Registered gun owners are NOT the ones causing all the violence.

Quote from: CG6468 on July 28, 2014, 04:40:43 PM
Registered gun owners are NOT the ones causing all the violence.

IF your a lib you are.       Let me set you straight young man, law abiding gun owners are not causing all the violence. 

Quote from: taxed on July 28, 2014, 03:05:42 PM
It is a burden, because the government shouldn't be a barrier between a person and his or her firearms.  Seems simple to me.

By that logic, voter ID laws are a bad thing because a government shouldn't be a barrier between a person and his or her right to vote.  Ditto with airplane security checks and proofs of residency.  Why do you wish to background check people who want to put money into a bank?  You don't want to get between a person and his or her money, do you?  You aren't a socialist, are you?   

"Reasonable security precautions" =/= "barrier".

Quote
Well, they do kill a lot more people.

Oh, so it's a numbers game now?  If motor vehicles only killed a few hundred people a year, suddenly you'd be marching in the streets to remove the driver's license requirement?

You're petty fogging the issue; we have background checks for any variety of actions and purchases, yet nobody complains that the right to make those actions or purchases is being infringed upon, so long as the checks are reasonable and rational (and a background check for owning a firearm is pretty common sense to me).

Quote
Also, I can't find anything in the Second Amendment regarding drivers license.  Were you just being academic again?

Nice stalling tactic - you do realize that isn't the only analogy I could use, right?  The 1st amendment guarantees free speech, yet you have to obtain a license to protest in certain situations where you might cause a public disturbance.  Why are you not up in arms about this big government regulation?  How about the need for people to register to vote and go through all sorts of background checks; does this not infringe on the 15th and 19th amendments?

Quote
Why should it matter if they have them or not?  The Second Amendment is pretty clear about this right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.   Is it too complicated for you?

No other constitutional right is absolute; even the 13th can be violated when a wartime draft is necessary.  Why is the 2nd uniquely sacrosanct to fanatical conservatives?  Do you also protest libel and slander laws in the name of the 1st?

Quote
Huh?

Simpler words might help you: there are regulations for everything.  If these regulations are unreasonable, then they shouldn't be in place.  But they are not automatically wrong on principle.  Even the most fundamental liberties (freedom of speech, freedom from slavery) are not sacrosanct; why the fuck is the right to bear arms special?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Why do [some] conservatives continue to insist that the 2nd amendment forbids any gun control legislation, even those as simplistic and precedented as background checks?

To be blunt here, none of our amendment rights are absolute.  Your freedom of speech does not extend to libel or slander.  Your freedom of religion stops where your religion conflicts with the law.  Not even the 13 amendment is absolute.  In all these instances, exceptions are made when your freedoms are outweighed by those of others, or the general welfare of society.

So yes, you have the right to own a gun.  This does not mean that the government enact absolutely no regulations to qualify such a right; you know, such as how we already do not let minors own firearms.  NRA logic would not be taken seriously were it by a guy who falsely yelled fire in a crowded theater, or who made death threats.  No other right is unqualified, so exactly why do you think bearing arms should be exceptional?  Are you that enamored with hunting?  Do you honestly believe that an armed populace would stand a chance against a modern military force?

As a result, what both sides of the debate should be doing is answering the question: will a gun law cause more harm than good?  Look at the empirical data and studies.  If a regulation will save lives and improve the net state of society, it should be enacted regardless of the 2nd amendment.  If a regulation will not save lives, then it should not be enacted.  Why do certain activists believe that the 2nd amendment is actually more sacrosanct than the 1st, or 13th?

Where to start....

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Your freedom of speech does not extend to libel or slander.

That is because libel and slander violate state tort laws. It is a civil case and they can't make you register your mouth, take it away, confiscate your tongue until the background check comes back or even control what you say in the future. All they can do is make you pay for damages you caused. DAMAGES being the key - your rights stop where you cause damage to another or their rights.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Your freedom of religion stops where your religion conflicts with the law.

No it doesn't. Laws must abide with the constitution (or they are unconstitutional). Your freedom of religion stops where you cause damage to another or their rights.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Do you honestly believe that an armed populace would stand a chance against a modern military force?

