Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4751  
Old 06-15-2016, 07:38 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
... rights cannot be taken away based merely on accusations....
How is that visual rectal-self-examination proceeding for you today? Just a few post above, the Bundy group was alluded to. They are in jail on suspicion of fowl deeds. Ryan himself claims that his Constitutional rights are being ruthlessly trod upon. He cannot gad about, he cannot carry a firearm, his speech, association and holy-mormon-underwear rights are withheld from him, yet he has not been convicted of anything. Yet. He is but a suspect.

This sort of thing happens, I would guess, on the order of hundreds or thousands of times a day. People are suspected of stuff and they get hauled in and manhandled by the police and the jail system. Some of them are released or acquitted, making them not miscreants or felons. Few are compensated for the abridgment of their rights, AFAICT.
  #4752  
Old 06-15-2016, 07:49 PM
Biffy the Elephant Shrew is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Over on the left
Posts: 13,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Just a few post above, the Bundy group was alluded to. They are in jail on suspicion of fowl deeds.
Well, they chose the right place for such deeds.
  #4753  
Old 06-15-2016, 08:31 PM
Clothahump is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Slippery Slope is one of the classic logical fallacies. It's meaningless because it gets used as an excuse for not addressing the underlying problem.
Which brings us to the question: what is the underlying problem? It's not guns. It never has been and never will be. The underlying problem is the degeneration of our society over the last 50-60 years to where generations of children have been, and are being, raised with absolutely no respect for others, nor any concept of the sanctity of human life. You fix *that* problem and we won't have people grabbing for a gun the first time they think someone has dissed them or some other moronic stupidity.

And let's forget the accomplice to the problem: a news media that trumpets these kinds of incidents to the high heavens, thereby giving the moronic pinhead killers a claim to fame. But what the hell, if it bleeds, it leads, right?
Quote:
Your claim is doubly fallacious because it depends on a false statement, that the enactment of a law does not constitute due process.
Really? What's false about it?

Let's say that the Congress, for whatever reason, passes a law next week that all people named Elvis are unilaterally denied the right to vote or own property of any kind. In addition, they have to register as dangerous people. How would you feel about that, ElvisL1ves? Would you be satisfied that you had received due process simply because a law was passed?

Let's look at the definition:
Quote:
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.
In my scenario, yes - a law was passed. However, due process was not followed because the law passed violates the Constitution. Therefore, you did NOT receive due process.
  #4754  
Old 06-15-2016, 08:34 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
Which brings us to the question: what is the underlying problem? It's not guns. It never has been and never will be. The underlying problem is the degeneration of our society over the last 50-60 years to where generations of children have been, and are being, raised with absolutely no respect for others, nor any concept of the sanctity of human life.
We live in the least violent period of human history, the lowest rates of violent crime in our nation's history (with the possible exception of the 1950s, which statistics are confounded by the extreme underreporting of crimes against women, children, and minorities). Our period of history shows the greatest respect--so far--for the dignity of the individual.

You're wrong as hell on this one.
  #4755  
Old 06-15-2016, 08:48 PM
Punoqllads is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Silly Cone Valley, CA
Posts: 3,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
This sort of thing happens, I would guess, on the order of hundreds or thousands of times a day. People are suspected of stuff and they get hauled in and manhandled by the police and the jail system. Some of them are released or acquitted, making them not miscreants or felons. Few are compensated for the abridgment of their rights, AFAICT.
The difference is transparency and judicial review. A judge or a grand jury have to agree that there's sufficient evidence to try you. A judge gets to decide what sort of bail you can pay to get out of jail. You can look over the evidence against you with a lawyer at your side.

But get on a watch list? How did you get on it? Sorry, national security. What if you shouldn't be on the list, how do you get off of it? We're the Federal Government, we don't make mistakes.
  #4756  
Old 06-16-2016, 12:58 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
Which brings us to the question: what is the underlying problem? It's not guns. It never has been and never will be. The underlying problem is the degeneration of our society over the last 50-60 years to where generations of children have been, and are being, raised with absolutely no respect for others, nor any concept of the sanctity of human life.
You are two-thirds of the way to being half-right. Yes, there is an underlying problem which is not guns, but it is also not a problem, it is a host of intertwined issues that require a great deal more effort than "we got to raise our kids rite!"

