Obama and Guns

[LOki]

I'm sure that some do. I think that the ability to compare the identity of a buyer, to a list of names of people who are prohibited from having guns (as opposed to a list of people who are "allowed" to have guns) is useful to sellers who wish to avoid suits alledging criminal negligence in seeling arms to people who are dangerous to themselves or others.

Good point. And isn't that what lists are make up of - those who are not allowed to have guns?

Not precisely.

I don't neccessarily agree. I think that background checks as they are now structured are most certainly infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms. If the focus of the checks were not on who is eligble (which really should start with the presumption of everybody, and move from there) and instead focus upon those who were ineligble (i.e. the much shorter list of psychologically incompetent, and criminally violent folks) then I don't see the background check as any infringment--I'd probably get pisses off if it wasn't done.

Isn't that how it works? If my name is Jimmy Smith from 1 Smith St, and I have ID to back it up, they stick my name through the computer, up comes a zero result, I move on??

Not precisely.

"Allow" is the difficult word, I suppose. I certainly think its a bad idea that a person with a history of violent mental illness has a gun--I would not want that to happen--mostly because I don't really want to be in the position of having to decide between flipping the switch on his violently ill gray matter, or talking him down from a bad hair day when he whips out a gun.

Nor do I want to be in the position of having to decide if someone else was justified in flipping the switch on his violently ill gray matter.

So the answer is what?

It's certainly not "infringe upon the rightto keep and bear arms"; I suppose it might just be, "flip the switch on his violently ill gray matter."

Right. Prohibiting the demonstrably incompetent and criminally violent from keeping arms does not infringe upon the broader right of everyone else to keep arms.

So the answer is...?

Perhaps a background check performed in a manner Consistent with the 2nd Amendment, that doesn't presume criminal intent, and from a data database not designed for criminalizing gun ownership.

A background check is neccessary, just not the ones currently in place. What is not neccessary to a background check is to place on a list, all persons who currently own a gun, or who wish to own a gun--you need only register those who ARE NOT eligible for gun ownership.

Surely the background checks are on who has a criminal or mental illness history??

Not precisely.

Of couse not. Now try on the real world: Would you be happy if your wife or child was killed by somebody with a severe mental illness who had access to a firearm, who else would not have had said access if a simple background check had been done, but got one anyway--and you could do nothing to stop him because you are still waiting for your paperwork to go through so your background check, for buying your gun, will be approved?

What do you mean by real world? Are you saying there have not been murders using firearms committed by felons or mentally ill people involving innocents (as opposed to gang bangers hitting each other)?? As for the rest, how often does/has that happen/ed? Is it the norm?

By real world, I mean a world other than a hypothetical one such as the one you presented to illustrate your point; in the real world, violent felons and the mentally deranged have certainly killed innocents, and nothing i presented denies that; as for the rest, that's the real world, chum--and it happens.

The objection lies in the fact that there is nothing inherently criminal about owning a gun--ANY GUN. Owning guns is a specifically protected right in this country--a right presumed to be held by everyone who can legitimately claim to be of "the People", and a right that shall not be infringed upon.

This is one of my main planks since year dot when talking guns. That right was brought in during the 18th century. It is an amendment at that, and can be changed any time your congress takes the vote and gets the numbers. It would be political suicide to do so, but it is still there, so it is not strictly an inherent right. And IMO - and I must stress, this is my opinion and a talking point and am not trying to foist my ideas into being the law of YOUR land - is this right was set at a time when things were a lot different in the world. The world has moved on and most first world countries' attitudes to firearms has certainly changed (for the better IMO).

All rights are inherent, regardless of when/if those rights are recognized, or when/if those rights are protected--a government may recind recognition and/or protection of a right, but that is unconstitutional in the US; no amount of votes can change that.

Sure, you have nothing to hide...today. The objection is the same objection that those who find themselves defending their privacy from authoritarian douche-bags who say, "Only criminals would object to the governement eaves-dropping on their private conversations and correspondence, or opening their mail, or tapping their phones--what is your objection?"

You may not like the analogy, but there is a big difference between somebody eavesdropping on my convo and a nutjob having access to firearms and the neccessity of having them in the first place. There is the slippery slope argument, but I don't buy it. I think sometimes people who like their guns are using a strawman with that example. There is a fundamental difference IMO.

There's no difference at all if you allow that the "nut job" could be a government bureaucrat--you know, part of that organiziation folks like you insist can be trusted with any gun.

I think people who don't like guns deny that the term "rights" is fungible in the discourse; insisting that "rights" means something different regarding guns and self defense than what it means regarding religion, free speech, and due process.

No it's not. Since there is no such thing as "the greater good", just the good shall have to take precedence--and that is what is good for each individual.

Of course there is a greater good. People make sacrifices for their communities all the time in the sense that they chose a course of action that helped others, whereby if they'd taken another set of actions it would have been to their sole benefit. Audie Murphy and Alvin York come to mind

There is no such thing as a "greater good." Human sacrifice is always wrong.

Irrelevent, and untrue as far as the right is concernend.

You may think it is irrelevent. However, it is not untrue. It was set at at time when things were different. You are the only nation with some amongst you that thinks it is an inherent right. You can think that, but that doesn’t make it so (see my comment on it being an amendment)

"Things are different" is irrelevent because "things are different" is always true, and can be said to support any assertion that makes any claim; "Things are different" is untrue in the context of the issue, because the things that are different have no bearing on the reasons that the 2nd Amendment was included in our Constitution and ratified.

No you don't. You need only beleive that rights are inherent in the condition of being human beings, and that self preservation is one of these rights, that liberty is one of these rights, and that infringing upon the right to the tools that each individual may use to preserve their selfs, and their liberties, from the predations of other individuals and/or groups of individuals is a violation of an individual's rights.

You may believe those those things and that is fine. If you truly believe that, then why not throw out all laws and statutes. Why not just do what you want to do, because every statute ever written infringes on somebody’s rights somewhere with regard to liberty, self-preservation etc.

Every law ever written <i>may</i> "...infringe on somebody&#8217;s rights somewhere with regard to liberty, self-preservation etc...", but they don't have to. They could recognize and preserve our rights with regard to liberty, self-preservation etc.

Right's are not granted by the Constitution, they are recognized, and the obligation of the Government to protect those rights is set forth therein, but enumeration of rights is NOT a limitation of rights in general.

Well, I have seen arguments by Americans on both sides of the spectrum with regard to what the constitution is. Some agree with you, others disagree. What is important, is that the 2nd IS an amendment and is open to being taken away by congress. But as I said, it will never happen.

Governmental powers ar limited by the Constitution of the US; the US Government is not empowered to take rights away.

Thanks for the civil discourse..

You're welcome.

 

[Dr Grump]

Not precisely.

Ok, then what are they made up of.

As an aside, I thanked you for the civil discourse. I'll say, right at the outset of this post, that if you are gonna act like a smartarse (and you are BTW), then let's forget about posting to each other. I do not have the time or the wherewithal to interact with somebody who is acting like this is a "bore".."been, there, done that" kinda carry on. This stuff genuinely interests me, and if you are gonna turn this debate into you being the ken sai and me being grasshopper you can fuck the right off. I'm not interested in being patronised or talked down to. This was a genuine question and "not precisely" doesn't cut the mustard. Capice?

Not precisely.

Cool. Then explain how it works. "not precisely" does not add to my knowledge or the debate one iota...

It's certainly not "infringe upon the rightto keep and bear arms"; I suppose it might just be, "flip the switch on his violently ill gray matter."

So to you the answer is &#8220;the easiest option is not to get background checks, but we&#8217;ll give guns to every Tom, Dick and Harry including the multitude of nutjobs out there and I&#8217;ll take my chances&#8221;. That&#8217;s nice, but the vast majority of citizens in your country are not as confident as you. Maybe they like a little back ground check, and may be their desire for such outweighs your rights.

Perhaps a background check performed in a manner Consistent with the 2nd Amendment, that doesn't presume criminal intent, and from a data database not designed for criminalizing gun ownership.

Now, we&#8217;re getting somewhere. What does this database look like and how is it consistent with the 2nd

Not precisely.

You mean I have to go through a whole another post for you to explain the preciseness of it all?? Ok, have at it then&#8230;(rolls eyes)..

By real world, I mean a world other than a hypothetical one such as the one you presented to illustrate your point; in the real world, violent felons and the mentally deranged have certainly killed innocents, and nothing i presented denies that; as for the rest, that's the real world, chum--and it happens.

Go back and read the post. What is hypothetical about the one I presented. You are contradicting yourself. I presented the case of people being killed by a nutjob. You have admitted it happens. I then asked you if the situation where somebody is waiting around for their paperwork to come through and in the meantime the family is killed is the norm. You answered &#8220;that is the real world&#8221;. Is it? How often does it happen? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Annually? And before you say &#8220;it only needs to happen once&#8221;, let me say this: What are the stats vis-&#224;-vis people waiting around for their paperwork and their loved ones being killed vs nut jobs requiring no background check offing people left, right and centre because you wanted your right and no background check was given. Take your time in answering&#8230;

All rights are inherent, regardless of when/if those rights are recognized, or when/if those rights are protected--a government may recind recognition and/or protection of a right, but that is unconstitutional in the US; no amount of votes can change that.

