Gun Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
621

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

If it is someone who has been PROVEN in a court of law to be irresponsible with weapons, then yes, it would be Constitutional to deny them that right in the interest of prudence.[/quote]

On what basis? Where does it provide for that caveat in the Second Amendment?[/quote]
They have been proven, at the point of being convicted of a violent crime, to not be one of “We the People,” because they have proven that they do not believe in anyone else’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Therefore they are against “We the People.”

So when the 2A says “the right of the people”, it does not include them. It also does not include illegal immigrants or minors.

It’s the same as your right to defend yourself. We the People have the right to life. You have the right to revoke that right when the perpetrator threatens yours. He is no longer one of We the People.

622

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

the point I made - from a Second Amenment point of view, our recognition that states have the ability to restrict the right in the name of public safety quells any idea that there exists an absolute right to gun ownership.
[/quote]

“Your” recognition that the states have the ability to restrict the rights of the mentally ill and criminals in the name of Good does not mean that I recognize that the state has a right by extension to quell the absolute right to gun ownership of other citizens.

[quote][quote] While a person is competent and law abiding their right to bear arms is an absolute one.
[/quote]

Then you don’t think gun restrictions for the mentally ill are constitutional?
[/quote]

It’s unclear whether it’s that you think the above is a clever debating tactic, or whether it’s a reading comprehension issue.

It doesn’t make sense from what I’ve written that I’d think it unconstitutional for the mentally ill to be able to exercise fewer rights as a consequence of their inabilities. Did you really take it that I’d said this would be unconstitutional? Rather plainly I wrote that this was long-standing from English common law.

Rather than “then you don’t think,” why not say what you think? Federal law for some time has banned sales by gun dealers to the mentally ill. Do you have a Supreme Court decision to point to to show that this is unconstitutional, or any other basis? Or do you agree it is constitutional, while knowing that the Supreme Court has upheld gun rights for citizens in general?

623

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

If it is someone who has been PROVEN in a court of law to be irresponsible with weapons, then yes, it would be Constitutional to deny them that right in the interest of prudence.[/quote]

On what basis? Where does it provide for that caveat in the Second Amendment?[/quote]
They have been proven, at the point of being convicted of a violent crime, to not be one of “We the People,” because they have proven that they do not believe in anyone else’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Therefore they are against “We the People.”

So when the 2A says “the right of the people”, it does not include them. It also does not include illegal immigrants or minors.
[/quote]

So, if someone shouts “fire” in a crowded movie theater which is not, in fact, on fire, and is subsequently jailed and then released, is his right to speak and assemble freely revocable?

624

Equating violent gun crime with yelling fire in a theater. I’m not sure which stance you’re arguing toward but;

If you are in favor of hardened criminals retaining their gun rights, that’s fine. I would go with that, because it wouldn’t make a bit of difference in the world. They don’t care about the law anyway.

Let them have guns, and then when they are convicted a second time, impose a mandatory death sentence. You would soon have far fewer gun crimes simply because you would eliminate the root cause of the crimes.

The only problem I have with that scenario is the potential loss of innocent life.

If you are arguing that rights should be stripped away from people for any offense, as in yelling ‘fire’ in a theater, then what you are proposing is an almost immediate shift to totalitarianism.

EDIT: So, the direct answer is “no”.

625

Bank of America Freezes Gun Manufacturer’s Account, Company Owner Claims.

Boycott Bank of America and send a clear message that we will not be strong-armed by BIG GOVERNMENT and BANKS. Pull Your Money OUT.

http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-detained-by-tsa/

Listen to the “voice of reason” and tolerance on the left:

626

I haven’t done any business with BoA since they cut off McMillan for the same reason. Their Senior Vice President even admitted that it was a politically-motivated decision.

627

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

They have been proven, at the point of being convicted of a violent crime, to not be one of “We the People,” because they have proven that they do not believe in anyone else’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Therefore they are against “We the People.”

So when the 2A says “the right of the people”, it does not include them. It also does not include illegal immigrants or minors.[/quote]

The position that felons - who have done their time as prescribed by law - forfeit their citizenship in part or in whole by result of their crime is nowhere in the Constitution. You made that up. I mean, you just plain made that up.