I see socioeconomic factors as a big slice of what needs to be addressed. We have a financial sector run by foaming, shortsighted sociopaths putting stupid pressure on the middle and lower classes for the sake of increasing their power stake in the system. We have a society that is being riven with strife as everyone seems to feel the need to compete with each other to get ahead. We have a perverse fixation with technology, a hope that it can solve out problems, as it slowly disconnects us from nature, from balance, from reason and from each other.

And some other stuff.

Guns are not the source or cause of the problem. But neither are they helping.
  #4757  
Old 06-16-2016, 02:02 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
Stupidl liberal idea of the day: an entire movement flip-flopping en masse on the value of the terrorist watch list.
  #4758  
Old 06-16-2016, 02:51 AM
Punoqllads is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Silly Cone Valley, CA
Posts: 3,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Stupidl liberal idea of the day: an entire movement flip-flopping en masse on the value of the terrorist watch list.
Ironically, also a stupid conservative idea of the day.
  #4759  
Old 06-16-2016, 03:01 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
Not at all, since conservatives support the list but have no advocated for any punishment for people on the list. That's your side doing that. With no due process.
  #4760  
Old 06-16-2016, 05:55 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Not at all, since conservatives support the list but have no advocated for any punishment for people on the list. That's your side doing that. With no due process.
Being on the list is a punishment in itself. Because you can't fly. It's in the name.
  #4761  
Old 06-16-2016, 05:56 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
Flying isn't a right. Owning a gun is.
  #4762  
Old 06-16-2016, 06:24 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,083
It's still a punishment, Mr Mover of Goalposts.
  #4763  
Old 06-16-2016, 06:26 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
Well, we're going to use the list now to take away voting rights, since apparently this is now allowed. You don't support suspected terrorists voting, do you?
  #4764  
Old 06-16-2016, 06:35 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
Come to think of it, they should also be denied ACA subsidies and/or Medicaid.
  #4765  
Old 06-16-2016, 06:48 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I didn't say that. I said that using the rhetoric of a moral crusade to pass a small, incremental bill, is just playing politics. All I said is that the gun control debate is nothing more than a politics debate, it is not designed to change things all that much. Just make them a little better on the margins.

I'm not absolutist on guns. As long as law abiding people have access to a gun I'm cool. If you want to limit number of guns or magazine sizes or ban AR-15s, that's cool with me. I just don't expect it to accomplish much.
I'm in agreement that wholesale change is what is required to have a true impact, but with our system of checks and balances, incremental is often the best we can do. The alternative is to do nothing, which is unacceptable. Ultimately, the most practical aim for gun rights is to come up with a few incremental changes that can provide bang for the buck.

What's particularly frustrating about the gun lobby isn't that they are asserting the right to keep and bear arms -- I would expect them to exercise their right of speech to protect that right. But it's the notion that any proposal is an attempt to repeal gun rights.

In the long run, their stubbornness is going to cost them. Different generations have different attitudes about guns, and with increased urbanization, I suspect that future generations will have less room for NRA propaganda in the wake of senseless tragedies. The gun rights lobbyists risk skipping opportunities for mutually-agreed up changes that accommodate both parties and dealing with the consequences of future legislation based on emotional outrage.
  #4766  
Old 06-16-2016, 07:09 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Come to think of it, they should also be denied ACA subsidies and/or Medicaid.
Those have nothing to do with public safety. Guns and airplanes do.

Not that I necessarily support the no fly list, but that's the justification, not punishment.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #4767  
Old 06-16-2016, 07:10 AM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
In the long run, their stubbornness is going to cost them. Different generations have different attitudes about guns, and with increased urbanization, I suspect that future generations will have less room for NRA propaganda in the wake of senseless tragedies. The gun rights lobbyists risk skipping opportunities for mutually-agreed up changes that accommodate both parties and dealing with the consequences of future legislation based on emotional outrage.
Through refusal of responsibility (a recent development btw), they have already gone far to establishing themselves as the enemy who must be opposed. Continuing recalcitrance, and ideological insistence that their own reading of the Second is absolute and all else must give way to it, could cost them everything they claim to be a natural right.
  #4768  
Old 06-16-2016, 08:13 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Those have nothing to do with public safety. Guns and airplanes do.

Not that I necessarily support the no fly list, but that's the justification, not punishment.
Fine. Bank accounts and travel of suspected terrorists should be closely monitored then. Library records too. Internet tracking and wiretaps can't hurt either.

Last edited by adaher; 06-16-2016 at 08:14 AM.
  #4769  
Old 06-16-2016, 08:51 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,060
Gretchen Carlson calls for reinstating the assault weapons ban. That makes her a stupid liberal. Right?
  #4770  
Old 06-16-2016, 10:26 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,666
Race activist disrupts vigil for Orlando victims.