No they are not. You have an amendment process that specifically states that if 2/3rds of your congress wants to repeal the 2nd they can (how&#8217;s that for not knowing your laws M14 you fucking tosser). There is nothing you can do about it. That is YOUR law. Don&#8217;t get me wrong, there are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, that believe that right is inherent. But get this: even the most diehard constitutionalist I have ever debated with coughs and splutters at this one. Why? Because on every other thread and debate we have ever had, they hold the constitution very close to their heart. IOW, it&#8217;s &#8220;our constitution is our life and blood&#8221;, then you mention the amendments and how they can be changed. Suddenly they start talking Hamilton and the Federalist papers, and Jefferson etc, etc, etc. Doesn&#8217;t matter. The 2nd is an amendment. It can be changed. End of story. A lot believe like you it is an inherent right. If so, it would have been in the original document. It was added later. Maybe your FF were very smart cookies after all..:O)

There's no difference at all if you allow that the "nut job" could be a government bureaucrat--you know, part of that organiziation folks like you insist can be trusted with any gun.

Actually, I dunno if they can be trusted with a gun. What I can tell you is that every govt employee that IS entrusted with a gun has been through some sort of check.

I think people who don't like guns deny that the term "rights" is fungible in the discourse; insisting that "rights" means something different regarding guns and self defense than what it means regarding religion, free speech, and due process.

Even speech is not inherent. Go yell fire in a cinema.

There is no such thing as a "greater good." Human sacrifice is always wrong.

Ah, so you have a religious bent as well as a firearm one. If not, you are dead wrong. Human sacrifice in the Aztec sense is seen as wrong from a 21st century western world POV. I would imagine even back then, the sacrificees probably thought the same. As to sacrificing for the good of others &#8211; such as the US specials forces member who recently jumped on grenade to save his friends, was that a bad thing? You saying there is no such thing as a greater good is your opinion. You are welcome to it. Just don&#8217;t tell me it is a fact&#8230;.:O)

"Things are different" is irrelevent because "things are different" is always true, and can be said to support any assertion that makes any claim; "Things are different" is untrue in the context of the issue, because the things that are different have no bearing on the reasons that the 2nd Amendment was included in our Constitution and ratified.

Cool. So why was your 2nd included and ratified (AFTER the original constitution was written)

Every law ever written <i>may</i> "...infringe on somebody&#8217;s rights somewhere with regard to liberty, self-preservation etc...", but they don't have to. They could recognize and preserve our rights with regard to liberty, self-preservation etc.

Uh-uh, you don&#8217;t get off that easy. There are a tonne of laws on the books that infringe on peoples&#8217; rights that affect no one &#8211; from growing dope to not wearing a seatbelt.

Governmental powers ar limited by the Constitution of the US; the US Government is not empowered to take rights away.

They may be limited, but the bottom line is, they can repeal the 2nd any time they want. Inherent right or no inherent right. The will of the people shall prevail.

 

[jff.law]

Been talking about gun control for decades, and what we already have has not helped, or changed things much. The hand gun ban in DC did very little to fight gun crime there, people just go to gun shows in Texas and bring them back to DC

 

[M14 Shooter]

Been talking about gun control for decades, and what we already have has not helped, or changed things much. The hand gun ban in DC did very little to fight gun crime there, people just go to gun shows in Texas and bring them back to DC

Gun control isnt about fighting crime, its about disarming the law abiding.

 

[Gunny]

It's been a long time since I've had a chance to disagree with you.

Lack of, or failing to demonstrate "need" is a bullshit critera for prohibiting anyone from having anything. Bullshit on it's face.

And...Weapons aren't dangerous, people are.!

I disagree. The Second Amendment clearly implies need. The word "necessary" in the text of the Amendment covers that nicely.

People might be dangerous with or without weapons, but the amount of danger they present is directly magnified by what types of weapons they possess.

Our current backgound check system is certainly an infringment of the right for the reason previously noted above--I don't think I need to direct your attention to them.

SInce I disagree and provided a sound reasoning for that disasgreement, I think you might need to direct my attention to whatever it is you're trying to say.

This makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. If criminals are allowed to obtain firearms legally, they are going to use them in the commission of their crimes. This will give fuel and impetus to the anti-gun argument and will result in our losing our right to own guns.

Unless you want to argue that this nation when it gets its ire up or get turned against something doesn't overreact in a big way.

Yes--that laws and regulations that make it more difficult to for "everyone" to obtain guns really only make it more difficult for decent, law abiding folks to obtain guns--the criminals remain unaffected.

Incorrect. It keeps most criminals from not being able to obtain firearms legally. I think you overlook the importance of that simple fact. The fact that most criminals obtain their firearms illegally, as you state above, is a result of those laws and regulations, and a staple of the pro-gun argument.

The argument where violent douches get guns easily but no-one else does? YES! ABSOLUTELY!

Nope. The argument as stated above. Let's be real. How hard ACTUALLY is it to legally purchase a weapon? One-day dry cleaning takes longer. If you don't have it like that, I suggest you look at your state laws.

I go in, pay for my gun, go eat lunch and run the rest of my errands, the gunshop owner calls me and tells me the check is done, I go get my gun. A matter of hours.

 

[LOki]

Not precisely.

Ok, then what are they made up of.

They are made up of data derived and mined from applications (in the form of licenses and registrations) to own firearms, amongst other data sources.

As an aside, I thanked you for the civil discourse.

And I said, "you're welcome." I meant it. The reward for civility and politeness is what now follows:

I'll say, right at the outset of this post, that if you are gonna act like a smartarse (and you are BTW), then let's forget about posting to each other.

Well I'm going to say that you got right douchey, right away. I'll point it out for you so you know what I mean when I suggest that you wash the sand out of your vagina before you tell me how much you value civil discourse. Ok?

I do not have the time or the wherewithal to interact with somebody who is acting like this is a "bore".."been, there, done that" kinda carry on.

You'll excuse me if in presuming that you have the wherewithal to pay attention, that you've paid some attention, or that you will pay attention to my posts, that I've presumed a bit too much. I didn't mean to be a smartarse bore.

This stuff genuinely interests me, and if you are gonna turn this debate into you being the ken sai and me being grasshopper you can fuck the right off. I'm not interested in being patronised or talked down to.

That's funny...you appear to be demanding it, and having a toddler's hissy fit for not getting it.

This was a genuine question and "not precisely" doesn't cut the mustard. Capice?

I do--but do you understand, grasshopper, that you just don't get your preferred answer, right the way you want it, right now because you want it right now, and you threaten to stamp your little foot until you get it just the way you want it? And you do understand that you got your answer--before I said "not precisely"?

Not precisely.

Cool. Then explain how it works. "not precisely" does not add to my knowledge or the debate one iota...

You need to pay attention some, grasshopper. Pehaps what you're looking for is in the part of the previous post that you overlooked in order to rationalize characterizing me as a smartarse bore?

It's certainly not "infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms"; I suppose it might just be, "flip the switch on his violently ill gray matter."

So to you the answer is &#8220;the easiest option is not to get background checks, but we&#8217;ll give guns to every Tom, Dick and Harry including the multitude of nutjobs out there and I&#8217;ll take my chances&#8221;.

Is this what I said, and have been saying? I don't think so. I do think that someone who is genuinely looking for civil discourse would not take "not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms" and call it "...give guns to every Tom, Dick and Harry including the multitude of nutjobs out there."

That&#8217;s nice, but the vast majority of citizens in your country are not as confident as you. Maybe they like a little back ground check, and may be their desire for such outweighs your rights.

Nobody's desire outweighs rights. And nothing I've said means checking a prospective gun buyer's background is a bad, or undesirable thing.

Perhaps a background check performed in a manner Consistent with the 2nd Amendment, that doesn't presume criminal intent, and from a data database not designed for criminalizing gun ownership.

Now, we&#8217;re getting somewhere. What does this database look like and how is it consistent with the 2nd

You see Grump, you fail to pay attention--and for your fail attention, I'm some kind of smartarse bore.

The answer to your question is a background check that doesn't presume criminal intent--one where you are not required to submit registration forms, or license forms, or provide any information regarding your purchase; and one that is not mandated to be reported to the government. Just valid ID checked against the ID's of those who have established themselves unfit for gun ownership.

Not precisely.

You mean I have to go through a whole another post for you to explain the preciseness of it all?? Ok, have at it then&#8230;(rolls eyes)..

No. You need only pay attention, and excersize some sound reasoning.

By real world, I mean a world other than a hypothetical one such as the one you presented to illustrate your point; in the real world, violent felons and the mentally deranged have certainly killed innocents, and nothing i presented denies that; as for the rest, that's the real world, chum--and it happens.

