Help Me Understand Gun Rights

[Dinglenutz]

I think the above discussion is a great illustration of the differences between those who love liberty and those who love authority. I'm a fan of liberty myself.

 

[RX-79G]

You are conflating issues there. Not all of the founders supported slavery. Slavery was simply a fact of life NOT limited to the United States. Slavery was never legalized in the United States.

Slavery is specifically referenced to and allowed in the Constitution. It didn't have to be legalized - it was accepted as legal by everyone who ratified the Constitution.

 

[RX-79G]

I think the above discussion is a great illustration of the differences between those who love liberty and those who love authority. I'm a fan of liberty myself.

I think this post is an excellent example of a rhetorical method that is illogical and pointless, but is the preferred style of discourse among people that are okay with losing a fight, as long as it sounded like they were correct to their politics.

Someday you won't have any guns, but a bunch of cool sounding slogans to keep you company.

 

[Dinglenutz]

those societies will fill up with violently disaffected males who's natural access and desire to one of the strongest natural instincts has been subsumed by the coerced (but legal) choices of 18 year old religious women

It sort of sounds like you're advocating for the wishes of some people (in this case some hypothetical angry young men) to be used as a basis for forcing some other people (religious young women, in this example) to do something or abstain from something against their will. That really would rub me the wrong way, if someone actually was suggesting it.

Say it ain't so.

 

[RX-79G]

It sort of sounds like you're advocating for the wishes of some people (in this case some hypothetical angry young men) to be used as a basis for forcing some other people (religious young women, in this example) to do something or abstain from something against their will. That really would rub me the wrong way, if someone actually was suggesting it.

Say it ain't so.

No, I'm suggesting that a religious practice that leads to widespread harm ought to be regulated. Pretend some religion popularizes eating excrement and it is clearly causing widespread death and health care collapse - does the government have a legal interest in banning the practice?

Historically, the answer has been a resounding "yes". Laws are there to restrain freedom for the benefit of everyone.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I'm suggesting that a ... practice that leads to widespread harm ought to be regulated.

That sounds a lot like an "if not for" argument. I elided a word that's not needed for the purpose of discussion. In general, it's a good idea to reject "if not for" arguments out of hand unless there is some compelling reason not to. I've not seen a compelling reason for restricting the association rights of some people, yet.

Pretend ...

No, let's not go to the land of make-believe.

 

[RX-79G]

That sounds a lot like an "if not for" argument. I elided a word that's not needed for the purpose of discussion. In general, it's a good idea to reject "if not for" arguments out of hand unless there is some compelling reason not to. I've not seen a compelling reason for restricting the association rights of some people, yet.



No, let's not go to the land of make-believe.

Find me a single society that functions like you're talking about so we can stop talking about make-believe. All societies, no matter how free, regulate a great deal of human associations. There has never been a more libertarian or anarchist society then ours, but you talk about the things we do as if they are departures from some norm.

That's make-believe.

 

[CamoDeafie]

These used to be principles in US..

1. Congress protected the Rights of all, not taking them away bit by bit.

2. Judical Branch determined if laws followed Constitution, not reinterpret Constitution to redefine laws, now its "how do we twist lawful definitions to make it constitutional?"

3. A person who served their time got full rights back, or died. But now we have "Prohibited Persons" and effectively 2nd class citizens

4. Laws are based on if not specifically banned/prohibited, its legal.. instead of if its not specifically approved, it illegal. (Why else are there so many laws banning things and actions....)

Of these, only #4 is still in effect.


What does this have to do with guns, arms, liberty?
A lot actually. The push for new gun laws serves to broaden the prohibited persons category, and to increase the number of 2nd class citizenry with which to either erase or otherwise control. All these new laws takes away rights one way or other by virtue of making things easier to prohibit or reject. The SCOTUS and other Courts seemed to have ruled that felons and criminals won't ever be legally "law abiding citizens" and thus, legally can be discriminated and subject to 1A, 2A, 4A violations as they "surrendered" their rights.

Ironically, mentally unstable people have more rights than a convicted felon who is out of prison , thanks to the ACLU
.

 

[Dinglenutz]

you talk about the things we do as if they are departures from some norm.

Appeal to tradition is not an argument.

 

[RX-79G]

Appeal to tradition is not an argument.

So now your against fallacious arguments?

However, I'm simply pointing out that you have no historical basis for asserting that anything works the way you want it to. You're the one talking make-believe.

 

[Dinglenutz]

However, I'm simply pointing out that you have no historical basis for asserting that anything works the way you want it to. You're the one talking make-believe.

I don't think I made such assertions. If I did, I probably misspoke or was misunderstood.

The point is that people have an intrinsic right to associate as they see fit, and the fact that one group or individual doesn't find their wants satisfied by another group or individuals choice of association isn't nearly sufficient reason to infringe that right.

 

[03A3Sporter]

Troll thread trolls mightily. People want to know why Americans have been loosing their rights for decades to the point the bill of rights is toilet paper. It is because of the nonsense in this thread right here, we have a lot of people who can justify moving the goal post for whatever reason they feel passionate about.

