Are you guys serious? Legislation that says you can’t buy more than one handgun every 30 days? That’s what you equate to a threat to your gun collections?
Getting all huffy and grandiose about piddly shit like this is the reason people can’t take you seriously. Citing this as an example of a “threat” reduces you to self-parody.
I just grabbed the low hanging fruit that has been in the media recently.
It is pointless and harassing to the very people who are not causing problems in the first place. You know, the ones who follow the rules?
How about legislation that says you can’t buy more than one book every 30 days?
Any regulation of a moral and Constitutional right makes it no longer a right, and is simply a pretense to establish legal precedent for further denial of that right. No one who has lived through the effects of the “drug war” on the Fourth Amendment, Bush’s incrementalist approach to allowing torture, or the “free speech zone” and FCC encroachment on First Amendment rights can fail to understand this, unless he is being willfully ignorant because he sympathizes with the anti-rights position.
It’s neither pointless, nor harrassing, and acting like this is some grievous assault on your civil rights makes you look ridiculous.
If it’s not their ox being gored, they don’t give a shit.
It does not deprive you of any rights. If you think it does, take it to the supreme Court. This instant leap from zero to a thousand over any tiny piece of trivial, pissant regulation is exactly what I mean by “nuts.”
You ox is being gored? You have a need to buy handguns more often than once a month?
Cool it with the drama that I did not add. I was replying to the great all knowing gonzo who claimed that their are not legislative threats to gun owners out there. There are.
The thought that limiting legitimate purchases will somehow stop some sort of crime is a fucking joke and you know it. Yeah, it’s not that big of a deal, but it is yet another limitation on an affirmed right that YOU nor anyone else would ever allow to be applied to the first amendment.
Maybe I do. Until you can give me a good reason that I shouldn’t be able to, leave me and my purchases alone.
Maybe. Maybe I’m a collector of firearms, who has an opportunity to flesh out my collection, but am prohibited from doing so due to a restrictive law.
Dio would you be ok with a law that restricted you to buying a new book every 30 days? Or a new video game?
Seriously, why would anyone need more than one book per month. It’s not like we are saying you can’t get more, you just have to wait for a while.
You can’t kill people with books.
It’s up to the state to show a compelling public interest in regulating a right (and it’s not like there are no limits at all on speech). If you think the state’s interest is not sufficiently compelling, you are permitted to challenge the law in federal court.
And your defense of every single gun restriction, while claiming to be opposed to gun restrictions, is exactly what I mean by “dishonest, hypocritical, and evasive.”
A *right * means something that can only be revoked as a specific punishment for a specific criminal offense prosecuted according to the due process of law, and is presumed available to all adults in a state otherwise. If you believe that something can be regulated whenever it would accomplish some end to do so, or that one has a particular right only until such time as a legislator finds it bothersome, then you do not believe it is a right at all. The fact that you are the most vocal anti-rights poster in this thread means that you don’t understand the concept of rights at all, and that you are not coming to the table in good faith when you try to reset the discussion with “but I don’t support confiscating guns” every time you get backed into a logical corner.
I suppose Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and The Turner Diaries disagree, but that’s neither here nor there. By the very fact that you are making an argument for gun restrictions as opposed to book restrictions, you are arguing against gun ownership and against the concept of gun ownership as a right. This means that your earlier posts where you claim not to be against either of those things are inconsistent and must be explained before we can proceed. You cannot expect us to take you seriously and present a logical response if your position is “I support cake and oppose cake; I believe that you have a right to eat cake and that the government may prevent you from eating cake at any time; I believe that everyone who eats cake is a child rapist and a nut, and I eat cake myself all the time and think there’s nothing wrong with it.” These are literally what you have said about guns, and you’re just presenting an insane mashup of fundamentally contradictory positions, which can mean any number of things, none of them reflecting well on you (trolling, have no idea what it is you believe, passionately arguing and defaming opponents regarding an issue you have put no research or thought into, etc).
Actually,. rights can be regulated if the state can show a compelling public interest in doing so. That’s why free speech doesn’t allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater, and why freedom of religion doesn’t allow you to practice human sacrifice.
If you think the state cannot show a sufficient public interest in making these restrictions, then the courts will back you up. It’s hugely minor anyway, and the comparisons to books are silly.
I’m not making an argument for it, I’m saying it’s a lame thing to get hyper-outraged about, and that it does not equate to somebody threatening to take your precious guns away.
These states will have to defend this legislation against Constitutional challenges. If it’s actually unconstitutional, the courts will kncok it down. If it’s not unconstitutional, then it’s non unconstitutional, and you aren’t being deprived of any rights.
You can’t prove that limiting sales of guns to one handgun per month will stop people from being killed either. The path to challenge legislation is out of the realm of possibility for most people whether through financial or time commitments. It is ridiculous to say “Don’t like it? Change it” when discussing restrictions upon constitutional rights. The bar SHOULD be set so high that any proposed restrictions should face almost insurmountable challenges before that restriction can be applied, not the reverse.
If you actually believe that the Constitution and the courts’ interpretations of it define what rights are, then you seem ill-equipped to come to any discussion involving notions of justice or ethics at all.
Then you’ve got nothing to worry about since the state will have that burden.
Not at all. There are lots of special interest groups with lots of money who will be more than happy to mount an immediate challenge.