Go back and read the post. What is hypothetical about the one I presented. You are contradicting yourself. I presented the case of people being killed by a nutjob. You have admitted it happens.

Hypothetical is the presumption that the criminally violent nut-jobs that use guns to commit murder feel compelled to submit themselves to a background check (so that then they could be denied a gun, and now the world is saved, YAY!) to obtain their chosen weapon. Hypothetical is the presumption that background checks prevent criminally violent nut-jobs from getting guns more effectively than they impede the potential victims of same said criminally violent nut-jobs from getting guns.

I then asked you if the situation where somebody is waiting around for their paperwork to come through and in the meantime the family is killed is the norm.

Neither situation is really "normal". And I'm not sure how you intend the term "normal" to be used here. Yet, I'll assert that it is quite normal that the victims of criminally violent nut-jobs are unarmed. It is normal that criminally violent nut-jobs do not subject themselve to any background check when they obtain their gun through criminal means. It is also normal to find an invasion of privacy, filling out the stack of form that facilitate that invasion, and paying the fees to cover the administration of that invasion, to be a deterrent, for many folks, to obtaining a gun--an invasion of privacy that no criminal feels compelled to accept.

You answered &#8220;that is the real world&#8221;. Is it? How often does it happen? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Annually? And before you say &#8220;it only needs to happen once&#8221;, let me say this: What are the stats vis-à-vis people waiting around for their paperwork and their loved ones being killed vs nut jobs requiring no background check offing people left, right and centre because you wanted your right and no background check was given. Take your time in answering&#8230;

Despite your pre-emptive gerrymandering of the argument, I'll say it needs only happen once. It needs only happen once because you can't demonstrate that background checks prevented even one nut job from offing people left, right and centre--in fact, what you will discover is that despite background checks, nut jobs off people left, right and centre any way, and the victims were far more like to find the background check experience more of a deterrent than their murderers did.

All rights are inherent, regardless of when/if those rights are recognized, or when/if those rights are protected--a government may recind recognition and/or protection of a right, but that is unconstitutional in the US; no amount of votes can change that.

No they are not.

They are. Look into it.

You have an amendment process that specifically states that if 2/3rds of your congress wants to repeal the 2nd they can (how&#8217;s that for not knowing your laws M14 you fucking tosser).

There is no such amendment process that can repeal a right. You have no fuking clue, you tosser.

There is nothing you can do about it. That is YOUR law.

Not in the real world.

Don&#8217;t get me wrong, there are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, that believe that right is inherent.

And they know what they're talking about, as opposed to yourself.

But get this: even the most diehard constitutionalist I have ever debated with coughs and splutters at this one. Why? Because on every other thread and debate we have ever had, they hold the constitution very close to their heart. IOW, it&#8217;s &#8220;our constitution is our life and blood&#8221;, then you mention the amendments and how they can be changed. Suddenly they start talking Hamilton and the Federalist papers, and Jefferson etc, etc, etc. Doesn&#8217;t matter. The 2nd is an amendment. It can be changed. End of story. A lot believe like you it is an inherent right. If so, it would have been in the original document. It was added later. Maybe your FF were very smart cookies after all..:O)

All rights are inherent, regardless of when/if those rights are recognized, or when/if those rights are protected--a government may recind recognition and/or protection of a right. That a right is not recognized or protected by the governemnt, does make the right non-existent.

All your 2/3s posturing can accomplish is demonstrate that the government can refuse to protect a right--not that it can nullify it.

There's no difference at all if you allow that the "nut job" could be a government bureaucrat--you know, part of that organiziation folks like you insist can be trusted with any gun.

Actually, I dunno if they can be trusted with a gun. What I can tell you is that every govt employee that IS entrusted with a gun has been through some sort of check.

Accomplishing what? Certainly not any assurance that a gun carrying government employee will not be abusive of his authority with that gun.

I think people who don't like guns deny that the term "rights" is fungible in the discourse; insisting that "rights" means something different regarding guns and self defense than what it means regarding religion, free speech, and due process.

Even speech is not inherent. Go yell fire in a cinema.

I will--when there's a fire in the cinema. You're misconception of the principle would tell you that I'd get in big trouble--but then you don't pay attention very well, so I'll write it out in crayon for you: There is no prohibition on yelling "fire" in a cinema; the prohibition is on abusing your right to free speech. The protection of a right, DOES NOT MEAN A LICENSE TO ABUSE THAT RIGHT--stop arguing as if it does.

There is no such thing as a "greater good." Human sacrifice is always wrong.

Ah, so you have a religious bent as well as a firearm one.

Ah, you're a presumptive as well as lacking in attetion. Religion was not mentioned and is irrelevent to the point.

If not, you are dead wrong. Human sacrifice in the Aztec sense is seen as wrong from a 21st century western world POV.

Aztecs are also irrelevent.

I would imagine even back then, the sacrificees probably thought the same.

Spend less time in your imagination, and more time paying attention to the point.

As to sacrificing for the good of others &#8211; such as the US specials forces member who recently jumped on grenade to save his friends, was that a bad thing?

It wasn't a bad thing, and it wasn't a sacrifice. Grasshopper.

Sacrifice is giving up something of greater value to obtain something of lesser value--I assure you that despite some folks opinion on the matter, those fellows did not sacrifice their lives, and I'm certain they didn't think they were sacrificing their lives.

You saying there is no such thing as a greater good is your opinion. You are welcome to it. Just don&#8217;t tell me it is a fact&#8230;.:O)

It's a fact. The notion of "greater good" is manufactured by authoritarian busy-bodies who think that what they think is good, is greater than what others think is good, and demand that their notion of what is good is so good that they are justified in forcing it upon their fellows.

It's "what's good" ponzi scheme. You show me what is good for individuals but not good for groups of individuals, and prove me wrong. Meanwhile consider the impact that ethnic cleansing (and other forms of human sacrifice to facilitate the greater good) has for the indiiduals that experience it.

"Things are different" is irrelevent because "things are different" is always true, and can be said to support any assertion that makes any claim; "Things are different" is untrue in the context of the issue, because the things that are different have no bearing on the reasons that the 2nd Amendment was included in our Constitution and ratified.

Cool. So why was your 2nd included and ratified (AFTER the original constitution was written)

Because a certain set of Founders the felt that the implication of rights in the Constitution were not sufficent protections of rights.

Every law ever written <i>may</i> "...infringe on somebody&#8217;s rights somewhere with regard to liberty, self-preservation etc...", but they don't have to. They could recognize and preserve our rights with regard to liberty, self-preservation etc.

Uh-uh, you don&#8217;t get off that easy. There are a tonne of laws on the books that infringe on peoples&#8217; rights that affect no one &#8211; from growing dope to not wearing a seatbelt.

Ah, so your agument then is that being a "tonne" of wrongs makes them right (not the liberty sense; the right and wrong sense)?

Governmental powers ar limited by the Constitution of the US; the US Government is not empowered to take rights away.

They may be limited, but the bottom line is, they can repeal the 2nd any time they want. Inherent right or no inherent right. The will of the people shall prevail.

No. They can't repeal the right, they can only reneg on their pledge to protect it.

 

[Dr Grump]

They are made up of data derived and mined from applications (in the form of licenses and registrations) to own firearms, amongst other data sources.

Thank you

Well I'm going to say that you got right douchey, right away. I'll point it out for you so you know what I mean when I suggest that you wash the sand out of your vagina before you tell me how much you value civil discourse. Ok?

Listen, I asked you a couple of questions and all I got for an answer was &#8220;not precisely&#8221;. I didn&#8217;t think those questions were that hard to answer.

You'll excuse me if in presuming that you have the wherewithal to pay attention, that you've paid some attention, or that you will pay attention to my posts, that I've presumed a bit too much. I didn't mean to be a smartarse bore.

Where did you even explain to me previously regarding the two questions that you answered &#8220;not precisely&#8221; too?

That's funny...you appear to be demanding it, and having a toddler's hissy fit for not getting it.

I can absolutely assure you I am not throwing a hissy fit. I was very calm when making that post, it was more an observation

I do--but do you understand, grasshopper, that you just don't get your preferred answer, right the way you want it, right now because you want it right now, and you threaten to stamp your little foot until you get it just the way you want it? And you do understand that you got your answer--before I said "not precisely"?

No, I just asked what I thought was a relatively simple question. You did allude to it in another post, but not being American, I wasn&#8217;t sure how it was done, which is why I asked.

Is this what I said, and have been saying? I don't think so. I do think that someone who is genuinely looking for civil discourse would not take "not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms" and call it "...give guns to every Tom, Dick and Harry including the multitude of nutjobs out there."

I don&#8217;t know Loki, that is why my answer to this part of the post was in question format, so you could answer and I&#8217;d know what you are saying.

The answer to your question is a background check that doesn't presume criminal intent--one where you are not required to submit registration forms, or license forms, or provide any information regarding your purchase; and one that is not mandated to be reported to the government. Just valid ID checked against the ID's of those who have established themselves unfit for gun ownership.

