CDZ Gun Control

[Abatis]

Really, is hyperbole all you've got?

LOL, really? Given all the on-topic posts that you ignore, it makes one wonder why is it that you only reply to my throwaway comments.

 

[Abatis]

How does one determine Mens rea before the act?

Which one of the exemplary restrictions on speech rely on establishing Mens rea before the act? Mens rea may be a part of dispensing justice after the act (as it goes to motive or considered in a sentencing enhancement scheme).

As early as 400 B.C.E Plato wrote of weapon control in The Republic.

Of course he did, which was a major reason why the founders / framers dismissed Plato as instructional as foundational political philosophy. OTOH, Jefferson included Aristotle's Politics in his list of "elementary books of public right", (along with Cicero, Locke and Sidney) which recognized and endorsed arms possession by citizens.

 

[2aguy]

It is against the law to commit Murder, Rape, Robbery or any crime against a person using feet, fists, knives, clubs, saps, garden hoes, frying pans, nail guns or firearms.

But if gun control advocates were to apply their reasoning to those instruments of crime they would be calling for cutting off feet and hands, banning all cutlery but plastic sporks, hoe registry with proof of a garden, removing assault grips from frying pans and banning nails capable of penetrating a human skull . . .

Really, is hyperbole all you've got?

I don't speak for all gun control advocates, so this is my opinion. A gun changes the personality of the person holding it. Unlike any of the other items or body parts under discussion.

The primary reason for feet and hands is obvious; knives and hoes are tools not made for killing. Can they be used for that, of course. But why were guns developed and what is their primary purpose?

A gun changes the personality of the person holding it.

Wrong......only in the mind of a gun grabber. Normal people do not shoot other people because they pick up a gun, and criminals are violent wether they have a gun or not.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I don't know who "we" refers to.

Well, they would be your "enough people" who will force their will on all. I'm guessing they would be the same people spoken of when Obama or any number of other gun control advocates say "we need to enact common sense gun laws".

If you somehow belong to a body which passed the law of gravitation, first of all let me say what an honor it is to finally meet you. Second, I guess anyone who passes a law can repeal it.

The rhetorical question was posed to make a point . . . That since original, fundamental rights are not granted by the words that recognize them, altering or even removing those words has no effect on the right. I was drawing an analogy with a physical force that of course does not depend upon the words that recognize it.

It would be my argument that the attempt to "repeal" the 2nd Amendment would be an act that would threaten the entire compact. Since most of the original 13 states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent upon adding a Bill of Rights (with two refusing to sign), what would happen if some of those states rescinded their original vote to ratify, enough to make the original ratification vote fail?

The whole argument you are making is ludicrous. To think that 33 states would agree to surrender the rights of their citizens, is typical leftie unicorn wrangling.

Enough people to force their will on others varies greatly, from situation to situation and in different eras. What percentage of the American people were involved in the ratification of the constitution? Smart, driven guys always force their will on others.

I thought the point you were trying to make is that it's ridiculous to attempt to bubble-wrap the world, and render it "safe". I would agree with that, and nothing I have said pertains to that point.

As far as abrogating fundamental rights goes, huh? What in the world have I said that could be construed as advocating for removing anyone's rights? I've said the following, so far:

1- This is a silly thread, as all such threads are silly.
2- It's silly because it fails to properly define a problem, and then suggest strategies and tactics to implement possible solutions.
3- My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective.

I've made no argument. I don't think that 33 states would agree to surrender the rights of their citizens. As far as what happens when states regard the federal compact as having been broken, states constantly regard the compact as being broken. These reactions have ranged from secession to meaningless threats to call for a new constitutional convention.

Nothing that has been mentioned in this thread has any relevance to either gun control or gun violence. Until we properly define what we are discussing, we are not really having a discussion.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical. The Congress which has in the past passed reasonable gun legislation ('68 gun act; Brady Bill) hasn't the balls to do the right thing; the money given to members of Congress will allow the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

We are destined to continue to read and listen to mass shootings, murders and accidental deaths, suicides, and the glory of an over armed citizenry whose members right to own / possess a gun can never be infringed until they commit an unconscionable act of violence against themselves or others.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."

You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.

As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.

The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical. The Congress which has in the past passed reasonable gun legislation ('68 gun act; Brady Bill) hasn't the balls to do the right thing; the money given to members of Congress will allow the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

We are destined to continue to read and listen to mass shootings, murders and accidental deaths, suicides, and the glory of an over armed citizenry whose members right to own / possess a gun can never be infringed until they commit an unconscionable act of violence against themselves or others.

There needs to be a discussion of ways to address mass shootings, murders, accidental deaths, and suicides that don't involve the direct regulation of firearms.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A gun changes the personality of the person holding it.

No. The personality has changed when the person decides to take a life, not pick up the gun.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

That's interesting, Wry. It's only when you don't get your wish of "reasonable" gun legislation that you accuse congress of putting the country and citizens second.

When they had both houses and a Democratic president all those years ago, they could have crammed gun control legislation down our throats, yet they were too busy passing Obamacare. Were they putting the country and citizenry behind their political goals?

Ahh so many missed opportunities.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."

You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.

As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.

The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.

Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical. The Congress which has in the past passed reasonable gun legislation ('68 gun act; Brady Bill) hasn't the balls to do the right thing; the money given to members of Congress will allow the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

We are destined to continue to read and listen to mass shootings, murders and accidental deaths, suicides, and the glory of an over armed citizenry whose members right to own / possess a gun can never be infringed until they commit an unconscionable act of violence against themselves or others.

There needs to be a discussion of ways to address mass shootings, murders, accidental deaths, and suicides that don't involve the direct regulation of firearms.

