Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Daryl Hunt]

Technically traffic laws are voluntary contractual obligations when you accept the license. That is because driving itself, is not really a right.
But government has no authority of its own.
So government can only act in the defense of the rights of others.
That means that it can incarcerate you when you harm others, in order to protect others.
But once out, there no longer is a legal valid justification for harming the convicted felon.
Government does not have that authority, as it defends no one.
In fact, by denying the right to vote, government is committing the crime of taxation without representation,

Ironically we need 'license' to exercise our 2nd. Which is a right. And we have to involuntarily relinquish our 1st and 5th amendment rights in order to apply for license to require a gun.

Good grief. That's a 10th amendment violation itself. I don't recall that requirement to be a power of the federal government in the constitution either.

let's take another look at this.

The 2nd doesn't take into consideration of the weapons that, if willy nilly, used can cause extreme collateral damage to bystanders. The Mobs were spraying with their machine guns (Thompsons and BARs) not really caring if an innocent was in the way or not. If it had just been the mob killing the mob in an open field I doubt if anyone would really have cared. Even today, Drug Mob Killings aren't looked at nearly as well as any other murder. But they were shooting up places like Diners and Clubs where innocents were being hit as well. And the property damage was outrageous. The problem was, if they made both of these weapons unavailable in one city or state, the Mob just went one state or city over and aquired them. In the BARs case, they had to raid a US Armory to get them but it appears some did. The Thompsons made a good weapon to shoot their way in to get the BARs. But the BARs weren't that common. The Thompsons were.

So they use the Interstate Trade laws to justify the Federal Government stepping in. The States were unable to do it themselves because some states refused. The Mob made sure that no wholesale slaughter was done in their supply states. Instead of outright banning them, they heavily regulated them and forced the manufacturers to cease selling them to Civilians in full auto mode. Law Enforcement and the Military could still get them. And the LE and Military no longer offered them as surplus. Since civilians could not get parts or the whole gun, they were slowly either entered into gun collections or destroyed when found. You would think that we are more civilized now and could handle it better but that would be wrong. If anything, we are more uncivilized than the common person was in the 1920 and 1930s. But, even if we aren't we aren't any more civilized.

The 2nd amendment deals with the Federal Laws. It doesn't deal with the State Laws so much. Much of the gun regulations would be considered under Public Safety. And the Courts use to stay out of things when it came to states rights. One can interpret the 2nd amendment as a limit placed on the Federal Government more than the State. Or the other way. But that just starts an angry argument.

Funny, you mention relinquishing the 1st amendment rights. Is the Press so free these days or is our "Government" in the process of limiting that. If it's all fake news then I would welcome the Feds to take it to court and get those news agencies to stop claiming to be news agencies. It's funny, the one that you trust the most has already been found not to be a news agency but an Entertainment Agency. This is why Fox News can be so outlandish. It's like believing that the National Enquirer actually researches their subject matter rather than just make it up. Maybe we need that done. But when I hear a President yell, "Fake News" then there is definitely something amiss and it's not all with the news agency. So the 1st Amendment is in jeporady. Just not the way you believe it is.

You bring up the 5th amendment. You just threw it out there hoping something would stick. Now, explain how that is being violated? I just don't see it has anything to do with anything in this subject. Unless you are talking about the Red Flag Laws. In that case, the Due Process comes to mind. I don't see how the federal courts can uphold a law that doesn't allow the due process before the guns are seized. Sort of like having a cop enforce a restraint without a court order or restraining order. Unless it's issued by a Judge or Court then I just don't see it being upheld. It's early on this one and it's not been contested. But it will be.

As for the 10th, I don't see a real problem. At least one that will stand up in court. Unless it involves interstate trade and safety. States are unable to govern Civilian Commercial Air Ways. It crosses state lines. So it falls on the Feds to regulate it. And trust me, you really don't want it to go back to the days before it was regulated. "Hey, Who's flying the Plane Today?. Is it the Plumber or the escaped nutjob?"

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

It doesn't say it anywhere in the constitution. Which you correctly stated first. So any buts are superceded. Irrelevant. But you said but.

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

I'll remind you of that in a later discussion when you try and move the goal post once again.

Nobody ever moved anything. But if it makes you feel better.........

I'll wait.

 

[edward37]

So let me get this straight Your solution has nothing to do with guns just the mentally ill? Seems that's trumps solution After talking wit NRA

So you want to do nothing about the mentally ill and think telling people who aren't mentally ill they can't own one specific type of gun will solve the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

We need a group or a party not afraid of the NRA and starts looking for cures to our mass killing problems

What mass killing problem? We had a grand total of 12 in 2018, with 93 killed....cars killed over 38,000.....we have a car killing problem......knives kill over 1,500 every single year...

