George Zimmerman back in the news: another shooting incident

[M14 Shooter]

Looks like WC was not really interested in an "open honest debate" about gun control after all.

What makes you believe so, or do you and this is a simple way to bug out?

Well... you haven't responded to my last post on the issue, so....?
George Zimmerman back in the news another shooting incident Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sorry, I have a life, a wife, two sons and a dog, tow cars, two homes and friends, all more important by far than this forum.

Which is why I waited as long as I did to make mention of it, after you visited the board and posted a dozen or so other messages, but no response here.

My last post comported the information I learned from you into an argument for a state to have the power - or at least the opportunity - to require those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, Did you miss that and response? If so I'll search it out.

Please do as I see no response form you after the post I cited.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm assuming most of us agree that a state government experiencing gun violence - in terms of gang warfare, drive-by shootings, mass murders at schools, restaurants and movie theaters has a compelling interest in preventing such events.

You base your argument on an assumption? You cannot show said compelling interest thru jurisprudence?

We may8 also assume a state which requires only those persons who want to own, possess, or have in their custody and control a gun, to be licensed as said state has a compelling interest to restrict only those unlicensed from own, possessing, etc. a gun.

How does licensing prevent drive-by shootings, et al?
If you cannot show how licensing will prevent these shootings, how then can you argue that license is the least restrictive means to achieve your assumed compelling interest?
If there are loop holes, and the dishonest and criminal element will exploit them, how can you argue that licensing will achieve your compelling state interest?

Remember - Strict Scrutiny presupposes that a restriction is unconstitutional until state proves to the court that said compelling interest exists, that said restriction will meet that interest, and that said restriction is the least restrictive means to achieve said interest

Mea culpa, I missed this rebuttal.

Q. You base your argument on an assumption? You cannot show said compelling interest thru jurisprudence?

A. To do so is a lawyers argument, and notwithstanding your belief one cannot be made on an assumption is wrong. Legal arguments are based on precedents, the common law and historical facts. I'm not skilled in doing so, but reading the justification for and against US Supreme Court decisions is a good example of how an issue can be decided on assumptions.

Q. How does licensing prevent drive-by shootings, et al?

A. Licensing is not a panacea, it does not prevent all violent crime. What it does do is to criminalize the act of providing a gun to an unlicensed person and an unlicensed person in possession of a gun. Refer to the argument on justice in The Republic.
SparkNotes The Republic Book I

Q If you cannot show how licensing will prevent these shootings, how then can you argue that license is the least restrictive means to achieve your assumed compelling interest?

A. Licensing does not prevent an unlicensed driver from driving, it simply provides a penalty for doing so. Making the possession of a gun by an unlicensed person a wobbler (either a felony or a misdemeanor) as well as those who wantonly sell, give, loan or allow an unlicensed person access to a gun is tantamount to any other crime. It does not prevent the crime, it penalizes the behavior.

The issue of registration is problematic, but as part of an effort to control guns I've argued before that every gun or cache of guns need to be insured, and like Hipaa laws, the insurance company is bound to hold the number and type of guns held in strict confidence. Hence, the sale to non licensed individual would be open to inspection when said gun is used and is evidence in a crime. Since guns are stolen frequently the honest licensee will report the crime to the police and anyone in possession of stolen property will be culpable for the theft or, if evidence is presented, to the person who from whom they obtained the weapon.

Q. If there are loop holes, and the dishonest and criminal element will exploit them, how can you argue that licensing will achieve your compelling state interest?

A. In the same manner that traffic laws are enforced, by fine or imprisonment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Q. You base your argument on an assumption? You cannot show said compelling interest thru jurisprudence?
A. To do so is a lawyers argument, and notwithstanding your belief one cannot be made on an assumption is wrong. Legal arguments are based on precedents, the common law and historical facts. I'm not skilled in doing so, but reading the justification for and against US Supreme Court decisions is a good example of how an issue can be decided on assumptions.

So... you cannot show where the determination has indeed been made and so you cannot actually show said compelling interest exists. Fair enough.

Q If you cannot show how licensing will prevent these shootings, how then can you argue that license is the least restrictive means to achieve your assumed compelling interest?
A. Licensing does not prevent an unlicensed driver from driving, it simply provides a penalty for doing so. Making the possession of a gun by an unlicensed person a wobbler (either a felony or a misdemeanor) as well as those who wantonly sell, give, loan or allow an unlicensed person access to a gun is tantamount to any other crime. It does not prevent the crime, it penalizes the behavior.