Yes, if they are dedicated enough. I spent years of my life fighting men in Afghanistan and Iraq armed mostly with rifles and improvised explosives. The Vietnam vets fought guys with rifles, wearing sandals that subsisted on a hand full of rice a day that used sharpened bamboo as a weapons.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
If a regulation will save lives and improve the net state of society, it should be enacted regardless of the 2nd amendment

Because that regulation would violate the constitution. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

That's clear as a bell. Make no mistake, the 1st and 2nd amendments are where I personally draw a line (read that as, you will have to take my guns by force and shut me up physically - and I don't care what those 9 bath robe wearing ambulance chasers think)

If you want to change the constitution make an amendment and change it (an effort I will resist) - otherwise come and get it.

Oh, damn.  I didn't know my little pet replied before he ran away.  I miss you boy!  Please come back!

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 08:02:47 PM
By that logic, voter ID laws are a bad thing because a government shouldn't be a barrier between a person and his or her right to vote.

You have to be a US citizen to vote.  As usual, you're ass-backwards.

Quote
  Ditto with airplane security checks and proofs of residency.

No, it isn't the same thing.  The Second Amendment is pretty clear.  You are like a straw man factory.

Quote
Why do you wish to background check people who want to put money into a bank?

I don't.

Quote
  You don't want to get between a person and his or her money, do you?  You aren't a socialist, are you?   

No.  Only stupid people are socialists.

Quote
"Reasonable security precautions" =/= "barrier".

Wrong, sweetheart.

Quote
Oh, so it's a numbers game now?

No.

Quote
  If motor vehicles only killed a few hundred people a year, suddenly you'd be marching in the streets to remove the driver's license requirement?

No.

Quote
You're petty fogging the issue;

I'm the one fogging the issue?

Quote
we have background checks for any variety of actions and purchases, yet nobody complains that the right to make those actions or purchases is being infringed upon, so long as the checks are reasonable and rational (and a background check for owning a firearm is pretty common sense to me).

All of your idiotic straw man examples are not in the Bill of Rights.  Fail again.

Quote
Nice stalling tactic - you do realize that isn't the only analogy I could use, right?  The 1st amendment guarantees free speech, yet you have to obtain a license to protest in certain situations where you might cause a public disturbance.

I'm starting to wonder if you've actually read the Bill of Rights (on your own -- not parroted to you by an academic).

Quote
  Why are you not up in arms about this big government regulation?

Um, I am.  I have been for years, all the time you've been hiding in school.

Quote
  How about the need for people to register to vote and go through all sorts of background checks; does this not infringe on the 15th and 19th amendments?

No, dummy.  I want to purify the voting process.

Quote
No other constitutional right is absolute; even the 13th can be violated when a wartime draft is necessary.  Why is the 2nd uniquely sacrosanct to fanatical conservatives?  Do you also protest libel and slander laws in the name of the 1st?

Yes, they are absolute.

Quote
Simpler words might help you: there are regulations for everything.  If these regulations are unreasonable, then they shouldn't be in place.  But they are not automatically wrong on principle.  Even the most fundamental liberties (freedom of speech, freedom from slavery) are not sacrosanct; why the fuck is the right to bear arms special?

Because it is in the Bill of Rights, which are absolute, and they are to protect us from tyranny of the Federal Government.  The entity we're protected from shouldn't be the entity giving us permission to purchase arms.  Your academically idiotic examples of driving aren't protecting us from the Federal Government and aren't in the Bill of Rights.  I'm sorry, your professor is wrong.

Quote from: taxed on August 05, 2014, 06:24:18 PM
Because it is in the Bill of Rights, which are absolute, and they are to protect us from tyranny of the Federal Government.  The entity we're protected from shouldn't be the entity giving us permission to purchase arms.  Your academically idiotic examples of driving aren't protecting us from the Federal Government and aren't in the Bill of Rights.  I'm sorry, your professor is wrong.

Stop picking on the guys professor; he paid a lot of money and had to kiss a lot of a$$ for that
phd.

                                       

Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 06:43:56 PM


Stop picking on the guys professor; he paid a lot of money and had to kiss a lot of a$$ for that
phd.

Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 06:43:56 PM


Stop picking on the guys professor; he paid a lot of money and had to kiss a lot of a$$ for that
phd.

Quote from: Novanglus on August 04, 2014, 09:53:20 PM
That is because libel and slander violate state tort laws. It is a civil case and they can't make you register your mouth, take it away, confiscate your tongue until the background check comes back or even control what you say in the future. All they can do is make you pay for damages you caused. DAMAGES being the key - your rights stop where you cause damage to another or their rights.

Emphasis mine - thank you, for agreeing with me that the public interest can override your personal freedoms.  Now, explain to me why you didn't just validate my argument.  I don't think you exactly understand it.  It does not say "guns should be outlawed", although you probably read it that way.

