had a strong dislike of nuclear weapons. Was he stupid?

>>its known as hoplophobia.

That's not a word you'll find in dictionaries. It's something coined by reactionaries. And you should know that phobias are fears, not enmities. I have no (irrational) fear of guns. I simply detest them. Outside of a military or policing context, I see them as tools of criminals, neurotics, cowards, and lunatics.

>>its silly to pretend that peoples' rights are contrary to public safety.

I'm not pretending. I have the (licensed) right to drive a car. That right is limited by the requirement that I do so in a manner that is consistent with public safety.

>>You don't have a RIGhT to be safe.

Sure I do. The signers of the DOI, at the risk of their lives, asserted that I have a self-evident right to life.

>>That is among the most stupid things I have ever seen.

I can't comment on that properly without suffering another two-day suspension.

>>wanting to get rid of rights so you can pretend you are safer

Again, no pretending involved.

"The term hoplon sometimes denoted this piece of equipment [the rounded Argive shield], but that word found use most often in the plural (hopla) to describe all the tools of war (i.e., arms, with hoplites signifying a man at arms)." — Land Battles in 5th Century BC Greece: A History and Analysis of 173 Engagements, p. 9​

I'm so naturally contentious that I've been known to quarrel with myself.

>>That includes the right to be safe from government tyranny.

So you plan on defending yerself against DOD? Isn't it more realistic, now that we're beyond the Industrial Age, to depend upon the forbearance of our political and military leaders and our social influence over them?



Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, the general welfare clause.

I am familiar with the "shield" definition. The ancient Greek hoplites carried really big round shields made of heavy wood and covered in bronze.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Rights have limits.

>>Registration is always the goal of a central government. That way it knows exactly what weapons are located exactly where. This makes it easier to collect and confiscate them when the time comes.

"The time"? This strikes me as bizarrely paranoid.

I'm sure that's what people who thought that their government was trustworthy said to doubters in every society throughout history, until the day their government confiscated their weapons. :shrug:

I'm required to register to vote. If I'm eighteen and a citizen, I have that right. Sure, it's not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, but it's as firmly implied as you can get.

Actually, read the constitution very carefully. Voting is not an inherent right. It is a "social right." That is exactly why you must register.

The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

That quote refers to the 15th Amendment (1870: Race); 19th Amendment (1920: Sex); 24th Amendment (1964: Tax); 26th Amendment (1972: 18 years of Age, which I personally campaigned for as student activist).

People in prison typically can't vote. Many still can't when they get out, at least for time. How can that right be constitutionally denied?

See explanation above.

There are many restrictions on gun ownership.

• 
  [1]under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year
  [2]fugitives from justice
  [3]unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance
  [4]declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution
  [5]illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa
  [6]dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
  [7]renounced their United States citizenship
  [8]subject to certain types of restraining orders
  [9]convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
  [10]with limited exceptions, under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.

Why are those restrictions constitutional? I assume you guys are old hands at dismissing these points.

They are not, because they are infringements prohibited in the strictest sense. Moreover, they are not universal since items 1, 3, 8, 9, and 11 depend on the State of residence; items 2, 5 and 7 are irrelevant because those persons don't care about American law; Item 4, and a group you missed, persons in prison don't have access because they are under restraint; In ALL but the restraint situations people can and will ignore the law and act on their own to possess a weapon.

I've already stated categorically, I would not obey any prohibition on my right to bear arms should I ever chose to exercise it. :shrug:

 

[mmi]

I'm sure that's what people who thought that their government was trustworthy said to doubters in every society throughout history, until the day their government confiscated their weapons.

I still don't see what it is you would do with yer unregistered guns?

>>read the constitution very carefully. Voting is not an inherent right. It is a "social right." That is exactly why you must register.

I don't agree. First, what's a "social right"? Secondly, as I said, I recognize there is not explicit right to vote. But I don't think it's credible to say that that is the reason it can be restricted. It's so strongly inferred as to be explicit.

>>15th Amendment (1870: Race); 19th Amendment (1920: Sex); 24th Amendment (1964: Tax)

So if you can't be denied the right to vote based on race, gender, or wealth, then how can there not be a right to vote?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged​

I figure you'll say it's a "social right," not a constitutional one. Feels like thin ice t' me.

>>They are not, because they are infringements prohibited in the strictest sense.

I don't understand. How does that make them constitutional?

>>they are not universal since items 1, 3, 8, 9, and 11 depend on the State of residence

So? Why doesn't the Second Amendment prohibit them? Ahh, because it's Congress that can't infringe. Is that right? I don't see that mentioned in the text. Just "shall not be infringed."

