Okay, now I see. I can kind of understand resisting a ban. I don’t think the problem is with any particular gun but having any of them in the wrong hands.
When 85 percent of all gun owners favour expanded background checks that Manchin-Toomey proposed, it looks to me like only the five percent who are in the NRA get heard. I’d say the pro-gun control crowd has more reason to mistrust politicians.
In context, does your response make sense to you? The only way it makes sense to me is if you are replying to Esox. But since you quoted me it appears you were responding to me. And in that case, I ask again, does that make sense to you?
85% may have agreed at one time, but based upon the cite I provided earlier, nobody really cares enough to even make a call unless they disagree.
There is no number of times that you can repeat this lie, that will make it the least bit less of a lie.
If there was really anything anywhere close to 85% pubic support for any gun control proposal, then a credible movement would be already well underway—if not already successfully completed—to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution to supersede the Second Amendment, in order to allow the proposed policy.
There is no such movement underway because there is no where near the public support that would be needed to give any such effort a credible chance of success. And the level of public support that it would take to pretty much insure success is well below the 85% to 95% that the gungrabbers have recently taken to fraudulently claiming.
Gun control advocated never seek to put their policies into effect legitimately, by amending the Constitution, because they know that the support isn’t there to do so. This is why they only seek to put their policies into effect through illegitimate means that overtly violate the Constitution. The gun control movement is a movement that has never been able to gain any ground, except by cheating and lying.
Items whose *purpose *it is to kill. Put those in combination with an operator who has a real possibility of using them to kill, i.e. any human being (or are you a robot?), and you present an unreasonable danger to my life.
There is no absurdum to which you can reductio here despite your efforts to continue ducking.
See post#184 for my short answer to whether people have a “right” to be “safe”. If anyone other than ElvisL1ves thinks I’ve ducked the question, respond in thread.
That’s something I’m curious about. The pols must read the polls and would have known about the 85 percent survey, so are calls from the public really necessary? Or do they only listen to lobbyists? Or is it impossible to know the inner workings of Congress?
If it’s a lie, I wasn’t aware of it so don’t accuse me of repeating it, all right?
I did some due diligence and found this PolitiFact page that looks at the following polls:
–Luntz Global, May/2012
–Individual polls in 41 congressional districts
–Pew Research Center, Jan/2013
–CBS/NYTimes, Jan/2013
–GfK Knowledge Networks, Jan/2013
–Fox News, Jan/2013 (91 percent in favour of expanded background checks)
–Quinnipiac University, Jan/2013
–Quinnipiac University, Feb/2013
In various combinations, the surveys polled gun owners, both NRA members and non-members, and non-gun owners. The polls consistently showed huge majorities favouring background checks for all gun purchases, in the range of 85-95 percent for non-gun owners and usually around 85 percent for gun owners. The lowest number in any of the polls was 74 percent of NRA members favouring background checks.
That’s seven national polls plus the district polls. Are you going to sit there now and tell me that they all lied? Including Fox News?
First, I’m not an expert on your Constitution, but I’m pretty sure the Second Amendment doesn’t have to be superceded to make new laws. (If I’m wrong, please correct me; if I’m right, please don’t correct me). Maybe you’re assuming that gun control advocates want to throw out the Second Amendment altogether and ban all weapons. If that’s what you think, stop listening to the voices in your bubble.
Second, why does there have to be a movement? Voters don’t have to organize advocacy groups to have an opinion, and the lack of an advocacy group in no way implies lack of opinion. Where did you get that idea?
The spelling is mostly correct in that paragraph and the sentences are complete, but everything else suggests it was written by a five-year-old. Only a child sees the world in such simplistic, absolute terms as if we’re living in a cowboy movie. If you want to be taken seriously, try accepting that people on both sides are human beings and can be both good and bad, right and wrong.
A good start would be acknowledging that as of this year–not last year or ten years ago–the vast majority of Americans want expanded background checks on gun purchases. Keep in mind that it’s an undeniable fact and it has you surrounded; resistance is futile. Are you going to accept it or leave your head buried in the sand?
Perhaps, then, you should learn a bit about our Constitution before you resort to such childish and gratuitous insults toward me for correctly describing it in a manner that you find disagreeable.
Here’s what you posted, in its entirety: “Sure; but they don’t include a “right” to be “safe”- to have a limitless veto of others’ freedom based on your fears.”
Is that your way of saying that no one else’s right to their very lives matches your right to carry a gun so you can feel “safe” (use of quotation marks your own)? :dubious: Is the very concept of safety so illusory, or so unworthy of respect, that it can be so easily dismissed, the very-real death count notwithstanding? Is the only way to defend a right to one’s life against the threat you represent to carry around the means to kill you first? Is that really your recommendation?
I would really like to give you credit for simply ducking the question rather than meaning any of that. So here’s an offer to let you try again.
Of course people have a right to life. What you’re demanding is a veto over everything that could even potentially be a tertiary threat to your life. That fails the reasonableness test.
I carry a gun because I define safety as “being prepared to deter or counter potential threats”, not “the total lack of any possible danger”. I make safety something that comes from me, I don’t demand it of my environment and everyone else in it.
I can’t tell you my recommendation because this isn’t The Pit.
No, I really do see “safety” differently from you, as I’ve tried to explain.