Your response does not address the question.
For the licensing requirement to pass the test, it must be the least restrictive means to achieve your assumed compelling interest.
You argue the compelling interest here is to prevent gang warfare, drive-by shootings, mass murders at schools, restaurants and movie theaters. George Zimmerman back in the news another shooting incident Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
And so, I ask again:
If you cannot show how licensing will prevent these shootings, how then can you argue that license is the least restrictive means to achieve your assumed compelling interest?

Q. If there are loop holes, and the dishonest and criminal element will exploit them, how can you argue that licensing will achieve your compelling state interest?
A. In the same manner that traffic laws are enforced, by fine or imprisonment.

Your response does not address the question
You argue the compelling interest here is to prevent gang warfare, drive-by shootings, mass murders at schools, restaurants and movie theaters. George Zimmerman back in the news another shooting incident Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
And so, I ask again:
If there are loop holes, and the dishonest and criminal element will exploit them, how can you argue that licensing will achieve your compelling state interest?

If licensing will not achieve the compelling interest you provided, it cannot pass strict scrutiny.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. You base your argument on an assumption? You cannot show said compelling interest thru jurisprudence?
A. To do so is a lawyers argument, and notwithstanding your belief one cannot be made on an assumption is wrong. Legal arguments are based on precedents, the common law and historical facts. I'm not skilled in doing so, but reading the justification for and against US Supreme Court decisions is a good example of how an issue can be decided on assumptions.

So... you cannot show where the determination has indeed been made and so you cannot actually show said compelling interest exists. Fair enough.

Q If you cannot show how licensing will prevent these shootings, how then can you argue that license is the least restrictive means to achieve your assumed compelling interest?
A. Licensing does not prevent an unlicensed driver from driving, it simply provides a penalty for doing so. Making the possession of a gun by an unlicensed person a wobbler (either a felony or a misdemeanor) as well as those who wantonly sell, give, loan or allow an unlicensed person access to a gun is tantamount to any other crime. It does not prevent the crime, it penalizes the behavior.

Your response does not address the question.
For the licensing requirement to pass the test, it must be the least restrictive means to achieve your assumed compelling interest.
You argue the compelling interest here is to prevent gang warfare, drive-by shootings, mass murders at schools, restaurants and movie theaters. George Zimmerman back in the news another shooting incident Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
And so, I ask again:
If you cannot show how licensing will prevent these shootings, how then can you argue that license is the least restrictive means to achieve your assumed compelling interest?

Q. If there are loop holes, and the dishonest and criminal element will exploit them, how can you argue that licensing will achieve your compelling state interest?
A. In the same manner that traffic laws are enforced, by fine or imprisonment.

Your response does not address the question
You argue the compelling interest here is to prevent gang warfare, drive-by shootings, mass murders at schools, restaurants and movie theaters. George Zimmerman back in the news another shooting incident Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
And so, I ask again:
If there are loop holes, and the dishonest and criminal element will exploit them, how can you argue that licensing will achieve your compelling state interest?

Suggesting licensing or any law is preventative is absurd. Using the term "prevent" was and is incorrect. Again, mea culpa. Writing in a hurry, mistakes occur.

It seems to me that licensing is less restrictive than the Straw Man arguments many who disagree with my desire to see more gun control proffer. I don't advocate registration, per se, without restricting the governments access. We, or most of us, trust our health care provider protects our health records from government intrusion sans probable cause, due process and a court order.

My goal is to provide a measure of protection to the innocent, and those who own and possess a gun for protection (at home, or business) are innocents too. The vast majority of whom are responsible citizens; they drive sober, are licensed and insured. I have no problem being licensed, nor letting my insurance company know that as part of my insured valuables, I have a gun. What is wrong with that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Suggesting licensing or any law is preventative is absurd. Using the term "prevent" was and is incorrect. Again, mea culpa. Writing in a hurry, mistakes occur.

So... what is your compelling interest?
How does licensing of gun owners achieve this interest?
How is it the least restrictive means to do so?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Suggesting licensing or any law is preventative is absurd. Using the term "prevent" was and is incorrect. Again, mea culpa. Writing in a hurry, mistakes occur.

