|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sensible? It was ruled as unconstitutional. Something can be sensible and unconstitutional. For instance, drinking the occasional glass of red wine can be viewed as sensible, but it has been ruled unconstitutional at one point in history.
Driving is a priviledge, not a right. I fail to see the importance in this distinction here.
The data isn't all that great, but blacks do make up the largest portion of both murder victims and killers according to this site I did not dispute that. I just suggested you acknowledge the reasons for it, to avoid coming off as racist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Driving is a priviledge, not a right. I fail to see the importance in this distinction here. If you have a right for something, then you should get it by default. The government shouldn't track everyone and then "allow" them to do it, they should just get to do it from the get-go. It'd be silly to have a free speech card that allows you the right to free speech, and then take that card away from everyone who doesn't have the right. The default is that everyone has free speech. You don't have a right to drive on public roads. Only certain people are allowed to do that. So it makes sense to issue a card out to all the people who are allowed to drive, and then take it away from people who have lost that privilege. The default is that you don't get to drive on public roads until you've shown that you can. In the US, individuals have a right to own guns. So it doesn't make sense to issue a card to everyone who has that right, and then take it away from the people who don't. The default is that you get to own guns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
You don't have a right to drive on public roads. Thompson v. Smith:
quote: Berberian v. Lussier (1958):
quote: Adams v. City of Pocatello 1966:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
CS writes:
In the US, individuals have a right to own guns. So it doesn't make sense to issue a card to everyone who has that right, and then take it away from the people who don't. The default is that you get to own guns. So make everyone that lost right to have to carry a card that says they cannot be in possession of a gun?? No - you must be thinking of...
Obviously laws can't stop people who don't obey laws. If you want to keep redheads off your bus, then you stop them when they try to get on. You don't make a detailed database of all the non-redheads. So how does the bus driver know if you are a redhead? Suppose you dye your hair Black? Suppose you wear a religious turban? The driver is going to inconvenience everyone by making sure they are not redheads, isn't she?
Modulous writes: If your intent is to ensure redheads don't get on the bus, it seems you'd need people to prove they aren't redheads. Or you could just prove which people have red hair and leave the rest of them alone.
Modulous writes: As long as its not at the expense of everyone else's right. So, see, the bus driver will have to ask everyone to remove their hat (show your FOID).... CS continues with:
Right. So if you want to prevent those people from getting guns, you create a system to check against those databases at the point of purchase. Well here it is - Background check! Yes, let's do that nationwide. But still
Obviously laws can't stop people who don't obey laws. Guns are smuggled into Chicago every day.... So maybe...maybe gun smugglers should be locked up for life, maybe - plus heavily fined. Also get rid of all drug laws to remove that reason to get a gun. Hmmmmmmm...food for thought. Complex issue.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Um so Illinois is combining gun control and pot smoking LOL Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
What you're saying, basically, is that once a right is bestowed and/or recognized, it should be difficult to remove it. If you have a right for something, then you should get it by default. The problem is that the "right" to own guns never should have been declared. Now that it has been, it's as hard to get rid of as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit od happiness. It's a case of you-can't-get-there-from-here. You can't unbreak the eggs. The best you can do is make an omelet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The problem is that the "right" to own guns never should have been declared. Is that what it boils down to? I simply cannot agree with that sentiment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well here it is - Background check! Yes, let's do that nationwide. Actually, that's up to the individual States to decide. And if a State wants to keep bad people from getting guns, then a background check at the point of sale could accomplish that. If a State decides to obtain records of all the people who they have allowed to legally purchase guns, then I think we can conclude that keeping bad people from getting guns was not their ultimate goal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Actually, that's up to the individual States to decide. What prohibits federal legislation on background checks?
If a State decides to obtain records of all the people who they have allowed to legally purchase guns, then I think we can conclude that keeping bad people from getting guns was not their ultimate goal.
So if someone owns a gun they cannot become "bad people"? You make it sound as if owning a gun absolves people from many things.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
CS responds:
Actually, that's up to the individual States to decide.
Oh for crying out loud you are not thinking this through. If Georgia has NO BACKGROUND CHECK but Tennessee does, the guy just drives to Georgia, buys the gun and returns to Tennessee. Canada? Mexico? Yeah they could buy them there - it would be several levels more of an effort, but, yeah they could do that. Or they could go even further away, if the mob money is right. The States have NOT shown an even-handed record. From racism to LGBT rights to prayer in schools to marijauna, to anything of that sort. There are well entrenched bigots in power (think George Wallace's political descendants). Arguing "States rights" is dog whistle for continuing bad behavior. As even the noble Atticus Finch, played by Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird, at the end of his final remarks and getting very disgusted at the progress of the trial - even he had to wave a limp hand at the thinking of those would convict Tom Robinson. This is a NATIONAL issue now. Actually, it's an INTERNATIONAL issue now. And I am not trying to get rid of guns. I'm trying to get them out of the hands of criminals. Background check. Across the planet.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I think the claim of driving as a privilege might come from driver education classes and public safety campaigns here in the states, and that message has so saturated the land that everyone just accepts it as true. If driving as a privilege does actually have a legal foundation maybe CS can find it.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I have to say that it seems that people have bought the myth that just because they want AR-47's and unlimited ammo restricted 'They' are also coming for your dear hunting rifle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Well if you have a "dear" hunting rifle, they should come for it.
Now a deer hunting rifle is another thing Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I have to say that it seems that people have bought the myth that just because they want AR-47's and unlimited ammo restricted 'They' are also coming for your dear hunting rifle. Well, stuff like this isn't helping:
quote:Message 2271
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
And if a State wants to keep bad people from getting guns They might also want to prevent mentally ill people from getting guns. None of the shooters since Virginia Tech (that I can remember) have been "bad" people. From what all the evidence points to, they were good people. Some however, like the V Tech guy and the Newtown guy had serious mental issues. "Bad" guys, like criminals trying to rob people, aren't usually in the business of shooting up malls and elementary schools. Also, none of them have been black. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024