It's that simple folks. We have more than one member here who has came out and said in so many words that its ok as long you can get opinion to sway the direction you want it to. Or it needs regulated cause men aren't angels , yet they want the most wicked men to police them

FFS this is exactly why I have loathe for these kinds of conversations. You want to know how to protect your rights ? quit making deals with wicked men. Every state right or wrong needs to assert their rights to govern as they see fit. Which is what the principles of 98 were about. The Federal govt has NO power that the states do not give it .


Furthermore each and everyone is responsible for their behavior . Liberty is having the ability to do anything you want the good judgement not to do so.

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

― Robert A. Heinlein

 

[RX-79G]

It is because of the nonsense in this thread right here, we have a lot of people who can justify moving the goal post for whatever reason they feel passionate about.

Are you aware that SCOTUS originally interpreted the BoR as only applying to what Congress could do, not states? Do you support them moving the goal posts so 2A overrides local law?

I do.

 

[03A3Sporter]

Are you aware that SCOTUS originally interpreted the BoR as only applying to what Congress could do, not states? Do you support them moving the goal posts so 2A overrides local law?

I do.

Are you aware the founding fathers specifically Jefferson and Madison were advocates of the principles of nullification by states so as to protect rights ? . Are you also aware that YOU as voter have an obligation to vote for people who will most ably represent you ?

I am just saying you want to fix problems , then fix them at home and quit relying on those who have no vested interest in protecting you to do so . Think about the makeup of congress right now and how have they've been voting for the last 50 years before you answer that.


I know a good deal more about the constitution and its history than many do . Hence my admonishment that you should take care of things at lowest level versus going to the top first. It is actually how OUR system of governance was designed to work . Yet for decades now we have everyone clamoring for Federal intervention for everything.

 

[RX-79G]

Are you aware the founding fathers specifically Jefferson and Madison were advocates of the principles of nullification by states so as to protect rights ? . Are you also aware that YOU as voter have an obligation to vote for people who will most ably represent you ?

I am just saying you want to fix problems , then fix them at home and quit relying on those who have no vested interest in protecting you to do so . Think about the makeup of congress right now and how have they've been voting for the last 50 years before you answer that.


I know a good deal more about the constitution and its history than many do . Hence my admonishment that you should take care of things at lowest level versus going to the top first. It is actually how OUR system of governance was designed to work . Yet for decades now we have everyone clamoring for Federal intervention for everything.

That would work fine if the majority of American's were against all gun control.

But they aren't. It isn't even true that the majority of gun owners are against all gun control. So a populist approach isn't exactly useful.

An approach used by minority groups may be more effective.

 

[The Resister]

You are misunderstanding me entirely. I haven't made any such case for incremental anything.

What I have pointed out is that declaring gun rights absolute is a losing philosophy. Not only does it have no basis in law, but it isn't what the majority want. In the face of that, we have a duty to come up with tactics to preserve the important part of those rights by engaging in the legislative process. As in the example of CC laws.

I get what that other poster was saying. You are trolling this thread. The law was unequivocally clear. Gun Rights were absolute and the courts ruled so as I cited in earlier posts. Not going to argue what I've already shown to be a fact.

 

[03A3Sporter]

That would work fine if the majority of American's were against all gun control.

But they aren't. It isn't even true that the majority of gun owners are against all gun control. So a populist approach isn't exactly useful.

An approach used by minority groups may be more effective.

Polling doesn't support your statements. When polled outside of liberal states there is no support for gun control . Quit buying the lies being sold.

If municipalities refuse to enforce laws they do not get enforced

 

[RX-79G]

Polling doesn't support your statements. When polled outside of liberal states there is no support for gun control . Quit buying the lies being sold.

If municipalities refuse to enforce laws they do not get enforced

The "liberal states" are the majority of Americans. But what is a non-liberal state?

Texas Politics - Public Opinion on Gun Control

 

[The Resister]

Slavery is specifically referenced to and allowed in the Constitution. It didn't have to be legalized - it was accepted as legal by everyone who ratified the Constitution.

First off, this thread is not about slavery.

Secondly, you should go to school and get yourself an education. In the Constitution, the only reference to slavery was to give slavers a decade to get out of the business because the U.S. was not allowing future imports of slaves to come into this country. Additionally, by the time of the ratification of the Constitution, over half the states had already outlawed slavery. Slavery was never legalized in the United States where it was a states rights issue.

 

[RX-79G]

I get what that other poster was saying. You are trolling this thread. The law was unequivocally clear. Gun Rights were absolute and the courts ruled so as I cited in earlier posts. Not going to argue what I've already shown to be a fact.

You wanted to have this discussion, so I'm replying. I'm not in favor of gun control as much as I am DEEPLY concerned that magical thinking about how gun rights should work is a terrible strategy for their preservation.

Which "the law" was unequivocal? SCOTUS has waffled on interpreting 2A for the entire history of the US.