“I was really nervous to get up here because there’s a lot of white people in the crowd, and that wasn’t a joke".

What a genius.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattves...vigil-n2178917
  #4771  
Old 06-16-2016, 11:02 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Race activist disrupts vigil for Orlando victims.

“I was really nervous to get up here because there’s a lot of white people in the crowd, and that wasn’t a joke".

What a genius.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattves...vigil-n2178917
I was all set to agree with this but...

"Disrupts"? She was standing on stage addressing the crowd. Not only did you cite a sneering, dismissive piece, you just had to skew it further. So while it's entirely possible that woman is a flake, you've managed to obscure her idiocy with your own.

Here's a more objective article. She still comes across as a flake, but without all the OMG RACE ACTIVIST bullshit.

Weak sauce.
  #4772  
Old 06-16-2016, 11:07 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Fine. Bank accounts and travel of suspected terrorists should be closely monitored then. Library records too. Internet tracking and wiretaps can't hurt either.
Don't even allow them to open bank accounts, or to use libraries. Wiretap their phones, put trojans on their computers to send every keystroke to the NSA. Don't allow them to fly, or drive a car. Or use public transport. But whatever you do, you mustn't take away their God-given right to carry a GUN.
  #4773  
Old 06-16-2016, 11:16 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,440
"Race Activist". Now there's a term that's just screaming out for an acronym. Like S.J.W., or L.S.M., or Hussein.
  #4774  
Old 06-16-2016, 11:26 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Don't even allow them to open bank accounts, or to use libraries. Wiretap their phones, put trojans on their computers to send every keystroke to the NSA. Don't allow them to fly, or drive a car. Or use public transport. But whatever you do, you mustn't take away their God-given right to carry a GUN.
Exactly. I'm not a fan of the "No-Fly List" (its members can be added far too arbitrarily) but if the government feels that the people on this list are so dangerous we can't trust them with an economy-class plane ticket and a spork to eat their chicken-in-red-sauce with, then I don't understand why it's perfectly fine to them to walk into Walmart and buy a gun. Either they're dangerous or they're not.
  #4775  
Old 06-16-2016, 11:38 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Exactly. I'm not a fan of the "No-Fly List" (its members can be added far too arbitrarily) but if the government feels that the people on this list are so dangerous we can't trust them with an economy-class plane ticket and a spork to eat their chicken-in-red-sauce with, then I don't understand why it's perfectly fine to them to walk into Walmart and buy a gun. Either they're dangerous or they're not.
I imagine the problem of denying someone buying a gun becomes a due process issue due to the 2nd amendment. If the no-fly list required a hearing or trial that would resolve that issue. I think.
  #4776  
Old 06-16-2016, 12:06 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,205
The no-fly list should be subject to challenge by the person in question. But, of course. Seems to be that if someone comes forward to challenge their classification, their value as a covert operative is severely diminished. And, of course, those not guilty of anything or erroneously included simply must have some legal recourse. Très duh, mais non?

But the point of the exercise is not validating such things as a "no-fly" list, but as a challenge. If the NRA won't permit even such persons as are identified as being some sort of risk from purchasing weapons.... well, who, then?
  #4777  
Old 06-16-2016, 12:35 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,708
The obvious solution to the list of potentially dangerous persons is appeal. The list is secret, yes, perhaps justifiably so perhaps not so very much, but then you try to do a proscribed thing and its content becomes ever so slightly less secret: you find out that you are on it.

So once you find that datum out, and the kitten is out of the bag, why should that settle the question? One of your sacred/natural rights is being summarily or arbitrarily being withheld, and you have no recourse?

In a truly free and fair society, there would be a route to appeal. In fact, I should think that an advocate for the NSA or DHS should be required to stand before a judge and/or jury and bear the burden of proof that this particular right genuinely ought to be denied to you.

Which does not fix the spying problem, but we have to start somewhere.
  #4778  
Old 06-16-2016, 12:42 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,708
By the way, I am not allowed to fly. Not because I am suspicious or apparently potentially dangerous, but my state has not met the ID standard, and I failed to obtain the enhanced version (missed the deadline that day).
  #4779  
Old 06-16-2016, 02:34 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Exactly. I'm not a fan of the "No-Fly List" (its members can be added far too arbitrarily) but if the government feels that the people on this list are so dangerous we can't trust them with an economy-class plane ticket and a spork to eat their chicken-in-red-sauce with, then I don't understand why it's perfectly fine to them to walk into Walmart and buy a gun. Either they're dangerous or they're not.
El Rushbo this morning says it's because of the Obama administration coddling Muslim extremists.

