Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[basquebromance]

abolish the 2nd amendment

abolish people dying because they cant afford getting sick

abolish people dying because of guns

abolish people killing each other because they have too many guns and too little education

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You just threw something onto the wall hoping something would stick. It''s not the Feds that make that determination, it's the States. Unless it was a violent gun crime, after the jail time and the parole (unless the person elects to serve his full time) in Colorado, your gun rights are restored.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It can be found here in the Constitution:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Well, we're gonna have to find judicial review in Article III. Where's that at in Article III, Clayton? Show us. We'll wait. Thanks!

 

[Coyote]

Guys, this thread has a topic, please return to it. To clue in the clueless, the topic isn’t communism, delusions of Godhood, or terrorists.

 

[Rigby5]

N

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

Those stats are for general murders, but interesting none the less. We're right up there with all the other shitholes.

We need gun control to stop the irresponsible, Nazis, and mentally disturbed from having access to guns. America is a capitalist shithole. Only communism could save it.

You have that totally backwards.
What gives Fascists power IS gun control.
The only way to reduce fascism is to end gun control first.

The reason Hitler was able to massacre all the Spartacus League in Germany was that there was such strict gun control.
Only Hitlers forces were exempt, because the SA were a privileged veterans society that claimed to be promoting marksmanship.

No progressive, liberal, or leftest would ever support gun control.
Gun control has always been used to murder anyone against racism or for things like labor unions.

Nazis supported guns for Nazis. That helped them kill Jews in the Holocaust.

The Nazis were a political party.
They were the government, so they did not need guns.
They just had to order gun control on the Jews, and then allow the armed government employees, who were not party members, to commit the Holocaust.
It was gun control that allowed the Holocaust to happen.
And it could easily happen here as well, if we ever allow gun control to happen.
That is why we must reduce the existing gun control that is already too out of control, and never allow gun control.
The police and military will always do what ever they are told, so they must never be allowed a monopoly on weapons.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Guys, this thread has a topic, please return to it. To clue in the clueless, the topic isn’t communism, delusions of Godhood, or terrorists.

The terms of controversy with regard to the topic are broad and dependent solely upon ones ability or inability...or want...to include them.

You can type in all of the bold red ink you want, you don't get to control those terms.

There isnt a day that goes by that one can't turn on the television and witnes some self-ordained godlike figure referencing the American electorate as domestic terrorists for openly speaking in defense of their constitutional rights. And nine times out of ten those same people are endorsing what is effectively communist policy. Your 'squad' for example.

 

[Coyote]

Guys, this thread has a topic, please return to it. To clue in the clueless, the topic isn’t communism, delusions of Godhood, or terrorists.

The terms of controversy with regard to the topic are broad and dependent solely upon ones ability or inability...or want...to include them.

You can type in all of the bold red ink you want, you don't get to control those terms.

There isnt a day that goes by that one can't turn on the television and witnes some self-ordained godlike figure referencing the American electorate as domestic terrorists for openly speaking in defense of their constitutional rights. And nine times out of ten those same people are endorsing what is effectively communist policy. Your 'squad' for example.

The thread is getting hugely derailed, 25 posts worth have been deleted.

Try to move back to the topic please, and yes, the red ink is telling you to do so.

 

[Rigby5]

abolish the 2nd amendment

abolish people dying because they cant afford getting sick

abolish people dying because of guns

abolish people killing each other because they have too many guns and too little education

Abolish people dying because foolish gun laws prevent them from protecting themselves and their family.
The 2nd amendment can only become irrelevant if miraculously governments can no longer become corrupt.
As long as governments can lie about WMD in Iraq, and illegally murder half a million innocents, then gun control equates to treason.

