So it is pointless to do anything at all?
Among all the lame arguments from the excuse-making murder-rights faction, “If you can’t do everything, then there’s no point in doing anything” is probably the lamest.
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 good with that. As long as the ball is moving forward, fewer people die.
Yes, you fucking did, you party hack. You also said
The slippery-slope argument is the second lamest.
Come up with a productive suggestion for how the murder rate can be reduced, okay? Got something other than sophistry and denigration of those who do care?
There’s no slippery slope here. The idea that a constitutional right can be taken away without trial by jury isn’t a slippery slope, it is actually the bottom of the slope!
That’s funny, I don’t recall ever having an opportunity to put that claim to the test.
It’s this sort of disingenuous claim that gives the famous quote “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy" it’s true meaning.
And yet all other constitutional rights do have limits. We must be living in a tyranny, then.
You’re really not obligated to repeat *every *talking point the Republicans and their rulers offer, yanno.
Allowing a right to be taken away based on an accusation isn’t a “limitation” on a right. It’s the end of that right.
Like I said though, why not apply that to voting? You no longer even need a felony, you just need to be accused of being mentally ill, or dangerous, or sympathetic to our nation’s enemies.
I take it you’re unfamiliar with the long and too often ugly history of involuntary civil commitment in the US?
CMC fnord!
Given the observed competence with which the Terrorist Watch List has been administered, I’d say allowing the abrogation of a civil right based upon being on that list is indeed a stupid liberal idea.
Except that it isn’t a Liberal idea.
Tell that to my honorable Senators Boxer and Feinstein.
You’re an idiot, you know that? A jury can take away your freedom to assemble, your freedom to own a firearm, your freedom to travel, your freedom to publish, your freedom period. Or haven’t you noticed the incarceration rate in this country?
But we’re currently talking about a bit that would prevent people from acquiring guns based upon the presence of their name on the Terrorist Watch List, which has little to no judicial oversight.
But Ammon Bundy is shocked, shocked! that the government is violating his right to have his guns in jail.
Quibble: Ryan Bundy.
Given he was dropped on his head when he was little[sup]*[/sup] I’ll give him a pass on that.
[sup]*[/sup]Or maybe he was run over. Is that any better?
A jury isn’t the government. That’s the difference. The Bill of Rights is supposed to be non-negotiable rights given to all citizens. We can argue the hypocrisy of how prison and felony convictions play into it, but the solution isn’t to give up even more rights whenever the government feels its appropriate. The legal precedent is terrible. Publishing something that makes the government look bad? Looks like you’re a terrorist and we don’t need to guarantee your constitutional rights then, have fun in prison!
I’m going to go with NO on the section bolded.
Actually you can quite easily argue whether or not felons deserve rights but ok