Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 2266 of 5179 (716927)
01-22-2014 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2265 by New Cat's Eye
01-22-2014 3:35 PM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-22-2014 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-22-2014 4:04 PM Modulous has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2267 of 5179 (716929)
01-22-2014 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2266 by Modulous
01-22-2014 3:48 PM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2266 by Modulous, posted 01-22-2014 3:48 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2268 by Modulous, posted 01-22-2014 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 2269 by xongsmith, posted 01-23-2014 12:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 2271 by ringo, posted 01-24-2014 11:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 2268 of 5179 (716933)
01-22-2014 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2267 by New Cat's Eye
01-22-2014 4:04 PM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
You don't have a right to drive on public roads.
Thompson v. Smith:
quote:
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or
automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Berberian v. Lussier (1958):
quote:
We have, however, come to the conclusion that we can no longer completely subscribe to the proposition for which the LaPlante case stands. The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the constitutional guarantees of which the citizen may not be deprived without due process of law.
Adams v. City of Pocatello 1966:
quote:
The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-22-2014 4:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2276 by Percy, posted 01-26-2014 7:51 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 2269 of 5179 (716995)
01-23-2014 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2267 by New Cat's Eye
01-22-2014 4:04 PM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-22-2014 4:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2273 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2014 11:59 AM xongsmith has replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 2270 of 5179 (717095)
01-24-2014 9:49 AM


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: 03-23-2005


Message 2271 of 5179 (717103)
01-24-2014 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2267 by New Cat's Eye
01-22-2014 4:04 PM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
Catholic Scientist writes:
If you have a right for something, then you should get it by default.
What you're saying, basically, is that once a right is bestowed and/or recognized, it should be difficult to remove it.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-22-2014 4:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2014 11:55 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2272 of 5179 (717112)
01-24-2014 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2271 by ringo
01-24-2014 11:07 AM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2271 by ringo, posted 01-24-2014 11:07 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2273 of 5179 (717113)
01-24-2014 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2269 by xongsmith
01-23-2014 12:32 AM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2269 by xongsmith, posted 01-23-2014 12:32 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2274 by Theodoric, posted 01-24-2014 12:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 2275 by xongsmith, posted 01-24-2014 3:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 2280 by onifre, posted 01-26-2014 11:25 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 2274 of 5179 (717117)
01-24-2014 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2273 by New Cat's Eye
01-24-2014 11:59 AM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2273 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2014 11:59 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 2275 of 5179 (717150)
01-24-2014 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2273 by New Cat's Eye
01-24-2014 11:59 AM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2273 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2014 11:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2277 by ramoss, posted 01-26-2014 8:35 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2014 10:34 AM xongsmith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2276 of 5179 (717297)
01-26-2014 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2268 by Modulous
01-22-2014 4:32 PM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2268 by Modulous, posted 01-22-2014 4:32 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2282 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2014 11:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 2277 of 5179 (717298)
01-26-2014 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2275 by xongsmith
01-24-2014 3:56 PM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2275 by xongsmith, posted 01-24-2014 3:56 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2278 by Theodoric, posted 01-26-2014 9:31 AM ramoss has replied
 Message 2279 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2014 11:23 AM ramoss has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 2278 of 5179 (717301)
01-26-2014 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2277 by ramoss
01-26-2014 8:35 AM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2277 by ramoss, posted 01-26-2014 8:35 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2281 by ramoss, posted 01-26-2014 11:32 AM Theodoric has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2279 of 5179 (717321)
01-26-2014 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2277 by ramoss
01-26-2014 8:35 AM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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:
The problem is that the "right" to own guns never should have been declared.
Message 2271

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2277 by ramoss, posted 01-26-2014 8:35 AM ramoss has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 2280 of 5179 (717322)
01-26-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2273 by New Cat's Eye
01-24-2014 11:59 AM


Re: wifebeating lunatics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2273 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2014 11:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2283 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2014 12:00 PM onifre has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024