The Constitution provides that a felon forfeits his status as “one of the people” - by lone virtue of breaking the law and serving his time under the penalty - and states are allowed to legislate against them as they see fit because they are no longer “of the people”?

I’m trying to search for a polite way to describe this position. But I can’t - it is absolute horseshit.

628

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

“Your” recognition that the states have the ability to restrict the rights of the mentally ill and criminals in the name of Good does not mean that I recognize that the state has a right by extension to quell the absolute right to gun ownership of other citizens.[/quote]

Well, it doesn’t matter what you want to individually recognize. And, you continue insisting on a straw man no one else is asserting - that one restriction amounts categorically to an absolute restriction.

Only one question: do states have some ability to restrict the right of gun ownership in the name of public safety? Yes or no?

It’s neither - I’m actually trying to figure out what you think re: the actual topic I raised, so I asked a direct question.

Yes or no works better. More importantly, the common-law is not constitutional law.

As for me, I’ve already said what I think. I don’t think the right is absolute. Still waiting on you to privide a yes or no.

629

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Well, I disagree.

I, as a law abiding sound minded citizen, can enjoy absolute rights.[/quote]

Well, no, you actually can’t. You may want to, but that isn’t the case.

But in any event, people do not always determine whether they themselves are of sound mind - in other words, you may think you are, but you may not be, and the state enjoys the power to override your own self-determination of the issue.

[/quote]

I never said it was self determined.
The government does not have absolute power over me and my proven standing in the community as a sound minded, law abiding citizen.

Authoritarians may think the government can, but autonomous persons know the state can’t.

The more autonomous persons in society, the less authoritarianism influences the fearful minds of people.

630

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

They have been proven, at the point of being convicted of a violent crime, to not be one of “We the People,” because they have proven that they do not believe in anyone else’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Therefore they are against “We the People.”

So when the 2A says “the right of the people”, it does not include them. It also does not include illegal immigrants or minors.[/quote]

The position that felons - who have done their time as prescribed by law - forfeit their citizenship in part or in whole by result of their crime is nowhere in the Constitution. You made that up. I mean, you just plain made that up.

The Constitution provides that a felon forfeits his status as “one of the people” - by lone virtue of breaking the law and serving his time under the penalty - and states are allowed to legislate against them as they see fit because they are no longer “of the people”?

I’m trying to search for a polite way to describe this position. But I can’t - it is absolute horseshit.

[/quote]
I must apologize. I gave you too much credit for reading comprehension. Now I see how your self-education went so horribly wrong.

631

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

“Your” recognition that the states have the ability to restrict the rights of the mentally ill and criminals in the name of Good does not mean that I recognize that the state has a right by extension to quell the absolute right to gun ownership of other citizens.[/quote]

Well, it doesn’t matter what you want to individually recognize. And, you continue insisting on a straw man no one else is asserting - that one restriction amounts categorically to an absolute restriction.

Only one question: do states have some ability to restrict the right of gun ownership in the name of public safety? Yes or no?

It’s neither - I’m actually trying to figure out what you think re: the actual topic I raised, so I asked a direct question.

Yes or no works better. More importantly, the common-law is not constitutional law.

As for me, I’ve already said what I think. I don’t think the right is absolute. Still waiting on you to privide a yes or no.[/quote]

I have twenty letters for you: r e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n.

Clearly you have absorbed nothing of what I have written, though it was clear enough.
So I will work on the premise that you can absorb nothing, which renders it pointless to make further effort.

Go read what I have written already.

632

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

I must apologize. I gave you too much credit for reading comprehension. Now I see how your self-education went so horribly wrong.[/quote]

You have much to apologize for, but that isn’t one of the things on which to do it.

You said that felons can have their right to gun proscribed because they have forfeited their status as “of the people”, so they therefore fall outside of the protected category of “people” in the Second Amendment.

The Constitution doesn’t say that, and it no historical understanding of the Constitution has ever supported such a view.

As I said - you made it up. I assume you’re willing to admit you made it up, right?

633

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Clearly you have absorbed nothing of what I have written, though it was clear enough. [/quote]

Well, no, your writing is not particularly coherent, generally. It wasn’t clear enough.

It’s pretty easy: does the Second Amendment prohibit states from passing laws restricting gun ownership in the name of public safety?