So this about you feeling bad about yourself because gun sellers might think you&#8217;re a bad guy?

No. You need only pay attention, and excersize some sound reasoning.

Or maybe you need to be more clear in your posts in that they are not just your thoughts, but is the way things are actually done up there. I&#8217;m not a mindreader

Hypothetical is the presumption that the criminally violent nut-jobs that use guns to commit murder feel compelled to submit themselves to a background check (so that then they could be denied a gun, and now the world is saved, YAY!) to obtain their chosen weapon. Hypothetical is the presumption that background checks prevent criminally violent nut-jobs from getting guns more effectively than they impede the potential victims of same said criminally violent nut-jobs from getting guns.

I&#8217;d suggest there are quite a few people alive today who otherwise would not be due to background checks. Look, it&#8217;s not like they are going to disarm you. Your 2nd protects you from that.

Neither situation is really "normal". And I'm not sure how you intend the term "normal" to be used here. Yet, I'll assert that it is quite normal that the victims of criminally violent nut-jobs are unarmed. It is normal that criminally violent nut-jobs do not subject themselve to any background check when they obtain their gun through criminal means. It is also normal to find an invasion of privacy, filling out the stack of form that facilitate that invasion, and paying the fees to cover the administration of that invasion, to be a deterrent, for many folks, to obtaining a gun--an invasion of privacy that no criminal feels compelled to accept.

I actually agree with you to a point. The payment etc and if there is truly a stack of forms to fill out, I can see how that would piss you off

They are. Look into it.

I have, and I have found two strains of thought on the matter. There are those that believe the rights are inherent and there are those that believe the constitution gives them those rights. Depends on whose side of the coin you fall
There is no such amendment process that can repeal a right. You have no fuking clue, you tosser.

What is the point of having the 2nd at all if it is a right? Why does that right need protecting if it is inherent? Surely inherent rights are, well inherent?? BTW, don&#8217;t go crook at me not paying attention when you are guilty of the same. The tosser remark was aimed at M14 &#8211; now unless you&#8217;re him under another guise, I stand corrected.

All rights are inherent, regardless of when/if those rights are recognized, or when/if those rights are protected--a government may recind recognition and/or protection of a right. That a right is not recognized or protected by the governemnt, does make the right non-existent.

And who decides what is an inherent right?

All your 2/3s posturing can accomplish is demonstrate that the government can refuse to protect a right--not that it can nullify it.

Again, why does an inherent right need protecting? It is inherent&#8230;

I will--when there's a fire in the cinema. You're misconception of the principle would tell you that I'd get in big trouble--but then you don't pay attention very well, so I'll write it out in crayon for you: There is no prohibition on yelling "fire" in a cinema; the prohibition is on abusing your right to free speech. The protection of a right, DOES NOT MEAN A LICENSE TO ABUSE THAT RIGHT--stop arguing as if it does.

What you have to realise Loki is I have argued this with people like you for the past seven years. There have been Yanks on my side of the fence in this argument, including lawyers. Your problem is, you think you are 100&#37; right on this issue. You are not. I have seen far too many people argue against what you purport

Ah, you're a presumptive as well as lacking in attetion. Religion was not mentioned and is irrelevent to the point.

Well it was presumptive of me that it applied to you. However, you are the first person I have argued this point with who HASN&#8217;T said to me their inherent right regarding firearms comes from god. Every other person has. My bad.

It wasn't a bad thing, and it wasn't a sacrifice. Grasshopper.Sacrifice is giving up something of greater value to obtain something of lesser value--I assure you that despite some folks opinion on the matter, those fellows did not sacrifice their lives, and I'm certain they didn't think they were sacrificing their lives.

Really, what would you call it then?

It's a fact. The notion of "greater good" is manufactured by authoritarian busy-bodies who think that what they think is good, is greater than what others think is good, and demand that their notion of what is good is so good that they are justified in forcing it upon their fellows.

Ah, you presume the term &#8220;greater good&#8221; has connotations associated with commies, and socialists who want to run your life. That&#8217;s the problem with America in general on the topic &#8211; you have no scope for varying degrees of anything. It is either &#8220;socialist&#8221; or &#8220;capitalist&#8221;&#8230;nothing in between. Whether you like it or not, societies are collectives and they need rules to avoid anarchy. It is getting the rules that caus the problems

It's "what's good" ponzi scheme. You show me what is good for individuals but not good for groups of individuals, and prove me wrong. Meanwhile consider the impact that ethnic cleansing (and other forms of human sacrifice to facilitate the greater good) has for the indiiduals that experience it.

See my above answer. The greater good can mean various and different things. It&#8217;s not necessarily a bad thing IMO. Don&#8217;t get me wrong, I know the Stalins and the Hitlers and Pol Pots used the greater good card, but so have good people, who have passed good laws to benefit all &#8211; even if they are unpopular.

Because a certain set of Founders the felt that the implication of rights in the Constitution were not sufficent protections of rights.

So how are they MORE protected now? Once again &#8211; they are inherent, right?

Ah, so your agument then is that being a "tonne" of wrongs makes them right (not the liberty sense; the right and wrong sense)?

No, what I am saying is who gets to decide what inherent rights are, and if that is me, then I don&#8217;t want to wear a seatbelt any more

 

[jillian]

No, what I am saying is who gets to decide what inherent rights are, and if that is me, then I don&#8217;t want to wear a seatbelt any more

Sorry to interrupt. I just want to jump in for a second on the issue of "inherant right", if you don't mind. The concept of inherant rights only exists as a philosophical concept. These issues were debated by people like Locke and John Stuart Mill and other great philosophers going back to the enlightenment. So anyone who has decided in their head that there is a reality to such a thing that exists and requires no protective mechanism from government isn't grasping the concept. While I certainly believe that people are entitled to certain things, that's my own sense of morality/philosophy. It is an artificial construct, though from a philosophy and governmental point of view, it is certainly interesting to discuss.

For some (very) basics on the concept...

Fact: ultimately, no right exists without enforcement mechanisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_right

For some interesting reading

http://oll.libertyfund.org/

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I said, "you're welcome." I meant it. The reward for civility and politeness is what now follows:

Have you yet discovered that trying to have an intelligent conversation with Dr Penisbreath is a colossal waste of time?

 

[LOki]

I disagree. The Second Amendment clearly implies need. The word "necessary" in the text of the Amendment covers that nicely.

Oh? A little bit of <i>"...to each according to need." </i> Nicely played citizen!

"Neccessary", in the 2nd, covers the contingency upon a miltia for the maintenance a free state--not regarding the right to keep and bear ams.

Regardless, GunnyL, "need" does not entitle you to anything, and your lack of "need" does not empower me to withhold anything from you.

Lack of, or failing to demonstrate "need" remains a bullshit critera for prohibiting anyone from having anything. Bullshit on it's face.

People might be dangerous with or without weapons, but the amount of danger they present is directly magnified by what types of weapons they possess.

I disagree. The amount of danger they present is purely situational; though that situation certainly includes how well armed they are, the variable that most determines the danger a person presents is their level of aggreseion and their propensity to exert their will over others by force.

SInce I disagree and provided a sound reasoning for that disasgreement, I think you might need to direct my attention to whatever it is you're trying to say.

The point I've been making is that a background check that presumes you don't have the right, that presumes you to be unfit, holds a presumption that infringes upon the right. I agree with the stated purpose of backgound checks, I just disagree that they are particularly effective at their stated purpose; and their actual efffect is their intended effect--to be an impediment for the people to excercise the right to keep and bear arms.<blockquote><i><a href="http://www.lneilsmith.org/">"If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash&#8212;for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything&#8212;without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims."</a></i></blockquote>

It makes perfect sense. If criminals are allowed to obtain firearms legally, they are going to use them in the commission of their crimes. This will give fuel and impetus to the anti-gun argument and will result in our losing our right to own guns.

This only makes sense if you think it is more desirable that a criminal obtains a gun through illegitimate means, rather than legitimate means. And that, GunnyL, makes no fucking sense.

Incorrect. It keeps most criminals from not being able to obtain firearms legally.

Do you really think it is more desirable that a criminal should obtain a gun through illegitimate means, rather than legitimate means? You'd rather have them stealing guns rather than buying them? That's all your background check really accomplishes regarding criminals, you know--extra incentive to commit a crime.

I think you overlook the importance of that simple fact.

I think you overlook the simple fact that backgoround checks are no impediment to criminals obtaining guns--the only people that are impeded are those already willing to subject themselves to the check.

The fact that most criminals obtain their firearms illegally, as you state above, is a result of those laws and regulations, and a staple of the pro-gun argument.

And attempting to make criminals of people who simply wish to keep and bear arms, by imposing speciously rationalized laws upon them that would make keeping and bearing arms criminal, is the staple of the pro-gun argument.