Quote
No it doesn't. Laws must abide with the constitution (or they are unconstitutional).

Yes, laws must abide with the constitution - this is a true statement that does absolutely nothing to back up your claim.  A constitutional law does not have to be suspended for a religious practice.  "Freedom of religion" does not mean "religion gets a special exception from the law".

Quote
Yes, if they are dedicated enough. I spent years of my life fighting men in Afghanistan and Iraq armed mostly with rifles and improvised explosives. The Vietnam vets fought guys with rifles, wearing sandals that subsisted on a hand full of rice a day that used sharpened bamboo as a weapons.

Ignoring the fact that both of the enemies you mentioned benefited from foreign military supplies, you did not address the point at all.

Quote
Because that regulation would violate the constitution. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

You conceded that the 1st amendment could be violated to protect people.  Ergo, the question becomes "do gun control laws protect people?", and if the answer is "yes" to any meaningful margin, then those gun control laws can be enacted on both precedence and utilitarian interest.  This has nothing to do with ideology, and I never even suggested any particular gun control laws - it's just an exercise in basic logic.

Quote
That's clear as a bell. Make no mistake, the 1st and 2nd amendments are where I personally draw a line (read that as, you will have to take my guns by force and shut me up physically - and I don't care what those 9 bath robe wearing ambulance chasers think)

No, they aren't, since you admitted that libel and slander laws are good things, and you presumably think that it's good that we don't let people threaten to kill one another.  If the 1st amendment has an asterisk to allow for the public good, then so can the 2nd, in which case the issue switches from an ideological one to an empirical one, and that's the entire point of my argument.

Quote from: taxed on August 05, 2014, 06:24:18 PM
You have to be a US citizen to vote. 

Newsflash: plenty of US citizens don't have voter IDs.  This, as usual, is not a question of ideology as much as it is in elementary logic: "you have to be a US citizen to vote" would only be a suitable counter to "requirements to be a US citizen to vote are wrong", not to "voter ID requirements are wrong".  Otherwise, you would concede that "you need to undergo a background check to get a gun" is valid so long as "you shouldn't own a gun if you're a murderous criminal" is. 

Quote
I don't.

Oh, so I shouldn't have to show ID to create a bank account?

QuoteWrong, sweetheart.

Oooohhh, another emphatic, completely unsubstantiated statement of yours!

Quote
No.

Wow, I'm amazed by your articulation and debating skills, I really am. 

Quote
All of your idiotic straw man examples are not in the Bill of Rights.

Freedom of speech is protected under the 1st amendment, yet it can be violated for the public interest.  Ditto with every other amendment, even the 13th, for fuck's sake.  Explain why the 2nd should have a special exemption from this hat-tip to pragmatism.

QuoteYes, they are absolute.

Reading, taxed.  It's not that hard.  Let me repeat to you the text you just quoted and, you know, are supposed to actually respond to:

"No other constitutional right is absolute; even the 13th can be violated when a wartime draft is necessary.  Why is the 2nd uniquely sacrosanct to fanatical conservatives?  Do you also protest libel and slander laws in the name of the 1st?"

You see?  I made a contention, and then supported it with two specific examples.  Funny that you never bothered to address them.

Quote
Because it is in the Bill of Rights, which are absolute

Oh, so I could threaten to kill my neighbor, and then tell the judge that I was just exercising my 1st amendment right to free speech?   

Newsflash: none of the amendments are absolute, and it's pretty pathetic that you continue to insist that they are after several specific examples to the contrary were provided to you. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 10, 2014, 10:32:00 PM
Emphasis mine - thank you, for agreeing with me that the public interest can override your personal freedoms.  Now, explain to me why you didn't just validate my argument.  I don't think you exactly understand it.  It does not say "guns should be outlawed", although you probably read it that way.

Yes, laws must abide with the constitution - this is a true statement that does absolutely nothing to back up your claim.  A constitutional law does not have to be suspended for a religious practice.  "Freedom of religion" does not mean "religion gets a special exception from the law".

Ignoring the fact that both of the enemies you mentioned benefited from foreign military supplies, you did not address the point at all.

You conceded that the 1st amendment could be violated to protect people.  Ergo, the question becomes "do gun control laws protect people?", and if the answer is "yes" to any meaningful margin, then those gun control laws can be enacted on both precedence and utilitarian interest.  This has nothing to do with ideology, and I never even suggested any particular gun control laws - it's just an exercise in basic logic.