>>2, 5 and 7 are irrelevant because those persons don't care about American law

How do you assess whether or not someone "cares about American law"? Is that a requirement to possess a firearm?

>>In ALL but the restraint situations people can and will ignore the law and act on their own to possess a weapon.

I don't see the relevance. My point is that they're not legally entitled to possess one. Their right has been infringed.

>>should I ever chose to exercise it.

Allow me to say that I'm happy to hear that you don't own a gun. I think yer better off without one, and I take it as a good sign that you feel you don't need/want one.

People like Turtledude say I don't want people to have guns. That's true. But I won't say they can't have them.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I don't agree. First, what's a "social right"? Secondly, as I said, I recognize there is not explicit right to vote. But I don't think it's credible to say that that is the reason it can be restricted. It's so strongly inferred as to be explicit.

I apologize, I misspoke. Substitute "Legal" or "Societal" right" for "Social." These are the rights granted to citizens under the social compact they agree to live together under. That's why the Constitution has had to be amended in regards to "voting rights" so many times in order to remove certain restrictions that had been previously socially acceptable.

This differs from "inherent/natural" rights, which exist for each individual in a state of nature. Such is the right to self-defense, which includes using ones brain to develop/obtain, possess, and maintain weapons to aid in that right of self-defense.

I don't understand. How does that make them constitutional?

I guess I wasn't clear enough....they are NOT Constitutional in the strictest sense because they are infringements which are prohibited by..."shall not be infringed."

People aren't very concerned about your examples because they target the marginalized in our society, and most people never think they will ever fall into any of those categories right up until they do. Had you ever followed any of my comments in various law threads, you would know that I believe people who have been convicted of a crime and have done the time should return to society whole and without any restrictions on their rights.

I also believe that all individuals have the right to self-defense, and thus the right to bear arms. That like any other right the individual is personally accountable for how she or he exercises it.

Allow me to say that I'm happy to hear that you don't own a gun. I think yer better off without one, and I take it as a good sign that you feel you don't need/want one.

People like Turtledude say I don't want people to have guns. That's true. But I won't say they can't have them.

I don't feel the need for several reasons, but I need not go into that. Suffice it to say I do not fear an armed society, I welcome it for the same reasons espoused by several of our founding fathers. That it is the primary barrier to government tyranny.

In response to naysayers who cry it would not stop our army? There may be up to 2 million personnel on active duty at any time in the USA. Still, there are over 20 million veterans, including myself, in that mass of citizens you deride as incapable of facing our armed forces. That does not include Law Enforcement personnel, and the many millions of citizens who are armed to the teeth. Just what do you think it would take?

 

[mmi]

These are the rights granted to citizens under the social compact they agree to live together under. … This differs from "inherent/natural" rights, which exist for each individual in a state of nature. Such is the right to self-defense

Well, my view, and you may agree, is that as citizens of our constitutional republic we accept limitations on the liberties we enjoyed in the state of nature in order to benefit both ourselves and our neighbours. Yes, people have a right to defend themselves, but they are restricted in the methods they're allowed to employ. Restricted in the sense that they will be subject to significant punishment if they violate the relevant standards. I can't shoot someone unless I reasonably feel that I'm (or someone else is) seriously threatened. I accept that limitation because it protects me and others from being subject to an unwarranted attack. I'd say so-called "common sense" gun control legislation follows appropriately from that established set of norms.

>>they are NOT Constitutional in the strictest sense because they are infringements which are prohibited by..."shall not be infringed."

Sorry, but I'm still not getting it. How are those restrictions allowed if they are not constitutional? My understanding is that federal law (Gun Control Act of 1968) prohibits an individual who has been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces (I picked this one cuz you didn't comment on it previously) from possessing a firearm (unless his or her right is restored). How can such a person be deprived of the "natural law" right to self-defence? It seems to me that is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, one that has been enacted to protect public safety.

>>People aren't very concerned about your examples because they target the marginalized in our society, and most people never think they will ever fall into any of those categories right up until they do.

I agree, and fwiw, I'm one of those "bleeding heart" libruls who believes that people can be rehabilitated and that we shouldn't, as you say, dismissively marginalize those convicted of a serious crime for the rest of their lives. But again, if NO infringements can be constitutional, what's going on there?

>>Had you ever followed any of my comments in various law threads, you would know that I believe people who have been convicted of a crime and have done the time should return to society whole and without any restrictions on their rights.

I'd say that speaks to yer having an understanding of the way life really is, of the way people should treat each other. Ya know, all that Christian stuff. (I'm biting my partisan/ideological tongue here.)