Nope. The argument as stated above. Let's be real. How hard ACTUALLY is it to legally purchase a weapon?

Before the sunset of the ban, getting a wicked cool looking black gun wasn't all that easy.

Have you attempted to obtain a fully automatic weapon yet?

One-day dry cleaning takes longer. If you don't have it like that, I suggest you look at your state laws.

All the more reason to live in Texas.

I go in, pay for my gun, go eat lunch and run the rest of my errands, the gunshop owner calls me and tells me the check is done, I go get my gun. A matter of hours.

Yes. For a matter of hours you are presumed to be a criminal--and to what end exactly?

 

[LOki]

Hypothetical is the presumption that the criminally violent nut-jobs that use guns to commit murder feel compelled to submit themselves to a background check (so that then they could be denied a gun, and now the world is saved, YAY!) to obtain their chosen weapon. Hypothetical is the presumption that background checks prevent criminally violent nut-jobs from getting guns more effectively than they impede the potential victims of same said criminally violent nut-jobs from getting guns.

I&#8217;d suggest there are quite a few people alive today who otherwise would not be due to background checks. Look, it&#8217;s not like they are going to disarm you. Your 2nd protects you from that.

I would suggest that there is no reason, what-so-ever, to believe this. This belief presumes that criminally violent nut-jobs submit themselves to background checks.

Neither situation is really "normal". And I'm not sure how you intend the term "normal" to be used here. Yet, I'll assert that it is quite normal that the victims of criminally violent nut-jobs are unarmed. It is normal that criminally violent nut-jobs do not subject themselve to any background check when they obtain their gun through criminal means. It is also normal to find an invasion of privacy, filling out the stack of form that facilitate that invasion, and paying the fees to cover the administration of that invasion, to be a deterrent, for many folks, to obtaining a gun--an invasion of privacy that no criminal feels compelled to accept.

I actually agree with you to a point. The payment etc and if there is truly a stack of forms to fill out, I can see how that would piss you off

Good. Now imagine being told that all this bullshit was to prevent criminals from getting guns; yet criminals don't subject themselves to any of it and get their guns anyway.

Who's fucking side are these rule-makers on?

They are. Look into it.

I have, and I have found two strains of thought on the matter. There are those that believe the rights are inherent and there are those that believe the constitution gives them those rights. Depends on whose side of the coin you fall

The Constitution is clear (patently so after the Bill Of RIghts) on the matter, as are the --rights are presumed, not granted. You can fall on the right side of the coin, or the wrong one I suppose.

There is no such amendment process that can repeal a right. You have no fuking clue, you tosser.

What is the point of having the 2nd at all if it is a right? Why does that right need protecting if it is inherent? Surely inherent rights are, well inherent?? BTW, don&#8217;t go crook at me not paying attention when you are guilty of the same. The tosser remark was aimed at M14 &#8211; now unless you&#8217;re him under another guise, I stand corrected.

Being inhernet does not guarantee recgognition, nor convey immunity from being violated.

BTW: I was aware that your remark was aimed at M14, and I don't have to be M14 to point out that you have no fuking clue......you tosser.

All rights are inherent, regardless of when/if those rights are recognized, or when/if those rights are protected--a government may recind recognition and/or protection of a right. That a right is not recognized or protected by the governemnt, does make the right non-existent.

And who decides what is an inherent right?

How precious. (And <i>I'm</i> supposed to be the smartarse bore.)

Try this on:
The same "who" that decides the direction of up.

All your 2/3s posturing can accomplish is demonstrate that the government can refuse to protect a right--not that it can nullify it.

Again, why does an inherent right need protecting? It is inherent&#8230;

Again, being inherent does not convey immunity from being violated.

I will--when there's a fire in the cinema. You're misconception of the principle would tell you that I'd get in big trouble--but then you don't pay attention very well, so I'll write it out in crayon for you: There is no prohibition on yelling "fire" in a cinema; the prohibition is on abusing your right to free speech. The protection of a right, DOES NOT MEAN A LICENSE TO ABUSE THAT RIGHT--stop arguing as if it does.

What you have to realise Loki is I have argued this with people like you for the past seven years. There have been Yanks on my side of the fence in this argument, including lawyers. Your problem is, you think you are 100&#37; right on this issue. You are not. I have seen far too many people argue against what you purport

Oh? You've seen the argument that concludes that the protection of a right, means a license to abuse that right? Was it effective? Care to summarize it's points?

What you have to realize Dr. Grump is that I have argued this for years as well--your problem is in thinking that just because you've met many people who hold an opposing position to mine, that I am wrong.

Ah, you're a presumptive as well as lacking in attetion. Religion was not mentioned and is irrelevent to the point.

Well it was presumptive of me that it applied to you. However, you are the first person I have argued this point with who HASN&#8217;T said to me their inherent right regarding firearms comes from god. Every other person has. My bad.

I appreciate this. I do. So much so, you'll find a pos-rep from me. Enjoy!

It wasn't a bad thing, and it wasn't a sacrifice. Grasshopper.Sacrifice is giving up something of greater value to obtain something of lesser value--I assure you that despite some folks opinion on the matter, those fellows did not sacrifice their lives, and I'm certain they didn't think they were sacrificing their lives.

Really, what would you call it then?

For lack of a better term--investment.

It's a fact. The notion of "greater good" is manufactured by authoritarian busy-bodies who think that what they think is good, is greater than what others think is good, and demand that their notion of what is good is so good that they are justified in forcing it upon their fellows.

Ah, you presume the term &#8220;greater good&#8221; has connotations associated with commies, and socialists who want to run your life.

Wrong again, Mr. Presumpto. I simply assert that there is no "greater good" than the "good" that is good for individuals--it is incidental that so many of the sanctimonious purveyors of "the greater good" are commies, and socialists who want to run our lives.

That&#8217;s the problem with America in general on the topic &#8211; you have no scope for varying degrees of anything. It is either &#8220;socialist&#8221; or &#8220;capitalist&#8221;&#8230;nothing in between.

Thanks, but no thanks, for trying include me in a club of fucktards that you'd like to make America out to be.

Whether you like it or not, societies are collectives and they need rules to avoid anarchy. It is getting the rules that caus the problems

I never denied that rules are required. so wether I like it or not is irrelevent.

It's "what's good" ponzi scheme. You show me what is good for individuals but not good for groups of individuals, and prove me wrong. Meanwhile consider the impact that ethnic cleansing (and other forms of human sacrifice to facilitate the greater good) has for the indiiduals that experience it.

See my above answer. The greater good can mean various and different things.

Oh, well then--different "things"--that's a different thing then.

It&#8217;s not necessarily a bad thing IMO.

It's meaningless at it's best, in IMO; and just bullshit rationlization for telling other people what to do at it's worst.

Don&#8217;t get me wrong, I know the Stalins and the Hitlers and Pol Pots used the greater good card, but so have good people, who have passed good laws to benefit all &#8211; even if they are unpopular.

Sure.

Because a certain set of Founders the felt that the implication of rights in the Constitution were not sufficent protections of rights.

So how are they MORE protected now? Once again &#8211; they are inherent, right?

Again, being inhernet does not guarantee recgognition, nor convey immunity from being violated.

Ah, so your agument then is that being a "tonne" of wrongs makes them right (not the liberty sense; the right and wrong sense)?

No, what I am saying is who gets to decide what inherent rights are, and if that is me, then I don&#8217;t want to wear a seatbelt any more

No, what you said was, <i>"There are a tonne of laws on the books that infringe on peoples&#8217; rights that affect no one &#8211; from growing dope to not wearing a seatbelt."</i>, as if that's some refutation that laws don't have to infringe upon rights.

BTW: Despite the fact that they do, no-one should feel justified in forcing you to wear a seatbelt. There is something inherently self-contradictory in the notion that you must force someone to do something that is in their own self interest.

 

[Dr Grump]

Have you yet discovered that trying to have an intelligent conversation with Dr Penisbreath is a colossal waste of time?

Have you ever discovered that you bring nothing to the table and when your arse is handed to you on a plate you slink off with your tail between your legs. Haven't you got a hole in Ruby Ridge to go and hide in little man?

 

[Dr Grump]

I would suggest that there is no reason, what-so-ever, to believe this. This belief presumes that criminally violent nut-jobs submit themselves to background checks.

Brian H has already stated that he used to sell guns and he has had people try just that. From a personal perspective, I am an ex-cop, and I know how dumb criminals can be. Also, while that doesn&#8217;t prove that it has happened (you can&#8217;t prove something that hasn&#8217;t happened) the chances of it occurring in this instance, is quite high IMO.

The Constitution is clear (patently so after the Bill Of RIghts) on the matter, as are the --rights are presumed, not granted. You can fall on the right side of the coin, or the wrong one I suppose.

Chapter and verse please

Being inhernet does not guarantee recgognition, nor convey immunity from being violated.

Neither does the 2nd. It&#8217;s a piece of paper that can be ignored the minute a president supported by your armed forces decides he doesn&#8217;t like it any more


BTW: I was aware that your remark was aimed at M14, and I don't have to be M14 to point out that you have no fuking clue......you tosser.