Nothing to do with NRA-backed Republican opposition to tightening background check legislation, naturally. Nope, it's entirely Barack Hussein Obama being too huggy with the evil Mooslims who want us all dead.
  #4780  
Old 06-16-2016, 11:26 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
CBS News thinks it's a travesty that their law abiding correspondent was able to buy a gun after passing a background check:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-...n-many-states/

And then liberals wonder why conservatives accuse them of wanting to take away our guns.
  #4781  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:10 AM
mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
CBS News thinks it's a travesty that their law abiding correspondent was able to buy a gun after passing a background check:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-...n-many-states/

And then liberals wonder why conservatives accuse them of wanting to take away our guns.
Could you point out the specific part of the story where the CBS journalist makes the "travesty" claim, or where he editorializes in favor of tighter gun controls?

As far as i can tell, that was a fairly straightforward story about the current level of identification and background checks required to purchase an AR-15 rifle. They interviewed a guy who supports tighter restrictions, and they interviewed a guy who wants fewer restrictions. They showed footage from previous incidents, and from a protest outside the NRA headquarters.

Also, even if one were to concede that the general tone of the story seemed to come down a little bit on the side of more rigorous background checks and longer waiting periods, your point is still stupid. The fact that someone wants a more rigorous set of background checks and a lengthier waiting period before purchasing certain types of weapons does not mean that person is coming to take away your guns.
  #4782  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:13 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
The background check worked. I'm not sure what CBS is taking issue with. If they wanted to find something interesting out, they should have sent a known felon to try to buy the gun.
  #4783  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:16 AM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
CBS News thinks it's a travesty that their law abiding correspondent was able to buy a gun after passing a background check:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-...n-many-states/

And then liberals wonder why conservatives accuse them of wanting to take away our guns.
Actually, I'm wondering where you found "travesty" in that article. Nor could I find "sham" or "mockery."

It seems like a balanced and informative article to me. It tells you how long it takes to buy a gun in different states, and the ID necessary. They quote a law professor who compares buying a gun to buying coffee, which I concede is exaggeration, but they give just as much ink to a gun nut who thinks the answer is to abolish gun-free zones.

So what's your problem with it?
  #4784  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:36 AM
mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
The background check worked. I'm not sure what CBS is taking issue with.
Well, you're the only one who's claiming that they're taking issue with anything. As i said, it seems to be largely an informational piece.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
If they wanted to find something interesting out, they should have sent a known felon to try to buy the gun.
Or maybe they could have sent a guy who committed domestic abuse against his wife, had been investigated twice by the FBI for links to Islamic terrorist groups, and who had been heard (and reported) by co-workers for talking about killing people and making inflammatory statements about the Boston marathon bombers.

He would have got the gun, no problem. In fact, he did, about two weeks ago.
  #4785  
Old 06-17-2016, 03:03 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Well, you're the only one who's claiming that they're taking issue with anything. As i said, it seems to be largely an informational piece.
Or maybe they could have sent a guy who committed domestic abuse against his wife, had been investigated twice by the FBI for links to Islamic terrorist groups, and who had been heard (and reported) by co-workers for talking about killing people and making inflammatory statements about the Boston marathon bombers.

He would have got the gun, no problem. In fact, he did, about two weeks ago.
*Mic drop*

Last edited by Superdude; 06-17-2016 at 03:04 AM.
  #4786  
Old 06-17-2016, 03:25 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
That's because gun ownership is a right, and you can't take away a right without conviction of a crime.
  #4787  
Old 06-17-2016, 03:34 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
That's because gun ownership is a right, and you can't take away a right without conviction of a crime.
It really shouldn't be.
  #4788  
Old 06-17-2016, 03:39 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
Amend the Constitution. And since you're saying self defense isn't a right, that also implies a duty to protect on the part of the government and it's agents. So waiting for backup is no longer going to be an option. Government agents have a duty to save the innocent no matter the risk to their own lives if self defense is not a right.

Of course this also means that government agents themselves are no longer entitled to be armed except for things like SWAT teams. This also means the rich have to give up their armed bodyguards.