No, they aren't, since you admitted that libel and slander laws are good things, and you presumably think that it's good that we don't let people threaten to kill one another.  If the 1st amendment has an asterisk to allow for the public good, then so can the 2nd, in which case the issue switches from an ideological one to an empirical one, and that's the entire point of my argument.

You misinterpreted what I said worse than you misinterpret the constitution (or your just playing dumb).

It is not ok to put an "asterisk" next to a constitutional amendment for the "public good"; and I never suggested such a thing. The problem with it being that your idea of "public good" is different then mine. One person would want to make burning the US flag illegal and another would want it to be illegal to talk bad about their football team, and both would say it is "public good".

The only way to put an "asterisk" next to a constitutional amendment is the method prescribed in the constitution - another amendment.

You can do and say what you want, and I can do and say what I want - so long as we do not violate someone else's rights.

But liberals say...
"if you purchase a gun without a background check and registration, then you are violating my right to be safe"

No, if I shoot you or threaten to shoot you I violate your rights. To violate someone's rights is a direct action not "possible" yet incredibly improbable 2nd and 3rd order effects.

Otherwise we could make silly arguments like this....
"If you fart, the methane gas will disperse in the atmosphere and I might breath it in; so you are violating my right to breath - so you should have to register your a$$" 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 10, 2014, 10:32:00 PM
Ignoring the fact that both of the enemies you mentioned benefited from foreign military supplies, you did not address the point at all.

I almost forgot this one, sorry.

Yes, guys with guns can effectively fight a modern military. That's not theory, I've seen it. It does not even take that many people to form an effective resistance. No, they don't need helicopters or even heavy machine guns.

Yes Iraqi insurgents and Taliban A-holes got the occasional RPG or mortar from foreign sources (and so would any U.S. civilian resistance if the time comes, trust me - the enemy of my enemy is my friend). But for the most part they fought with rifles and IEDs. The vast majority of IEDs we encounter are made from junk - 9V batteries, Christmas lights, wire from a lamp cord, soda cans (for metal contacts), scrap wood, an old spring from a vehicle to give the pressure plate resistance, the remote control from a toy car or a garage door opener can be a remote detonator ....ect...

Quote from: Novanglus on August 10, 2014, 11:26:51 PM
It is not ok to put an "asterisk" next to a constitutional amendment for the "public good"; and I never suggested such a thing. The problem with it being that your idea of "public good" is different then mine. One person would want to make burning the US flag illegal and another would want it to be illegal to talk bad about their football team, and both would say it is "public good".

As burning the US flag and trashing a football team are victimless crimes, your analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with my own, ie, libel and slander laws, the war draft, and laws against harassment and threats, all of which technically violate your constitutional rights.

Quote
The only way to put an "asterisk" next to a constitutional amendment is the method prescribed in the constitution - another amendment.

Or the Courts' concessions to pragmatism.  Nowhere in the amendments is there room for libel or slander laws, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights are the restrictions extended to the state governments.  Sane minds realized that these were all necessary, and you don't have a problem with any of them.

Quote
You can do and say what you want, and I can do and say what I want - so long as we do not violate someone else's rights.

But liberals say...
"if you purchase a gun without a background check and registration, then you are violating my right to be safe"

No, if I shoot you or threaten to shoot you I violate your rights. To violate someone's rights is a direct action not "possible" yet incredibly improbable 2nd and 3rd order effects.

By this logic, it should be OK for me to drive intoxicated without a license, so long as I don't actually run you over.   

Quote
Otherwise we could make silly arguments like this....
"If you fart, the methane gas will disperse in the atmosphere and I might breath it in; so you are violating my right to breath - so you should have to register your a$$" 

I wasn't aware that inhaling diluted methane was somehow analogous to firearm possession in any sort of realistic danger assessment.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 10, 2014, 10:42:50 PM
Newsflash: plenty of US citizens don't have voter IDs.

One should be able to prove they are an American citizen.  Everyone has an ID.

Quote
  This, as usual, is not a question of ideology as much as it is in elementary logic:

You continue to reference logic, something you have no knowledge or experience with.  I, and many of us here, have used logic in the real world.  You haven't.  It's adorable, but you need to know your place, intellectually.  The real world isn't a college class where you fail all the way up to tenure.