And yet I remember the NRA spokesperson suggesting that the rights of the mentally ill be infringed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."

You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.

As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.

The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.

Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.

See: I found great synonyms for "inviolate" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I object. I have posted exactly what I believe will reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should never own or possess one. I've done so a number of times and each time my comments have resulted in ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

 

[2aguy]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical. The Congress which has in the past passed reasonable gun legislation ('68 gun act; Brady Bill) hasn't the balls to do the right thing; the money given to members of Congress will allow the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

We are destined to continue to read and listen to mass shootings, murders and accidental deaths, suicides, and the glory of an over armed citizenry whose members right to own / possess a gun can never be infringed until they commit an unconscionable act of violence against themselves or others.

the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

You mean the fact, the truth and the reality, that we now have more guns in private hands than ever before, with over 13 million people carrying guns for self defense, and our gun murder rate has gone down, not up......our gun suicide rate has gone down, not up, our gun accident rate has gone down, not up......

Is that the "meme" you were talking about....

 

[2aguy]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical. The Congress which has in the past passed reasonable gun legislation ('68 gun act; Brady Bill) hasn't the balls to do the right thing; the money given to members of Congress will allow the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

We are destined to continue to read and listen to mass shootings, murders and accidental deaths, suicides, and the glory of an over armed citizenry whose members right to own / possess a gun can never be infringed until they commit an unconscionable act of violence against themselves or others.

There needs to be a discussion of ways to address mass shootings, murders, accidental deaths, and suicides that don't involve the direct regulation of firearms.

And yet I remember the NRA spokesperson suggesting that the rights of the mentally ill be infringed.

The ACLU was right next to them saying the same thing.....as were activist groups for the mentally ill.....

 

[2aguy]

"My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."

You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.

As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.

The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.

Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.

See: I found great synonyms for "inviolate" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I object. I have posted exactly what I believe will reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should never own or possess one. I've done so a number of times and each time my comments have resulted in ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

No....you put forth ideas that would not do what you want us to believe they would do, and gave no demonstration of how they would actually function...you put out words, not explanations, and when people explained it for you, you complained....

 

[TemplarKormac]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical. The Congress which has in the past passed reasonable gun legislation ('68 gun act; Brady Bill) hasn't the balls to do the right thing; the money given to members of Congress will allow the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

We are destined to continue to read and listen to mass shootings, murders and accidental deaths, suicides, and the glory of an over armed citizenry whose members right to own / possess a gun can never be infringed until they commit an unconscionable act of violence against themselves or others.

There needs to be a discussion of ways to address mass shootings, murders, accidental deaths, and suicides that don't involve the direct regulation of firearms.

And yet I remember the NRA spokesperson suggesting that the rights of the mentally ill be infringed.

You "surrender" eh?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

That's interesting, Wry. It's only when you don't get your wish of "reasonable" gun legislation that you accuse congress of putting the country and citizens second.

When they had both houses and a Democratic president all those years ago, they could have crammed gun control legislation down our throats, yet they were too busy passing Obamacare. Were they putting the country and citizenry behind their political goals?

Ahh so many missed opportunities.

Odd post; who benefits form the PPACA?

The D's learned that gun control is a losing issue, but put forth Health Care Reform, the Liberty interests of Gay & Lesbian service personnel, Gay & Lesbian Marriage and sought comprehensive Immigration reform.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

That's interesting, Wry. It's only when you don't get your wish of "reasonable" gun legislation that you accuse congress of putting the country and citizens second.

When they had both houses and a Democratic president all those years ago, they could have crammed gun control legislation down our throats, yet they were too busy passing Obamacare. Were they putting the country and citizenry behind their political goals?

Ahh so many missed opportunities.

Odd post; who benefits form the PPACA?

The D's learned that gun control is a losing issue, but put forth Health Care Reform, the Liberty interests of Gay & Lesbian service personnel, Gay & Lesbian Marriage and sought comprehensive Immigration reform.

This is out of character for you Wry. So gun control is a "losing" issue now? Does that mean we win?

"Who benefits from the PPACA?"

Nobody.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."

You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.

As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.

The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.

Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.

See: I found great synonyms for "inviolate" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I object. I have posted exactly what I believe will reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should never own or possess one. I've done so a number of times and each time my comments have resulted in ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

So that is what you want? Reduce the number of guns which are in the wrong hands? OK. By statute? How will that work, exactly?

I think the SC have done a reasonable job with regards to balancing gun rights and gun control. Blanket bans are unconstitutional. Reasonable regulations are not. Your fundamental right to own a gun is inviolate, but it entails responsibilities and consequences In other words, nothing in the constitution is an impediment to dealing with gun violence.

The people who shouldn't have guns in their hands are principally depressed people and alienated people. That's the problem, and that's where the resources should be used. I don't see how gun violence of these kinds can be impacted by laws. It can be addressed to some extent with education and innovation, but I wouldn't rule out public opinion reaching a tipping point. People may come to think of gun violence as a public health issue.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical. The Congress which has in the past passed reasonable gun legislation ('68 gun act; Brady Bill) hasn't the balls to do the right thing; the money given to members of Congress will allow the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

We are destined to continue to read and listen to mass shootings, murders and accidental deaths, suicides, and the glory of an over armed citizenry whose members right to own / possess a gun can never be infringed until they commit an unconscionable act of violence against themselves or others.

There needs to be a discussion of ways to address mass shootings, murders, accidental deaths, and suicides that don't involve the direct regulation of firearms.

And yet I remember the NRA spokesperson suggesting that the rights of the mentally ill be infringed.

You "surrender" eh?

No. I chose to walk away from personal attacks, non sequiturs and the closed minds of obsessives.