 

[Rigby5]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You just threw something onto the wall hoping something would stick. It''s not the Feds that make that determination, it's the States. Unless it was a violent gun crime, after the jail time and the parole (unless the person elects to serve his full time) in Colorado, your gun rights are restored.

r
Unless the felony conviction was federal, in which case there is no mechanism for restoration of rights, and you have to go for a pardon instead.
1435. Post-Conviction Restoration Of Civil Rights

 

[Natural Citizen]

The thread is getting hugely derailed, 25 posts worth have been deleted.

Try to move back to the topic please, and yes, the red ink is telling you to do so.

I've been on topic. And so far I've yet to read any competent response. But that's your real problem, isn't it? You don't like that, do you?

Maybe you should start another one of your 'official' threads the way you usually do when you want to dictate the terms of discussion? They're usually about as deep as a mud puddle anyway.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

 

[Lesh]

N

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

mass murders by country

Those stats are for general murders, but interesting none the less. We're right up there with all the other shitholes.

We need gun control to stop the irresponsible, Nazis, and mentally disturbed from having access to guns. America is a capitalist shithole. Only communism could save it.

You have that totally backwards.
What gives Fascists power IS gun control.
The only way to reduce fascism is to end gun control first.

The reason Hitler was able to massacre all the Spartacus League in Germany was that there was such strict gun control.
Only Hitlers forces were exempt, because the SA were a privileged veterans society that claimed to be promoting marksmanship.

No progressive, liberal, or leftest would ever support gun control.
Gun control has always been used to murder anyone against racism or for things like labor unions.

Nazis supported guns for Nazis. That helped them kill Jews in the Holocaust.

The Nazis were a political party.
They were the government, so they did not need guns.
They just had to order gun control on the Jews, and then allow the armed government employees, who were not party members, to commit the Holocaust.
It was gun control that allowed the Holocaust to happen.
And it could easily happen here as well, if we ever allow gun control to happen.
That is why we must reduce the existing gun control that is already too out of control, and never allow gun control.
The police and military will always do what ever they are told, so they must never be allowed a monopoly on weapons.

There was ALREADY strong gun control in Germany when the Nazis came to power. They LOOSENED laws for nonJews.

 

[Lesh]

We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.

Yea,,,in a mass murder attack with an assault rifle

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

License and permit requirement have been upheld by the courts with regard to citizens exercising their First Amendment rights; the Second Amendment right is no different.

Licensing and permit requirements violate neither the First nor Fifth Amendment – the notion is utter nonsense.

And there’s nothing in the 10th Amendment that prohibits the Federal government from enacting firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes and no. I mean........I certainly don't want to drive around anybody who is intoxicated, especially in an 18 wheeler. However there is a distinct difference between being intoxicated and having residual drugs or alcohol in your system from what you were doing in your off duty hours.

A friend of mine works for ConWay express which was recently sold to another company. He told me that every driver gets pulled for a drug test after vacation. Why? Because vacation is when people let loose a bit, and residual THC can stay in your system from three to four weeks.

So they were not testing to see if you came back loaded, they tested to see what you did while on vacation, and to me, that's an invasion of privacy.

You want the job, stay clean. If you are using during your vacation then chances are you are also using when you aren't on vacation. Don't lie about it. It means a lot of lives are on the line for certain jobs. It's like when I was an Aircraft Specialist. Do you really want to fly on an Aircraft that a druggie worked on? Or when I worked High Scale. Certain jobs MUST be completely clean for the safety of everyone. I don't find ConWays drug policy wrong at all. If you do then maybe you should go work at something less dangerous.

That makes no sense and is an illegal invasion of privacy.
There is no drug that continues to have effect after 12 hours or so.
Just because the drug test can find minute traces in your urine, does not mean you are high, dangerous, or incapable of delicate work.
The government has no right or authority to say what you do, only that you do your job correctly.
And drug testing does not at all do that.

In my case, drug testing is a government requirement. However it's not so in other industries. Companies get breaks in their Workman's Compensation insurance if they participate in drug screenings for employees. But because government forces us to comply, I do find that a violation of our fourth Amendment rights.