>>I also believe that all individuals have the right to self-defense, and thus the right to bear arms. That like any other right the individual is personally accountable for how she or he exercises it.

Again, I agree. But isn't that right to bear arms already restricted in some ways that have been held to be constitutional? Again, protecting public safety? I will agree that such restrictions should be held to a minimum. But I'm simply looking for you (and maybe even my friend Turtledude) to agree that the right to bear arms HAS been infringed. And so we should discuss whether a legislative or regulatory proposal fits into this balance, and not reject something like registration as necessarily being unconstitutional by definition. The question should be whether or not it does enough to protect public safety to justify the surrendering of some aspect of a "natural right" in furtherance of the social contract.

>>I do not fear an armed society

As I always say, I don't have any fears in this area. I want public safety.

>>the primary barrier to government tyranny. … over 20 million veterans … you deride as incapable of facing our armed forces. … Law Enforcement personnel … millions of citizens armed to the teeth. Just what do you think it would take?

I've addressed this issue before here (and nowhere else cuz I've never considered it). I have to say I just think the whole idea is nuts. I find it difficult to believe that you think there's ANY possibility that such a conflict could occur.

My first thought is that if there were some sort of military takeover of the federal government, it would necessarily come from the Right. I figure the people yer talking about would be on the government's side. But no, I can't conceive of even that. And yes, should it occur, I do not think homeowners equipped with small arms could successfully resist an attack by the forces our military can deploy. I figure that wasn't the case up until maybe the middle of the last century.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people just can't stop getting in the way of progress.

Is it really progress to get rid of ones right to defend oneself from anyone that threatens them? I don't think so. Look to history for evidence of that.

OK, we'll impose a $10K tax on all unregistered firearms. I figure Turtledude would cough it up, not without strenuous objection of course. But the vast majority of folks would comply. Or else get a nasty letter from the IRS.

And we could withhold all federal aid from states that fail to cooperate in our firearm registration scheme.

Such a "tax" would be thrown out on its face even by SCOTUS as it is designed to keep people from exercising a Right. But lets say that this did happen and SCOTUS allowed it. What is to then stop them from demanding a $50,000 tax on all abortion procedures? On all speeches and on every news paper bought? Remember, the Revolutionary War was started because of taxation and them not being represented in British government. How long before the people revolted because of this?

Rights have limits.

Those limits are only where those Rights interfere with other peoples Rights. And we already have laws in place that "protect" peoples right to life. Its called laws against murder.

 

[DDD]

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

Do not trust the government then. Trust the latest technology. It is all transparent. Both the average American Joe or Yaran of Pie can see their brain scans and see whether they are fit to carry one as civilians.

 

[DDD]

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

No they can only help us identify psychopaths, sociopaths, impulsive murderers, paranoid-schizophrenics, and even people with autism (if need be). Then it is a policy issue whether to make it so easy on these people to get to guns knowing ahead at the probability that they may commit mass murders.

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.

The $$ is Hillary's and her economic henchmen's problem. The information of one's brain scan could be kept confidential.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The information of one's brain scan could be kept confidential.

Not exactly being kept confidential each and every time a person is checked via a database to see if they have a mental problem huh?

 

[Kal'Stang]

no but we do need better gun laws definite background check needed on al buyers of guns ...I live in ca. 10 day wait and background check.. + short course for handgun .. I am more scared of the police than a citizen with a gun lol....but now I think we need a medical database for certain types of mental illness and suicide attempts to be put in by qualified doctors in a special database..if your name is on it no gun!!!! get the report and have it cleared by a doctor and a judge.. then pick up your gun...I have a colt ar15 2 savage rifles and moss 12 gauge ...you cannot stop all crime and mass murders but you can save a few lives and that is worth it...but I don't appreciate that I cant buy me a m50 in ca View attachment 67191215

Don't know if you know this but a Federal judge struck down California's 10-day waiting period in some cases. Specifically it no longer applies to those that have already proven that they are allowed to own a gun in California.

Federal judge strikes down California gun purchase waiting period in some cases

 

[Kal'Stang]

look at the restriction on cars trucks big rigs and aircraft

No one has to register any of those things unless they plan to use them in public airspace or public roads. Sit any of those on your lawn and they don't have to be registered.

 

[DDD]

Not exactly being kept confidential each and every time a person is checked via a database to see if they have a mental problem huh?

I thought the position is the data should be kept confidential from the rest of USA's population. Of course the government will know that, much like they know things about you through the already established background checks system that is in place today.