Course I don&#8217;t Fuckface.. That&#8217;s why you are wasting your time posting to me.

How precious. (And I'm supposed to be the smartarse bore.)

Try this on:
The same "who" that decides the direction of up.

Ah, you have no answer.Cool. Didn&#8217;t think so. Kinda shoots all your other arguments to shit.

Again, being inherent does not convey immunity from being violated.

Neither does a piece of paper

Oh? You've seen the argument that concludes that the protection of a right, means a license to abuse that right? Was it effective? Care to summarize it's points?

If indeed, it is just a protection and not a right in itself within your constitution


What you have to realize Dr. Grump is that I have argued this for years as well--your problem is in thinking that just because you've met many people who hold an opposing position to mine, that I am wrong.

your problem is in thinking that just because you've met many people who hold your view you are right. Jillian is a lawyer and agrees with me. (now waits for the likes of M14 and Loki to belittle Jillian)

I appreciate this. I do. So much so, you'll find a pos-rep from me. Enjoy!

How benevolent of you, King Fuckface )

For lack of a better term--investment.

Thanks for your opinion on the matter.

Wrong again, Mr. Presumpto. I simply assert that there is no "greater good" than the "good" that is good for individuals

I happen to disagree. See my &#8220;why have any laws&#8221; argument..

Thanks, but no thanks, for trying include me in a club of fucktards that you'd like to make America out to be.

On the contrary, I am not trying to make America out to be anything.

I never denied that rules are required. so wether I like it or not is irrelevent.

of course it is relevant. You are talking of the self as if it is the be-all and end-all of existence and that inherent rights for individuals have paramount importance over anything else. Then you want to try and change the posts by saying that there are exceptions in that society does need rules etc.

Oh, well then--different "things"--that's a different thing then.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It's meaningless at it's best, in IMO; and just bullshit rationlization for telling other people what to do at it's worst.

Yes, it can have that meaning. It can have the exact opposite meaning too

Again, being inhernet does not guarantee recgognition, nor convey immunity from being violated.

Neither does a piece of paper it is written on. You think the US is the first constitution to have such a thing in it and was then subsequently ignored by a govt?

No, what you said was, "There are a tonne of laws on the books that infringe on peoples&#8217; rights that affect no one &#8211; from growing dope to not wearing a seatbelt.", as if that's some refutation that laws don't have to infringe upon rights.


No, that is not what I was saying. I&#8217;m trying to sort out who decides on what an inherent rights is, and because you can&#8217;t/won&#8217;t answer, am trying to explain as simply as I can to you how silly your argument is.

 

[LOki]

I would suggest that there is no reason, what-so-ever, to believe this. This belief presumes that criminally violent nut-jobs submit themselves to background checks.

Brian H has already stated that he used to sell guns and he has had people try just that. From a personal perspective, I am an ex-cop, and I know how dumb criminals can be. Also, while that doesn&#8217;t prove that it has happened (you can&#8217;t prove something that hasn&#8217;t happened) the chances of it occurring in this instance, is quite high IMO.

And then what? They just went home? "Fuck! Denied by my background check--I guess that means no gun for me :sad-criminal-face:." Or did they miraculously pass the background check they submitted themselves to just before they stole the gun they wanted?

The Constitution is clear (patently so after the Bill Of RIghts) on the matter, as are the --rights are presumed, not granted. You can fall on the right side of the coin, or the wrong one I suppose.

Chapter and verse please

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Ninth Amendment</a>: <i>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."</i>

Being inhernet does not guarantee recgognition, nor convey immunity from being violated.

Neither does the 2nd. It&#8217;s a piece of paper that can be ignored the minute a president supported by your armed forces decides he doesn&#8217;t like it any more

Well, being written does means it's been recognized, and inso far as the rule of law is a guarantee that rights shall not be violated, such recognition is a bit of a guarantee.

How precious. (And I'm supposed to be the smartarse bore.)

Try this on:
The same "who" that decides the direction of up.

Ah, you have no answer.Cool. Didn&#8217;t think so. Kinda shoots all your other arguments to shit.

Rhetorical responses are valid answers to rhetorical questions--you're shooting blanks.

Again, being inherent does not convey immunity from being violated.

Neither does a piece of paper

And...what?

Oh? You've seen the argument that concludes that the protection of a right, means a license to abuse that right? Was it effective? Care to summarize it's points?

If indeed, it is just a protection and not a right in itself within your constitution

Care to rephrase that as a sentence?

What you have to realize Dr. Grump is that I have argued this for years as well--your problem is in thinking that just because you've met many people who hold an opposing position to mine, that I am wrong.

your problem is in thinking that just because you've met many people who hold your view you are right. Jillian is a lawyer and agrees with me. (now waits for the likes of M14 and Loki to belittle Jillian)

You like these funny little presumptions of yours.

Instead, since you seem to be so fond of dropping your past experience in law enforcement, and Jillian's current experience in law, as not so subtle arguments from authority, consider me a Judge, a Supreme Court Judge in fact, who is declaring you wrong.

How does that work for you? If it works well, then fine--but if not, let's dispense with that bullshit notion and instead evaluate the argument on it's own merit.

For lack of a better term--investment.

Thanks for your opinion on the matter.

You're welcome.

Wrong again, Mr. Presumpto. I simply assert that there is no "greater good" than the "good" that is good for individuals

I happen to disagree. See my &#8220;why have any laws&#8221; argument..

Where do I find this &#8220;why have any laws&#8221; argument?

Thanks, but no thanks, for trying include me in a club of fucktards that you'd like to make America out to be.

On the contrary, I am not trying to make America out to be anything.

<blockquote>Originally posted by Dr. Amnesia:
<i>"That&#8217;s the problem with America in general on the topic &#8211; you have no scope for varying degrees of anything. It is either &#8220;socialist&#8221; or &#8220;capitalist&#8221;&#8230;nothing in between."</i></blockquote>

I never denied that rules are required. so wether I like it or not is irrelevent.

of course it is relevant. You are talking of the self as if it is the be-all and end-all of existence and that inherent rights for individuals have paramount importance over anything else. Then you want to try and change the posts by saying that there are exceptions in that society does need rules etc.

I'm not changing posts, and I'm not saying there are exceptions--and it is irrelevent to the point that I should like, or not like, the neccessity of rules.

It's meaningless at it's best, in IMO; and just bullshit rationlization for telling other people what to do at it's worst.

Yes, it can have that meaning. It can have the exact opposite meaning too

Nope.

Again, being inhernet does not guarantee recgognition, nor convey immunity from being violated.

Neither does a piece of paper it is written on. You think the US is the first constitution to have such a thing in it and was then subsequently ignored by a govt?

And...what?

No, what you said was, "There are a tonne of laws on the books that infringe on peoples&#8217; rights that affect no one &#8211; from growing dope to not wearing a seatbelt.", as if that's some refutation that laws don't have to infringe upon rights.

No, that is not what I was saying. I&#8217;m trying to sort out who decides on what an inherent rights is, and because you can&#8217;t/won&#8217;t answer, am trying to explain as simply as I can to you how silly your argument is.

That is what you were saying, Grump; if you have any hope of grasping my half of this converstion, you need to get a firm grip on your own half.

 

[Dr Grump]

And then what? They just went home? "Fuck! Denied by my background check--I guess that means no gun for me :sad-criminal-face:." Or did they miraculously pass the background check they submitted themselves to just before they stole the gun they wanted?

Well, that possibly could have happened. Then again, they didn't get a gun when they wanted to, which is the point of a background check

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Ninth Amendment</a>: <i>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."</i>

hhhhmmmm, so it was another amendment? So that one can be struck off too if Congress decides to get rid of it? Then what? And where in the 9th does it state what those "other" enumerated rights are?

Well, being written does means it's been recognized, and inso far as the rule of law is a guarantee that rights shall not be violated, such recognition is a bit of a guarantee.

True.

Rhetorical responses are valid answers to rhetorical questions--you're shooting blanks.

Actually, it was not a rhetorical question. One of your main planks is that your constitution protects enumerated rights, it doesn't set out those rights. So, what are all the enumerated rights? Spill. Enquiring minds would like to know? Or is there a secret list that us mere mortals are not able to view? I actually think you are dodging the question, because if you cannot answer it, then it does shoot your theory to shit because I could add anything I liked to that list as long as it allowed me to pursue happiness...)

Care to rephrase that as a sentence?

Nope

You like these funny little presumptions of yours. Instead, since you seem to be so fond of dropping your past experience in law enforcement, and Jillian's current experience in law, as not so subtle arguments from authority, consider me a Judge, a Supreme Court Judge in fact, who is declaring you wrong. How does that work for you? If it works well, then fine--but if not, let's dispense with that bullshit notion and instead evaluate the argument on it's own merit.