You have the option to go work somewhere else. I hear that grocery baggers are probably not randomly drug tested.

So are you saying that when government violates your rights, it's up to you as a citizen to take action so your rights are no longer being violated by the government?

If that's the case, then why have any rights at all? It's like saying if you don't want government to search your home without a warrant, don't live in a home. Live under a bridge and that's totally constitutional.

Our rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute – they are subject to limits, regulations, and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.

When government enacts laws repugnant to the Constitution, the people have the First Amendment right to seek relief through either the political or judicial process.

The Second Amendment right is no different, likewise subject to limits, regulations, and restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment case law.

 

[Natural Citizen]

License and permit requirement have been upheld by the courts with regard to citizens exercising their First Amendment rights; the Second Amendment right is no different.

Licensing and permit requirements violate neither the First nor Fifth Amendment – the notion is utter nonsense.

And there’s nothing in the 10th Amendment that prohibits the Federal government from enacting firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

There's nothing in the 10th which gives the federal government constitutional authority to mandate rules contrary to the constitution in order to require a gun. Especially the power to force people to relinquish their 1st and 5th amendment rights in order to require one. At best one could try to argue the states would have that power but even they have their own 2nd amendments.

Now. Judicial review/case law. You're still gonna have to show us where that is in Article III. Again, we'll wait. Thanks, Clayton.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ah well. I'll check back in a few days.Maybe. I'm kind of tired of this forum, dunno why I keep coming back. I might jump back on twitter anyway.

 

[dblack]

You want the job, stay clean. If you are using during your vacation then chances are you are also using when you aren't on vacation. Don't lie about it. It means a lot of lives are on the line for certain jobs. It's like when I was an Aircraft Specialist. Do you really want to fly on an Aircraft that a druggie worked on? Or when I worked High Scale. Certain jobs MUST be completely clean for the safety of everyone. I don't find ConWays drug policy wrong at all. If you do then maybe you should go work at something less dangerous.

That makes no sense and is an illegal invasion of privacy.
There is no drug that continues to have effect after 12 hours or so.
Just because the drug test can find minute traces in your urine, does not mean you are high, dangerous, or incapable of delicate work.
The government has no right or authority to say what you do, only that you do your job correctly.
And drug testing does not at all do that.

In my case, drug testing is a government requirement. However it's not so in other industries. Companies get breaks in their Workman's Compensation insurance if they participate in drug screenings for employees. But because government forces us to comply, I do find that a violation of our fourth Amendment rights.

You have the option to go work somewhere else. I hear that grocery baggers are probably not randomly drug tested.

So are you saying that when government violates your rights, it's up to you as a citizen to take action so your rights are no longer being violated by the government?

If that's the case, then why have any rights at all? It's like saying if you don't want government to search your home without a warrant, don't live in a home. Live under a bridge and that's totally constitutional.

Our rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute – they are subject to limits, regulations, and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.

When government enacts laws repugnant to the Constitution, the people have the First Amendment right to seek relief through either the political or judicial process.

The Second Amendment right is no different, likewise subject to limits, regulations, and restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Ahhh. Case law.

 

[Flopper]

i'd pay him $100 to go to a gun show and try to buy a gun w/o a background check and double that if he's actually able to do it and have an independent person film the events.

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, record the sale, or ask for identification, whether at a gun show or other venue. This is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders, who are required to perform background checks and record all sales on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show. Some states have passed laws to require background checks for private sales with limited exceptions. Access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is limited to FFL holders.

The holes in background checks are so numerous as to make the laws ineffective at their primary purpose, keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Lobbying groups have seen to that.

Unfortunately, to have really effective gun control requires that gun ownership become a privilege not a right. So as the killing power of guns become greater so will the scope of mass murder.

In the United States of America, it should be a "privilege" to have the ability to defend yourself?

Yes.
Law enforcement is certainly capability of defending the people in a society where there are no guns. In fact, law enforcement would be far more effective.