93 vs. 1,500...

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Yea asshole..there's no mass murder problem...sure

Mass shootings account for 1% or less of all murders

SO no it's really not the problem

Tell that to a parent of those murdered in houses of worship childrens schools concerts I dare you

 

[Lesh]

So we shouldn't worry about events like El Paso, Dayton, Tree of Life, Parksville, Vegas,Sandy Hook, and on and on...meh...

You have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun.

Is that worth worrying about?

Your contention is that we shouldn't worry about going to the Mall, school, a concert, a place of worship?

Blow off a firecracker in any of those places and watch the reaction. We worry

 

[edward37]

So we shouldn't worry about events like El Paso, Dayton, Tree of Life, Parksville, Vegas,Sandy Hook, and on and on...meh...

You have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun.

Is that worth worrying about?

Your contention is that we shouldn't worry about going to the Mall, school, a concert, a place of worship?

Blow off a firecracker in any of those places and watch the reaction. We worry

Republicans here remind me of a character in Mad Magazine Alfred E Neuman with the caption What ?? Me worry?

 

[Lesh]

So we shouldn't worry about events like El Paso, Dayton, Tree of Life, Parksville, Vegas,Sandy Hook, and on and on...meh...

You have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun.

Is that worth worrying about?

Your contention is that we shouldn't worry about going to the Mall, school, a concert, a place of worship?

Blow off a firecracker in any of those places and watch the reaction. We worry

And we are right to worry

After Dayton and El Paso, the list of averted mass shootings keeps growing

Mass shootings have been averted in about six places all across the US in just the last couple weeks

 

[Blues Man]

So you want to do nothing about the mentally ill and think telling people who aren't mentally ill they can't own one specific type of gun will solve the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

We need a group or a party not afraid of the NRA and starts looking for cures to our mass killing problems

What mass killing problem? We had a grand total of 12 in 2018, with 93 killed....cars killed over 38,000.....we have a car killing problem......knives kill over 1,500 every single year...

93 vs. 1,500...

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Yea asshole..there's no mass murder problem...sure

Mass shootings account for 1% or less of all murders

SO no it's really not the problem

Tell that to a parent of those murdered in houses of worship childrens schools concerts I dare you

Appeals to emotions are irrelevant

Tell people who had a child killed by a drunk driver that you don't want to ban alcohol so we can all call you selfish ass for not wanting to give up alcohol

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

So we shouldn't worry about events like El Paso, Dayton, Tree of Life, Parksville, Vegas,Sandy Hook, and on and on...meh...

You have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun.

Is that worth worrying about?

Your contention is that we shouldn't worry about going to the Mall, school, a concert, a place of worship?

Blow off a firecracker in any of those places and watch the reaction. We worry

If you are afraid of firecrackers then you have bigger problems than I thought

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

So we shouldn't worry about events like El Paso, Dayton, Tree of Life, Parksville, Vegas,Sandy Hook, and on and on...meh...

You have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun.

Is that worth worrying about?

Your contention is that we shouldn't worry about going to the Mall, school, a concert, a place of worship?

Blow off a firecracker in any of those places and watch the reaction. We worry

Republicans here remind me of a character in Mad Magazine Alfred E Neuman with the caption What ?? Me worry?

I don't worry about being murdered if you do then stay inside

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So we shouldn't worry about events like El Paso, Dayton, Tree of Life, Parksville, Vegas,Sandy Hook, and on and on...meh...

You have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun.

Is that worth worrying about?

Your contention is that we shouldn't worry about going to the Mall, school, a concert, a place of worship?

Blow off a firecracker in any of those places and watch the reaction. We worry

And we are right to worry

After Dayton and El Paso, the list of averted mass shootings keeps growing

Mass shootings have been averted in about six places all across the US in just the last couple weeks

And this is a bad thing?

You people on the left have been crying that government needs to stop these shootings, and when they do, you complain even more.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So we shouldn't worry about events like El Paso, Dayton, Tree of Life, Parksville, Vegas,Sandy Hook, and on and on...meh...

You have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun.

Is that worth worrying about?

Your contention is that we shouldn't worry about going to the Mall, school, a concert, a place of worship?

Blow off a firecracker in any of those places and watch the reaction. We worry

If you are that worried, get a license and carry a gun like we do.

 

[2aguy]

So we shouldn't worry about events like El Paso, Dayton, Tree of Life, Parksville, Vegas,Sandy Hook, and on and on...meh...

You have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun.

Is that worth worrying about?

Your contention is that we shouldn't worry about going to the Mall, school, a concert, a place of worship?