My criticism, what you call insults, was far from gratuitous. You earned it by just smearing the other side as liars and cheaters, period. That’s more typical of a child than a mature adult.
And my knowledge of the Constitution has nothing to do with the the falseness or verity of the claims that you made, so stop using that to duck the question. You’ve seen the evidence for the 85 percent number in the polls. If you still think it’s a lie and can back it up, I’m all ears. The ball is in your court.
You admitted that you aren’t an expert on our Constitution, and then attacked me for correctly describing its relevance to the issue at hand. If you did have a reasonable working knowledge of our Constitution, then you would have seen that I was absolutely correct in my description.
Here in the United States, the Constitution is the foundation of our system of government, and the highest law of the land, to which all other laws, and all government actions of any kind, are required to conform.
The only legitimate way for any government policy or action to occur, which conflicts with the Constitution, is for the Constitution to first be amended, as necessary, to allow that policy or action. By wise design, the amendment process is non-trivial, and requires considerable public support in order to carry out.
One of the Amendments that has already been made to the Constitution, shortly after it was put into effect in its initial form, is the Second Amendment, which asserts a right of the people to keep and bear arms, and which forbids any infringement of this right.
Any gun control law infringes upon this right, and is therefore unconstitutional, so long as the Second Amendment remains in effect. The only way to change this—the only way that any gun control law can ever be legitimate in the U.S., would be to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution, which supersedes the Second Amendment, and which establishes the necessary authority on the part of government to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Until such time as such an amendment is ratified, the government has no such authority, and any act which it takes to violate this right, it does illegally.
Not that the government has been terribly deterred in the past several decades from rather blatantly violating the Constitution in this and in many other areas.
It is a simple fact: if there really was 85% support for any gun control law, then there would be little difficultly in getting a Constitutional amendment ratified in order to allow it. There would be no need for any of the corrupt, deceptive, unconstitutional practices on which the entire movement has always been based. 85% would be enough support to leave no excuse for not going about it in the legitimate, legal, Constitutional manner.
There is no such effort, because nobody in any position to initiate that effort really believes that the public support is there to give such an effort any credible chance of success. And the level of public support that would be required to pretty much assure success, is less than the 85% that you keep claiming.
The 85% claim is a flat-out lie, and most of those who keep repeating it know damn well that it is a lie. The gungrabbers know that they will never, ever be able to get their way through honest, legitimate means. They will never have the necessary level of public support to amend the Constitution; no matter how many times they lie about having far more support than it would take to do that.
The gungrabber movement has never gained anything honestly or legitimately. Every policy they have gained, they gained by lying and cheating, and by violating the very highest law of this nation. That is the only way they ever seek to promote their policies, because they know that is the only way that they will ever be able to get any of their policies put into place.
Still not getting the part about how often rights come into conflict with each other, and have to be restricted, are we?
Depends on what conflicting right its in conflict with, don’t it? And their relative connections to the real world.
Where does my safety from you come from? Do I not have a right to it, or may I exercise it only by having the means to kill you first?
You demand “the reasonableness test” (see above), so your recommendation must be a reasonable one, right? You therefore have nothing to fear by expressing it here. So, have at it. :dubious:
Nobody’s rights are violated by **Lumpy **lawfully carrying a firearm. You seem to be willfully ignorant of this fact.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Where does my safety from you come from? Do I not have a right to it, or may I exercise it only by having the means to kill you first?
[/QUOTE]
Um…the law/regulations? What’s your ‘right’ to safety if someone decides to drink and drive their car into you at high speed (something much more likely to happen to you than you to be shot by some guy legally carrying a gun)?
That the best you got?
Ahh, I see! Your understanding of the Constitution comes to a screeching halt before the part where the Supreme Court (notice the name, it has significance) is declared to be the final authority on what is and is not Constitutional. I’m guessing that you are including SCOTUS in “the government” that you castigate for Constitutional violations, given the rulings it has handed down wherein the 2nd Amendment allows for something less than absolute, across the board, everywhere, anytime, allowance for possession of all possible real or imagined arms. See Antonin Scalia and others, upthread and/or elsewhere. It made all the papers.
This does at least allow me to parse, and to discount, the remainder of your argument. In case I need to spell it out specifically, a policy of enhanced and/or expanded background checks prior to acquisition of a firearm would have no need to overcome any Constitutional hurdle, your blather notwithstanding.
Where does one enjoy this freedom?
What good does that do me when you get angry, or scared, or confused, and take a shot that hits me? I can’t count on the police to protect my life from you, no, I need a gun so I can shoot you first.
That’s *your *argument, btw. Now go ahead and denounce it.
That occurs in many places that have the effect of minimizing the likelihood of it happening at all. Regulations about the design and manufacture of cars for safety, licensing and regulation of drivers, a pretty-efficient system the police use to stop drunk or otherwise-dangerous drivers from driving at all, etc. None of which have serious opposition from any organized groups (but oh yes, there was yelping about freedom when the seatbelt law was passed, for instance). That is essentially because cars are intended to have utility that does not include being used as murder weapons, and that danger is minimized as far as reasonably possible without banning them and eliminating their utility altogether. As you know.
Now, how does *any *of that compare to guns, whose *purpose *is to be mortally dangerous? Will you be the first to come up with a cogent explanation?
You might as well tell us about swimming pools.