Last edited by adaher; 06-17-2016 at 03:40 AM.
  #4789  
Old 06-17-2016, 03:47 AM
mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Amend the Constitution. And since you're saying self defense isn't a right, that also implies a duty to protect on the part of the government and it's agents. So waiting for backup is no longer going to be an option. Government agents have a duty to save the innocent no matter the risk to their own lives if self defense is not a right.

Of course this also means that government agents themselves are no longer entitled to be armed except for things like SWAT teams. This also means the rich have to give up their armed bodyguards.
Look everyone! It's a bunch of straw men standing in the excluded middle!
  #4790  
Old 06-17-2016, 04:13 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Amend the Constitution. And since you're saying self defense isn't a right, that also implies a duty to protect on the part of the government and it's agents. So waiting for backup is no longer going to be an option. Government agents have a duty to save the innocent no matter the risk to their own lives if self defense is not a right.

Of course this also means that government agents themselves are no longer entitled to be armed except for things like SWAT teams. This also means the rich have to give up their armed bodyguards.


Do you have an explicitly enumerated right to own a car that cannot be abridged under any circumstances? And yet, for some reason, I get the feeling you aren't walking everywhere. This post is so drastically removed from what I actually said or could have been interpreted to mean that I honestly don't believe it's worth taking seriously.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-17-2016 at 04:17 AM.
  #4791  
Old 06-17-2016, 04:18 AM
Askthepizzaguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,910
Where's my specifically enumerated right to carry bombs around, or a suicide vest?

I demand this right. It could potentially deter home invaders from messing with me. I also could potentially hunt deer with concealed explosives.
  #4792  
Old 06-17-2016, 04:19 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Look everyone! It's a bunch of straw men standing in the excluded middle!
Something is either a right or it isn't. If I don't have a right of self defense, then the state has a duty to protect. There is a middle ground on gun policy, but on the basic concept of rights, there isn't.
  #4793  
Old 06-17-2016, 04:22 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy View Post
Where's my specifically enumerated right to carry bombs around, or a suicide vest?

I demand this right. It could potentially deter home invaders from messing with me. I also could potentially hunt deer with concealed explosives.
Of course you can limit which guns can be owned. An assault rifle ban is certainly constitutional. You just can't disallow private gun ownership, or make people justify their reasons for owning a gun. You can't ban pepper sprays, or stun guns either.

Well, that's not totally true, you can ban certain classes of devices, but only if equally effective self-defense devices are available. This is actually an issue in Europe, where there is strict gun control AND things like pepper spray are illegal.
  #4794  
Old 06-17-2016, 04:32 AM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Or maybe they could have sent a guy who committed domestic abuse against his wife, had been investigated twice by the FBI for links to Islamic terrorist groups, and who had been heard (and reported) by co-workers for talking about killing people and making inflammatory statements about the Boston marathon bombers.

He would have got the gun, no problem. In fact, he did, about two weeks ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
That's because gun ownership is a right, and you can't take away a right without conviction of a crime.
To pull an adaher -- this is why sane people think people like you don't give a shit when 49 people die at the hands of the freedom loving patriot who got his gun.

Asshole.
  #4795  
Old 06-17-2016, 04:52 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
Did you entirely forget the debate surrounding the Patriot Act? That if you didn't agree with all the liberty-reducing measures in it that you were soft on the terrorists?

I had good reason to write what I did. THe NY Times is acting as if gun sales to private citizens is a bad thing. Then you had the idiot professor saying it was like buying coffee at Starbucks. Strange, I don't recall Starbucks even demanding ID, much less putting you through a background check or making you fill out forms. There's you nominee for dumb liberal of the month right there.

Last edited by adaher; 06-17-2016 at 04:54 AM.
  #4796  
Old 06-17-2016, 06:38 AM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I had good reason to write what I did.
Yes, I know. You don't give two sloppy shits about 49 dead people as long as The Church of the Holy Gun remains sancrosanct. You've made that abundantly clear.
  #4797  
Old 06-17-2016, 06:55 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
Okay, so does that mean you believe that rights should be subordinate to security? You're a big supporter of the Patriot Act, wiretaps without warrants, etc.?
  #4798  
Old 06-17-2016, 07:57 AM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,641
Because that has everything to do with gun control. What subject do you plan to try to switch to next? Ladders or pools, I'm guessing.
  #4799  
Old 06-17-2016, 08:00 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,991
This is flying right over your head because you don't believe gun ownership is a right.
  #4800  
Old 06-17-2016, 08:45 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
This is flying right over your head because you don't believe gun ownership is a right.
I don't believe it is an absolute right. And neither does the Supreme Court.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017