So... what is your compelling interest?
How does licensing of gun owners achieve this interest?
How is it the least restrictive means to do so?

My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.
Licensing holds gun owners accountable.
I don't have a ready explanation, but you must or wouldn't ask the question.

 

[protectionist]

Zimmerman, a hero to racists, and should be but isn't, an example of why there ought to be an open debate on gun control.

Zimmerman is an example of why there needs to be gun RIGHTS (especially CCW). If he had been unarmed, he could very possibly be dead right now, and no one would even know the name Trayvon Martin, who would still be running around burglarizing apartments.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.

That's overly broad, far too much so to qualify as a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny test.
Without a compelling interest, a restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution is assumed unconstitutional.

Licensing holds gun owners accountable.

In what way? If you commit a crime with a gun, doesn't the state hold you accountable, regardless of licensure?

 

[protectionist]

Is it possible that left wing anger encouraged by the liberal media declared open season on not only George Zimmerman but every Police Officer in the Country?

That is more than possible. It is history. Straight from Barrack Obama, to Al Sharpton, to Stephanie Rawlings to Marilyn Mosby.

 

[protectionist]

Suggesting licensing or any law is preventative is absurd. Using the term "prevent" was and is incorrect. Again, mea culpa. Writing in a hurry, mistakes occur.

So... what is your compelling interest?
How does licensing of gun owners achieve this interest?
How is it the least restrictive means to do so?

My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.
Licensing holds gun owners accountable.
I don't have a ready explanation, but you must or wouldn't ask the question.

But many gun control advocates go far beyond licensing. They don't want citizens even POSSESSING guns, and have made that the law in some places.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Zimmerman, a hero to racists, and should be but isn't, an example of why there ought to be an open debate on gun control.

Zimmerman is an example of why there needs to be gun RIGHTS (especially CCW). If he had been unarmed, he could very possibly be dead right now, and no one would even know the name Trayvon Martin, who would still be running around burglarizing apartments.

There is not one fact in your post, of course I can infer several:

• you're a racist
• you're dishonest
• you're dumb as a box of rocks.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Suggesting licensing or any law is preventative is absurd. Using the term "prevent" was and is incorrect. Again, mea culpa. Writing in a hurry, mistakes occur.

So... what is your compelling interest?
How does licensing of gun owners achieve this interest?
How is it the least restrictive means to do so?

My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.
Licensing holds gun owners accountable.
I don't have a ready explanation, but you must or wouldn't ask the question.

But many gun control advocates go far beyond licensing. They don't want citizens even POSSESSING guns, and have made that the law in some places.

And there are many who want everyone to carry a gun wherever and whenever they want. I'm not speaking about those who go to far with gun control, or people like you. I'm talking about pragmatic, sane people - the vast majority of Americans, liberal and conservative - who see a problem and seek solutions.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Zimmerman, a hero to racists, and should be but isn't, an example of why there ought to be an open debate on gun control.

Zimmerman is an example of why there needs to be gun RIGHTS (especially CCW). If he had been unarmed, he could very possibly be dead right now, and no one would even know the name Trayvon Martin, who would still be running around burglarizing apartments.

There is not one fact in your post, of course I can infer several:

• you're a racist
• you're dishonest
• you're dumb as a box of rocks.

Hos post was factual. You don't think having your head bashed against a concrete sidewalk by a feral savage called a negro life threatening?

 

[Wry Catcher]

My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.

That's overly broad, far too much so to qualify as a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny test.
Without a compelling interest, a restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution is assumed unconstitutional.

Licensing holds gun owners accountable.

In what way? If you commit a crime with a gun, doesn't the state hold you accountable, regardless of licensure?

By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime; though mitigating factors may reduce culpability and the prosecutor has discretion not to file in unusual circumstances. (that is, giving or loaning a gun to your unlicensed sister whose husband had beaten her and threatened to kill her).

You forget, DC v. Heller was decided by one vote on the Supreme Court:

 

[M14 Shooter]

My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.

That's overly broad, far too much so to qualify as a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny test.
Without a compelling interest, a restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution is assumed unconstitutional.

Licensing holds gun owners accountable.