Quote
"you have to be a US citizen to vote" would only be a suitable counter to "requirements to be a US citizen to vote are wrong", not to "voter ID requirements are wrong".  Otherwise, you would concede that "you need to undergo a background check to get a gun" is valid so long as "you shouldn't own a gun if you're a murderous criminal" is.

No, sweetie.  You need to be an American citizen to vote, of a particular age.  You prove this by ID.  It's pretty simple.  Those of us who are logical understand to satisfy the voting requirements, one must produce an ID.

Quote
Oh, so I shouldn't have to show ID to create a bank account?

It should be up to the bank.

Quote
Oooohhh, another emphatic, completely unsubstantiated statement of yours!

Wow, I'm amazed by your articulation and debating skills, I really am. 

Freedom of speech is protected under the 1st amendment, yet it can be violated for the public interest.

Example?

QuoteDitto with every other amendment, even the 13th, for fuck's sake.  Explain why the 2nd should have a special exemption from this hat-tip to pragmatism.

Because a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Quote
Reading, taxed.  It's not that hard.  Let me repeat to you the text you just quoted and, you know, are supposed to actually respond to:

"No other constitutional right is absolute; even the 13th can be violated when a wartime draft is necessary.  Why is the 2nd uniquely sacrosanct to fanatical conservatives?  Do you also protest libel and slander laws in the name of the 1st?"

You see?  I made a contention, and then supported it with two specific examples.  Funny that you never bothered to address them.

You didn't make a contention.  For example, you don't understand the Bill of Rights protects us from the government.  You are so uneducated about the Constitution that it is hard to have a serious discussion with you about it.  Libel and slander, for example, are handled in civil court.  How do you not know this?

Quote
Oh, so I could threaten to kill my neighbor, and then tell the judge that I was just exercising my 1st amendment right to free speech?   

No.  It is against the law.

Quote
Newsflash: none of the amendments are absolute, and it's pretty pathetic that you continue to insist that they are after several specific examples to the contrary were provided to you.

You really need to understand what the Constitution is.  You have absolutely no clue.  It's adorable, don't get me wrong.

Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 01:17:59 PM
One should be able to prove they are an American citizen. 

And using the equivalent logic, one should be able to prove reliability and good faith with a background check.

Quote
You continue to reference logic, something you have no knowledge or experience with.  I, and many of us here, have used logic in the real world.  You haven't.  It's adorable, but you need to know your place, intellectually.  The real world isn't a college class where you fail all the way up to tenure.

Then perhaps you should be familiar with the "ad hominem", and how you are committing one here, since you eagerly tried to psychoanalyze me through your computer screen instead of, you know, trying to understand the point.   

Quote
No, sweetie.  You need to be an American citizen to vote, of a particular age.  You prove this by ID. 

Obviously my argument from analogy was a little complicated for you.  Yes, and the entire point is, so long as you accept the premise "you need to not be dangerous to own a gun", both on common sense and the fact that a "well regulated militia" is not comprised of criminals, the exact same logic leads to the necessity of background checks.  You know, the same background checks we have for everything else of relevance.

Quote
It should be up to the bank.

Shouldn't banks be forced to require you verify your identity before you withdraw money from an account?  Since you seem to think the right to do X means the right to do X without any sort of prerequisite paperwork or precautions whatsoever.

Quote
Example?

You can't threaten my life, and you can't harass me.  You can't even protest in certain areas at certain locations.  Why is the 2nd amendment special, out of our entire Constitution?

Quote
Because a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And it's not exactly rocket science to figure out how background checks might be conducive to a "well regulated" militia.

Quote
You didn't make a contention.  For example, you don't understand the Bill of Rights protects us from the government.

And the Supreme Court, along with all sane persons, have realized that rights are flexible, because we live in a world a little more complicated than what you're imagining.  That's why you can't threaten someone's life and then hide behind the 1st.

Quote
You are so uneducated about the Constitution that it is hard to have a serious discussion with you about it.  Libel and slander, for example, are handled in civil court.  How do you not know this?

You are a terrible bluffer.  To pretend you're an expert on the Constitution, please actually read it first.  "Congress shall make no law..." where does it exclude the application of the 1st to the criminal courts?  The restriction applies across any legislation made by Congress, a restriction later incorporated to the states and other governments by the Supreme Court.  Funny that the Supreme Court has on multiple times considered the constitutionality of libel laws, when by your brain damaged reading of the 1st amendment, it's not even an issue.

So, your google-warrior bluffing aside, we're back to square one: the 1st amendment can be qualified with prudence.  Explain why the 2nd is uniquely sacrosanct.