Blow off a firecracker in any of those places and watch the reaction. We worry

And we are right to worry

After Dayton and El Paso, the list of averted mass shootings keeps growing

Mass shootings have been averted in about six places all across the US in just the last couple weeks

Yep......because people are now stepping up and reporting dangerous people.....while social media, and the 24/7 news cycle that promotes these shooters creates the next shooters.....

Push for people to care about their children and how they spend their time and you can stop these shooters.....banning 18 million rifles because 3 people used them illegally is F*****g stupid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If rights do not come from the government, then where do they come from? If you say God or nature, then why do countries that rule under Communism or Dictatorships not have those rights to their citizens? It's because government doesn't provide those rights no matter where you think they came from.

Because we're the only nation in the world which specifically bases it's form of government on the notion that all men are created...endowed by their creator. It says so right there in the document. It doesn't matter what other countries do in this regard.

Understood, but the point I'm making is that it is the government that grants you rights, just like it's the government that creates laws. They don't appear out of thin air and our rights are not applicable in every other country in the world. They are applicable to our citizens under our Constitution where those rights were written by government.

That is incorrect.
We, you and I, and others, create government.
It is subordinate and inferior in terms of authority to us.
We hire government to do certain things for us, but government can never be superior to its employers, us,
Governments do NOT really create laws at all.
Laws are supposed to be based simply on the pragmatic requirements necessary in order to protect individual inherent rights.
That is abstracted in to a constitution, and then legislators can pen laws in order to implement those inherent and pre-established protections of rights.
A government can never write a constitution, because a government does not exist yet before the Constitution is written.

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

 

[2aguy]

So we shouldn't worry about events like El Paso, Dayton, Tree of Life, Parksville, Vegas,Sandy Hook, and on and on...meh...

You have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun.

Is that worth worrying about?

Your contention is that we shouldn't worry about going to the Mall, school, a concert, a place of worship?

Blow off a firecracker in any of those places and watch the reaction. We worry

Republicans here remind me of a character in Mad Magazine Alfred E Neuman with the caption What ?? Me worry?

320,000,000 people in the U.S.

12 mass public shootings in 2018

93 people killed......total.

Lawn mowers kill 75 every year.

Knives kill over 1,500 people every single year

Cars kill over 38,000 people...

Yes......what, me worry?

Sell your lawn mower.....you have better chance that that will kill you than a mass public shooter.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

That is not true.
If you had no rights when imprisoned, then someone could murder you and there would be no charges.
You rights can only legally be curtailed as necessary to defend the rights of others.

State authority does not have to be in the Constitution, only federal authority has to be explicitly granted in the Constitution.

Wrong. States cannot implement laws that violate the US Constitution. It's part of being a member of the union.

For instance let's say my state created a law that said homosexuals can be discriminated against by state government and businesses. They can't do that because it would violate the US Constitution.

I never said you had no rights when in prison, I said you are denied certain rights, just like you willingly surrendered your right when you committed a crime.

Rights can not really be denied, but they
can be restricted as necessary in order to protect the rights of others.

As for the Constitution, you misunderstand what the Constitution was for.
It said nothing at all about what states can do, and in fact it says clearly in the 9th and 10th amendments that the purpose of the constitution is just to establish what the federal government is authorized to do, and everything else is left up to the states.
There was a slight change after the Civil War, when the 14th amendment came out and the SCOTUS started incorporating the Bill of Rights as individual, and to also prohibit state infringement. But there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits states from doing anything. It is just the SCOTUS interpretation of what they decide must be individual rights.

The Constitution doesn't tell you what the government can do, it tells you what the government can't.

If the Constitution were to tell you what government could do, it would be longer than the Mueller report.

Only the Bill of Rights was about restrictions, and even that was only intended to restrict the federal government.
But the whole point is that the federal government was only supposed to a do a very small set of things.
The federal government is way out of hand, and need to be stopped.
For example, there was to be no federal firearm or drug laws at all.

Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Read the 9th and 10th amendments again.

Believe that if you wish, but my state (like many others) were forced to accept gay marriages even though a few years prior to the ruling, we clearly voted against it. The Supreme Court ruled it was a violation of the US Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't, but taking away rights is part of the sentence you get when you committed a crime you knew would deny you those rights. In that sense, it was an option to no longer have those rights that you chose.

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

y

Technically traffic laws are voluntary contractual obligations when you accept the license. That is because driving itself, is not really a right.
But government has no authority of its own.
So government can only act in the defense of the rights of others.
That means that it can incarcerate you when you harm others, in order to protect others.
But once out, there no longer is a legal valid justification for harming the convicted felon.
Government does not have that authority, as it defends no one.
In fact, by denying the right to vote, government is committing the crime of taxation without representation,

Yes, but again, you did have these rights to being with. You willingly surrendered them when you decided to commit a felony. It's like I mentioned about my line of work. I willingly forfeited some constitutional rights when I went into this career.