In what way? If you commit a crime with a gun, doesn't the state hold you accountable, regardless of licensure?

By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime;

Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.

That's overly broad, far too much so to qualify as a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny test.
Without a compelling interest, a restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution is assumed unconstitutional.

Licensing holds gun owners accountable.

In what way? If you commit a crime with a gun, doesn't the state hold you accountable, regardless of licensure?

By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime;

Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.

Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose, and we both know the sale of guns is done illegally often, if not daily in our country. Since there is no way to track illegal sales, there is no solution to gun control, and that is what you seem to want, a lassiez faire system wherein guns remain available to those who ought not have them.

Something you and the NRA will deny, but that is the outcome as any honest person without an agenda understands and will acknowledge.

Thus the strength of your argument, so to speak, is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners, and conversely, no ideas will ever fit the needs of innocent victims and their loved ones. because you want to believe, and have others believe such an outcome is impossible, so why try anything.

That is why I believe the NRA is a terrorist organization. They will use their money and the power money provides them to influence elections, no matter what the consequences may bring as long as they get their way.

In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment, since their is no other authority or idea which will ever satisfy you.

Finally i suggest you read some of the post by others on your side of the argument, calling them dumb is too kind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.

That's overly broad, far too much so to qualify as a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny test.
Without a compelling interest, a restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution is assumed unconstitutional.

Licensing holds gun owners accountable.

In what way? If you commit a crime with a gun, doesn't the state hold you accountable, regardless of licensure?

By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime;

Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.

Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose.

This means you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position. Right?

You cannot place conditions on the exercise of a right just because you think it might be a good idea and they might have some positive effect on some broadly described issue, as these restrictions must pass strict scrutiny; if you cannot argue the points of that test, then you cannot, honestly, believe that the restriction in question does not unnecessarily and unconstitutionally violate the right.

You more or less admit that you cannot successfully argue that your license requirement passes strict scrutiny; why then do you believe that the license requioement you want does not violate the right to arms?

Thus the strength of your argument....

...is that you have failed at your attempt to meet the conditions of strict scrutiny. A great strength, that.

Is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners

If these infringements do not pass strict scrutiny and therefore violate the constitution, why should I?

In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment...

As if this is a failing.

The RKBA is a fundamental right of the people specifically protected by the 2nd; any attempt to ignore this fact in a discussion about gun control is a defacto an admission that the gun control under discussion violates the constitution.

As an honest person wanting an honest debate, surely you do not mean to do this, and so you will agree that the 2nd is indeed a legitimate component of any conversation regarding gun control.

And so... again... you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position

 

[protectionist]

Zimmerman, a hero to racists, and should be but isn't, an example of why there ought to be an open debate on gun control.

Zimmerman is an example of why there needs to be gun RIGHTS (especially CCW). If he had been unarmed, he could very possibly be dead right now, and no one would even know the name Trayvon Martin, who would still be running around burglarizing apartments.

There is not one fact in your post, of course I can infer several:

• you're a racist
• you're dishonest
• you're dumb as a box of rocks.

FACT 1- If he had been unarmed, he could very possibly be dead right now,

FACT 2 - no one would even know the name Trayvon Martin

FACT 3 - who would still be running around burglarizing apartments

Please how one shred of evidence that I somehow have been dishonest.

Please show one shred of evidence that you're not dumb as a box of rocks

 

[Kondor3]

Any change in Saint Skittles' condition?

 

[protectionist]

Suggesting licensing or any law is preventative is absurd. Using the term "prevent" was and is incorrect. Again, mea culpa. Writing in a hurry, mistakes occur.

So... what is your compelling interest?
How does licensing of gun owners achieve this interest?
How is it the least restrictive means to do so?

My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.
Licensing holds gun owners accountable.
I don't have a ready explanation, but you must or wouldn't ask the question.

But many gun control advocates go far beyond licensing. They don't want citizens even POSSESSING guns, and have made that the law in some places.

And there are many who want everyone to carry a gun wherever and whenever they want. I'm not speaking about those who go to far with gun control, or people like you. I'm talking about pragmatic, sane people - the vast majority of Americans, liberal and conservative - who see a problem and seek solutions.

You're saying there's something wrong with my policy about guns ? What might that be ?