I would hardly say me mentioning I was a cop on three occasions (during 3600 posts) over a two year period (during pertenent conversations I might add) would qualify as being "fond" of doing any such thing. Considering we were talking about criminals, and not, say, how to make a quilt or stack shelves at Walmart, I think my experience is relevent to the conversation. But the thing is, you are not a Supreme Court Judge - and if you were, your opinion would certainly hold a lot more sway. So no, it doesn't work for me. If you have an area of expertise - like hanging out on porno/pop culture websites infested with Geek Kings with attitude, then I'm all ears......

<blockquote>Originally posted by Dr. Amnesia:
<i>"That&#8217;s the problem with America in general on the topic &#8211; you have no scope for varying degrees of anything. It is either &#8220;socialist&#8221; or &#8220;capitalist&#8221;&#8230;nothing in between."</i></blockquote>

That is one aspect of America. There are many others in various guises. I was talking about your economic system, and I stick by that

I'm not changing posts, and I'm not saying there are exceptions--and it is irrelevent to the point that I should like, or not like, the neccessity of rules.

Hey, you are entitled to your opinion. Opinions are different from facts

Nope.

Yep

That is what you were saying, Grump; if you have any hope of grasping my half of this converstion, you need to get a firm grip on your own half.[/QUOTE]

If the subtleties are lost on you, I&#8217;ll try and be more exact next time. I grasp most of what you say, but in your desire to be smarmy/aloof/arrogant, some of your points get lost/misread. Maybe if you concentrated on the bones of the post, and not the desire at one-up-manship, things would run a lot smoother. That aside, I stand by my above point. The &#8220;right and wrong&#8221; aspect of that point was yours. I disagreed that that was my point.

 

[LOki]

And then what? They just went home? "Fuck! Denied by my background check--I guess that means no gun for me :sad-criminal-face:." Or did they miraculously pass the background check they submitted themselves to just before they stole the gun they wanted?

Well, that possibly could have happened. Then again, they didn't get a gun when they wanted to, which is the point of a background check

Correction: They didn't get a gun from <i><b>WHERE</b></i> they wanted to--which is the real point of background checks, isn't it?

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Ninth Amendment</a>: <i>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."</i>

hhhhmmmm, so it was another amendment? So that one can be struck off too if Congress decides to get rid of it? Then what? And where in the 9th does it state what those "other" enumerated rights are?

Stop smoking crack and start using brains. Your "struck off" bullshit is tedious. There are NO provisions of the Constitution that are immune from being "struck off"--Amendments to the Constitution are no more, and no less, immune from being "struck off" than ANY other part of the Constitution--so step off.

Well, being written does means it's been recognized, and inso far as the rule of law is a guarantee that rights shall not be violated, such recognition is a bit of a guarantee.

True.

Well, thankyou for that.

Rhetorical responses are valid answers to rhetorical questions--you're shooting blanks.

Actually, it was not a rhetorical question. One of your main planks is that your constitution protects enumerated rights, it doesn't set out those rights.

Untrue. I said our Constition enumerates powers granted to the Government. A completely different assertion.

So, what are all the enumerated rights? Spill.

See the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, also refered to as the US Bill OF Rights.

Enquiring minds would like to know?

Apparently inquirung retards have not discovered Wikipedia.

Or is there a secret list that us mere mortals are not able to view?

The ability to perform a Google Search is probably considered a divine power not accessible by retards.

I actually think you are dodging the question, because if you cannot answer it, then it does shoot your theory to shit...

You are still shooting blanks.

...because I could add anything I liked to that list as long as it allowed me to pursue happiness...)

"PYEW PYEW!" See? Still blanks.

You like these funny little presumptions of yours. Instead, since you seem to be so fond of dropping your past experience in law enforcement, and Jillian's current experience in law, as not so subtle arguments from authority, consider me a Judge, a Supreme Court Judge in fact, who is declaring you wrong. How does that work for you? If it works well, then fine--but if not, let's dispense with that bullshit notion and instead evaluate the argument on it's own merit.

I would hardly say me mentioning I was a cop on three occasions (during 3600 posts) over a two year period (during pertenent conversations I might add) would qualify as being "fond" of doing any such thing. Considering we were talking about criminals, and not, say, how to make a quilt or stack shelves at Walmart, I think my experience is relevent to the conversation. But the thing is, you are not a Supreme Court Judge - and if you were, your opinion would certainly hold a lot more sway. So no, it doesn't work for me. If you have an area of expertise - like hanging out on porno/pop culture websites infested with Geek Kings with attitude, then I'm all ears......

The relevence of your experince can cut more than one way; cops, being authoritarian bullies, are precisely the kind of monuments to douche-baggery that would demand treating everyone like a criminbal to satisfy their sadistic impulse to exert their authority.

I'd rather that you not muddy the issue with your appeals to authority.

<blockquote>Originally posted by Dr. Amnesia:
<i>"That&#8217;s the problem with America in general on the topic &#8211; you have no scope for varying degrees of anything. It is either &#8220;socialist&#8221; or &#8220;capitalist&#8221;&#8230;nothing in between."</i></blockquote>

That is one aspect of America. There are many others in various guises. I was talking about your economic system, and I stick by that

It is the aspect you chose to paint a picture of what America is. Eat chain, dickwhistler.

That is what you were saying, Grump; if you have any hope of grasping my half of this converstion, you need to get a firm grip on your own half.

If the subtleties are lost on you, I&#8217;ll try and be more exact next time. I grasp most of what you say, but in your desire to be smarmy/aloof/arrogant, some of your points get lost/misread. Maybe if you concentrated on the bones of the post, and not the desire at one-up-manship, things would run a lot smoother. That aside, I stand by my above point. The &#8220;right and wrong&#8221; aspect of that point was yours. I disagreed that that was my point.[/QUOTE]

Just because I'm "one-upping" you, it doen't mean I'm concentrating on it, or even trying--maybe you're just wrong.

 

[Dr Grump]

Correction: They didn't get a gun from <i><b>WHERE</b></i> they wanted to--which is the real point of background checks, isn't it?

Back to smartarse mode huh?

Stop smoking crack and start using brains. Your "struck off" bullshit is tedious. There are NO provisions of the Constitution that are immune from being "struck off"--Amendments to the Constitution are no more, and no less, immune from being "struck off" than ANY other part of the Constitution--so step off.

Cool, then the whole constitution is up for grabs. Didnt' know that! Wow, what a shakey document...

See the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, also refered to as the US Bill OF Rights.

Wow, they're listed there? All of them

Apparently inquirung retards have not discovered Wikipedia.

Au contraire, you've quoted it on a few occasions

The ability to perform a Google Search is probably considered a divine power not accessible by retards.

See previous post

You are still shooting blanks.

Translation: Had my arse handed to me on a plate, so I'll start with the ad hominems, the last bastion of smarmy, geeky, porno dimwits

The relevence of your experince can cut more than one way; cops, being authoritarian bullies, are precisely the kind of monuments to douche-baggery that would demand treating everyone like a criminbal to satisfy their sadistic impulse to exert their authority.

I'm a retard? WTF is a criminbal??? A bad dude who eats people? That aside, my, my, my do we have a chip on our shoulder. Your porno site was busted?? What gives about cops? To be fair, I know that they are not as well respected stateside as they are down here, but still, bit OTT giving out a stereotypical answer considering you seem to get all hot under the collar when "all-encompassing" answers are given.

I'd rather that you not muddy the issue with your appeals to authority.

Translation: "I'd rather you not bring up people who are actually professionals oan a given subject because I am the all-knowing dickhead on this subject, and real people, who have studied the subject for a living, couldn't possibly know more than me.

It is the aspect you chose to paint a picture of what America is. Eat chain, dickwhistler.

It is an aspect, not the aspect Kiddie Fiddler....

Just because I'm "one-upping" you, it doen't mean I'm concentrating on it, or even trying--maybe you're just wrong.

Having gone over a few of your posts just to double check, no, I'm not wrong, you are definitely the kinda person who likes arguing for arguing's sake and love attempting (poorly I might add) at trying the one-upmanship angle. Word or advice: Give it up. You're not that good at it

 

[LOki]

Correction: They didn't get a gun from <i><b>WHERE</b></i> they wanted to--which is the real point of background checks, isn't it?

Back to smartarse mode huh?

Translation: Had my arse handed to me on a plate, so I'll start with the ad hominems, the last bastion of dumbfucks.

Stop smoking crack and start using brains. Your "struck off" bullshit is tedious. There are NO provisions of the Constitution that are immune from being "struck off"--Amendments to the Constitution are no more, and no less, immune from being "struck off" than ANY other part of the Constitution--so step off.

Cool, then the whole constitution is up for grabs. Didnt' know that! Wow, what a shakey document...

Shakey? Relative to what? Your Constitution? Enlighten us and let's have a few laughs.

See the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, also refered to as the US Bill OF Rights.

Wow, they're listed there? All of them

That's right fucktard.

Apparently inquirung retards have not discovered Wikipedia.