For instance, state troopers pull me over for no reason at all. I didn't violate any law. When I ask what I did wrong, they tell me "nothing is wrong, I pulled you over to find something wrong!" Then they proceed to check out my truck, look into the trailer to inspect the cargo, look into my cab to inspect paperwork, and even a few times, looked under the hood of my truck. It's a clear violation of my fourth amendment rights, but again, that's something I forfeited when taking the job.

Outside of my job, police can hold me to different OVI standards as well. You and I have a few drinks at a bar. After leaving the bar and following each other, we run into a sobriety checkpoint. They test you and you are far from the legal limit, so they send you on your way. They check me and I have the same breathalyzer results as you did, but they arrest me for DUI because CDL standards for DUI are much lower, even though I'm only driving my car. It's a clear violation of my constitutional rights of equal protection.

The point I'm making is that you can and do surrender your constitutional rights. You are not guaranteed those rights if you willingly surrender them.

Surrendering driving privileges is different because it is not a right.
But to arrest for DUI when not over the limits, is illegal.
The most they should be able to do legally is pull the CDL.
The government does far too many illegal things already, and it getting much worse all the time.
If for example they try an assault weapons ban, there will be blood.

Not really because it's been done before and no civil unrest. The ban lasted for ten years, and it was not renewed upon expiration. It would have been renewed if Democrats were in charge.

It's not what government "could be" or "should be" doing, it's what they are doing that counts. That's why I said we drivers do surrender some of our constitutional rights when we went into this career.

 

[Taz]

Ya, they don't seem to have ANY hillbillies, despite all the hills. What should we be doing?

Buy more guns and ammo...

Sheesh, with the amount of guns and ammo you hillbillies have, and we're not safe, why would more guns keep us safer? Please explain.

The reason we are not safe is that you are not allowed to have guns outside the home pretty much.
Like the insane law making it illegal to drive past a school with a gun in the trunk.
And it is getting harder and harder to have guns or find any place to practice.
For example, condo associations can ban them, as well as government subsidized housing, etc.

So more guns are needed to be safer. So why is it that other countries can have less guns and less mass shootings but we can’t?

 

[Taz]

10000 people own 17 guns or more. Everybody else has 1 or 2. That's all the study suggests, but that is total bullshit. There are way more than 250 million guns.

Wrong again. "Everybody"...actually ends up being only 22% of the population who own ANY guns

That is disturbing. Way too low.

Everyone needs a gun to be readily available so, when they make the right choice and decide to off themselves, they are successful.

The world population is out of control, which is causing climate change, and we need volunteers to be ready to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

.

I bet you're a fucking prepper doucher. amirite or AMIRITE??

According to the Founders, everyone is supposed to be a prepper.
Everyone ends up fighting over their country about every 400 years or so, and you never know when that is going to happen.
With Congress lying about Iraqi WMD and murdering over half a million innocent civilians, we likely should have already had a rebellion in the US,

So you won’t need any guns for another 150 years, got it.

 

[Taz]

Ya, they don't seem to have ANY hillbillies, despite all the hills. What should we be doing?

Buy more guns and ammo...

The problem with your Meme is it's a lie. And riding your bike wearing your FLN will get you landed in a jail cell. MOST Swiss have passed on taking their guns when they leave the military even though most have that right. And once you pass on it, it's a real bear to get the right back again. And a Swiss NEVER EVER take shis weapon out into public just to show it off.

You are totally wrong.
All Swiss are required to take military training, and almost all choose to keep their arms after their stint is up.
It is not at all hard to get arms in Switzerland regardless of the one they give you.
And everyone is encouraged to take your weapons out in public, for constant refresher, competitions, etc.
I have Swiss relatives.

Are they made of cheese? Or just eat a lot of cheese?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ya, they don't seem to have ANY hillbillies, despite all the hills. What should we be doing?

Buy more guns and ammo...

Sheesh, with the amount of guns and ammo you hillbillies have, and we're not safe, why would more guns keep us safer? Please explain.

The reason we are not safe is that you are not allowed to have guns outside the home pretty much.
Like the insane law making it illegal to drive past a school with a gun in the trunk.
And it is getting harder and harder to have guns or find any place to practice.
For example, condo associations can ban them, as well as government subsidized housing, etc.

So more guns are needed to be safer. So why is it that other countries can have less guns and less mass shootings but we can’t?

When it comes to mass murders, the US is 20th on the list.

mass murders by country