Au contraire, you've quoted it on a few occasions

The ability to perform a Google Search is probably considered a divine power not accessible by retards.

See previous post

I suppose the capacity to look up the US Bill Of Rights on the internet sets this inquiring retard head and shoulders above the intellectual capacities of drooling window licking retards who can't.

You are still shooting blanks.

Translation: Had my arse handed to me on a plate, so I'll start with the ad hominems, the last bastion of smarmy, geeky, porno dimwits

You should understand the meaning of term before you use them--be sure you're not the one starting with the ad-hominems--ok cupcake?

The relevence of your experince can cut more than one way; cops, being authoritarian bullies, are precisely the kind of monuments to douche-baggery that would demand treating everyone like a criminbal to satisfy their sadistic impulse to exert their authority.

I'm a retard?

Yes.

WTF is a criminbal??? A bad dude who eats people?

The "n" and "b" keys on a standard keyboard being right next to each other, "criminbal" is what one might get when accidently striking both the "n" and the "b" keys while typing the word "criminal."

I won't stop trying to be helpful, just because you're too retarded to grasp the notion.

That aside, my, my, my do we have a chip on our shoulder. Your porno site was busted?? What gives about cops? To be fair, I know that they are not as well respected stateside as they are down here, but still, bit OTT giving out a stereotypical answer considering you seem to get all hot under the collar when "all-encompassing" answers are given.

Hyperbole often helps drive home a point--just apparently not for the persistently dense.

I'd rather that you not muddy the issue with your appeals to authority.

Translation: "I'd rather you not bring up people who are actually professionals oan a given subject because I am the all-knowing dickhead on this subject, and real people, who have studied the subject for a living, couldn't possibly know more than me.

Actual Translation: <i>"It should be noted that even a good <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html">Appeal to Authority</a> is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger."</i>

Just because I'm "one-upping" you, it doen't mean I'm concentrating on it, or even trying--maybe you're just wrong.

Having gone over a few of your posts just to double check, no, I'm not wrong, you are definitely the kinda person who likes arguing for arguing's sake and love attempting (poorly I might add) at trying the one-upmanship angle. Word or advice: Give it up. You're not that good at it

Translation: It's easier for me to accuse LOki of "one-upmanship" than accept the valid points he made--maybe I can equate his valid points with "one-upmanship" and make him just "give it up" because I'm not good at validating my point.

 

[Dr Grump]

Translation: Had my arse handed to me on a plate, so I'll start with the ad hominems, the last bastion of dumbfucks.

Get your own lines. You were being purposefully sarcastic. If you don't want insults, don't be insulting. Real easy. Even a Thicko like you can see that, surely

Shakey? Relative to what? Your Constitution? Enlighten us and let's have a few laughs.

I was talking about your constitution , fool


I suppose the capacity to look up the US Bill Of Rights on the internet sets this inquiring retard head and shoulders above the intellectual capacities of drooling window licking retards who can't.

You really don't know what I am getting at do you? Are you really that dense (rhetorical question - after this last "debate" with you, I think anybody can see the answer is an equivical yes.) My point is this - since I need to spell it out for you - Who decided what things/laws/etc were to be enumerated rights? Why only the ones mentioned in your constitution? Get it yet?

You should understand the meaning of term before you use them--be sure you're not the one starting with the ad-hominems--ok cupcake?

Thanks Sweetie, but I think we all know what an ad hominem is, just because you get called on it, you don't have to get all defensive. Put your toys back in the cot and stop acting like you're the last word on everything every time you post, and you might get along with people better. Then again, with a chip on your shoulder the size of Greenland, maybe you're one of those fat, short dudes with an attitude problem. Go figure.

Hyperbole often helps drive home a point--just apparently not for the persistently dense.

Oh, so now I'm supposed to guess your tone when posting. Sorry I don't do ESP at the best of time, let alone over a keyboard

Actual Translation: <i>"It should be noted that even a good <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html">Appeal to Authority</a> is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger."</i>

Actually, you are wrong. Expert witnesses are used all the time in courts. Are they right all the time. Not always, but in the vast majority of cases, the weight of their evidence far exceeds that of a non-expert on a given subject. Here's something that even you might understand: When somebody is giving evidence with regard to their expertise, it is always on the subject they are an expert on - hence, you argument is invalid

Translation: It's easier for me to accuse LOki of "one-upmanship" than accept the valid points he made--maybe I can equate his valid points with "one-upmanship" and make him just "give it up" because I'm not good at validating my point.

There have been two times I have agreed with you during this particular subject. You haven't given an inch (but to be fair, I have never seen you do that with anyone - a sure sign of some sort of psychosis. Never trust anybody who thinks they are right all the time I say!). Thing is, this is a messageboard, whereas you think you're arguing in front of the Supreme Court. You try to make out your opinions are facts, when clearly, in some instances, they are not. (shrug)

 

[LOki]

Translation: Had my arse handed to me on a plate, so I'll start with the ad hominems, the last bastion of dumbfucks.

Get your own lines. You were being purposefully sarcastic.

I was not being sarcastic--but it sure is alot easier for you to make an issue out of your perception of my tone than to refute the point I made.

If you don't want insults, don't be insulting. Real easy. Even a Thicko like you can see that, surely[/b]

Except, apparently, you.

Shakey? Relative to what? Your Constitution? Enlighten us and let's have a few laughs.

I was talking about your constitution , fool

Of course you were, retard.

I suppose the capacity to look up the US Bill Of Rights on the internet sets this inquiring retard head and shoulders above the intellectual capacities of drooling window licking retards who can't.

You really don't know what I am getting at do you? Are you really that dense (rhetorical question - after this last "debate" with you, I think anybody can see the answer is an equivical yes.) My point is this - since I need to spell it out for you - Who decided what things/laws/etc were to be enumerated rights? Why only the ones mentioned in your constitution? Get it yet?

Again, Grump, if you have any hope of grasping my half of this converstion, you need to get a firm grip on your own half. Your point may NOW be,<i> "Who decided what things/laws/etc were to be enumerated rights? Why only the ones mentioned in your constitution?"</i>, but the question you asked was, <a href="http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=676120#post676120"><i>"And where in the 9th does it state what those "other" enumerated rights are?"</i></a> and reinforced with, <a href="http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=676120#post676120"><i>"So, what are all the enumerated rights? Spill. Enquiring minds would like to know?"</i></a>

Despite your inability you follow your own half of the converstion, or that I answered your questions, I will answer these new questions as well: the First United States Congress, in 1791, decided which rights were to be enumerated, and they did so in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the powers granted to the Government through the Constitution, and they thought, at the time, that those amendments were sufficient to the task.

You should understand the meaning of term before you use them--be sure you're not the one starting with the ad-hominems--ok cupcake?

Thanks Sweetie, but I think we all know what an ad hominem is, just because you get called on it, you don't have to get all defensive. Put your toys back in the cot and stop acting like you're the last word on everything every time you post, and you might get along with people better. Then again, with a chip on your shoulder the size of Greenland, maybe you're one of those fat, short dudes with an attitude problem. Go figure.

It's not so clear that you understand what <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html">ad hominem</a> is, I do not consider myself the last word on everything, there is no chip on my shoulder, and I have no problem getting along with people--so long as those people are not persistently mendacious dumbfucks; they don't appreciate being outed.

Hyperbole often helps drive home a point--just apparently not for the persistently dense.

Oh, so now I'm supposed to guess your tone when posting. Sorry I don't do ESP at the best of time, let alone over a keyboard

No, you're supposed to get the point. Hope springs ever eternal.

Actual Translation: <i>"It should be noted that even a good <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html">Appeal to Authority</a> is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger."</i>

Actually, you are wrong. Expert witnesses are used all the time in courts. Are they right all the time. Not always, but in the vast majority of cases, the weight of their evidence far exceeds that of a non-expert on a given subject. Here's something that even you might understand: When somebody is giving evidence with regard to their expertise, it is always on the subject they are an expert on - hence, you argument is invalid

No, actually you're wrong; experise does not magically embue one with some immunity from being full of shit--hence, your argument (regarding argument from authority) is patently invalid.

Translation: It's easier for me to accuse LOki of "one-upmanship" than accept the valid points he made--maybe I can equate his valid points with "one-upmanship" and make him just "give it up" because I'm not good at validating my point.

There have been two times I have agreed with you during this particular subject. You haven't given an inch (but to be fair, I have never seen you do that with anyone - a sure sign of some sort of psychosis. Never trust anybody who thinks they are right all the time I say!).

I don't give an inch to fucktards trying to put words in my mouth, or assign their farcical motives to my arguments.

Thing is, this is a messageboard, whereas you think you're arguing in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm aware of where I'm at.

You try to make out your opinions are facts, when clearly, in some instances, they are not. (shrug)

Speak for yourself. I clearly state where simply stating my opinion is simply stating my opinion, and I have clearly stated when my opinion is irrelevent (even in this particular thread)--when I say something that is fact, I back it up. Try it on for size.