634

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Clearly you have absorbed nothing of what I have written, though it was clear enough. [/quote]

Well, no, your writing is not particularly coherent, generally. It wasn’t clear enough.

It’s pretty easy: does the Second Amendment prohibit states from passing laws restricting gun ownership in the name of public safety?

[/quote]

I think, tb, that Alpha F and JP–who are subtle readers–do not so easily see your use of the Socratic enquiry. (Which, after all, is the reason I posted the Vanity Fair article which even I find objectionable.)

They may be called “inalienable” or “absolute,” but the Constitutional rights and the BIll of Rights seem neither, and both AF and JP have tried to thread the needle: how does one coherently limit that which in principle should be unlimited.

So, by reading your exchanges, I imagine a grid. On the abscissa, are values of diminishing value: “threat to life,” “public threat,” “public safety,” “offensive behavior,” “common sense,” “established law,” etc. And on the ordinate, one can arrange each of the Bill of Rights, and show how each is limited in its scope or application.

Thus, the 1st amendment IS abridged: it does not protect slander and libel as protected speech, but does it protect Nazis to march in Skokie for the anguish it may cause? Yelling “fire” as smh and Brandeis reminded us, is not protected speech, but what precedent guided the Court?
In parallel, why would a white-collar felon be a permanent threat to society, a threat sufficient to make it illegal for him to protect his family, or trap-shoot, or hunt squirrels? As for the restriction of guns from the mentally incompetent, I will point out that I have a cousin whose psychotic break occurred when he was found wandering nekkid in downtown Chicago, in mid-winter, preaching The Word. He recovered and became a decorated Marine and accomplished attorney.

Limits to our rights cannot be based on ad-hoc guesses, or common sense, or fabrications. The Constitution does define treason, but contrary to JP’s assertion, it does not define how an ex-con is ostracized, under what case law or for what legal purposes.

The Vanity Fair article attempts, badly, to define the language that would allow the right of gun ownership, and at the same stroke limit that right. My usual question holds: who decides, and by what right?

(edited gently)

635

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

I think, tb, that Alpha F and JP–who are subtle readers–do not so easily see your use of the Socratic enquiry. (Which, after all, is the reason I posted the Vanity Fair article which even I find objectionable.)

[/quote]

The Socratic inquiry is a method of teaching.
By asking questions so that the student may examine the question and come to a better understanding.

The problem here is that this is a conversation - this is not a lecture from Thunderbolt.

Thunderbolt may think or want to be an authority on the law, but that does not make him so.

It is an exercise in futility to attempt to converse with a person when the other person operates by lecture.

I have read Socrates, Socrates was a friend of mine and Thunderbolt is no Socrates.

636

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

The Socratic inquiry is a method of teaching.
…

[/quote]

Teaching/learning. In some languages, the same word.

Socratic enquiry? I see it as a method of co-discovery, yes?

637

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

I must apologize. I gave you too much credit for reading comprehension. Now I see how your self-education went so horribly wrong.[/quote]

You have much to apologize for, but that isn’t one of the things on which to do it.

You said that felons can have their right to gun proscribed because they have forfeited their status as “of the people”, so they therefore fall outside of the protected category of “people” in the Second Amendment.

The Constitution doesn’t say that, and it no historical understanding of the Constitution has ever supported such a view.

As I said - you made it up. I assume you’re willing to admit you made it up, right?[/quote]
Made it up? No. Explained in my own words, yes.

The Constitution also does not spell out how a criminal can lose his right to liberty (or even life), but it is subject to revocation, either temporarily or permanently. You just have to apply some sense and reasoning skills to understand why.

638

Anybody can ask a bunch of questions designed to point out contradiction. Truth of the matter is that by never stating an assertion you can never be right, you can only prove that there are flaws in your opponent’s argument. It’s a pansy-assed way to argue.

It’s equivalent to the guy who walks around being negative about everything. All he’s looking for is an opportunity to say “I told you so”

639

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Socratic enquiry? I see it as a method of co-discovery, yes? [/quote]
How can it be a method of co-discovery if the inquiring person is only seeking to produce contradiction? Can a skillful inquirer not produce contradiction from statements of plain fact?

640

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

In parallel, why would a white-collar felon be a permanent threat to society, a threat sufficient to make it illegal for him to protect his family, or trap-shoot, or hunt squirrels?
[/quote]

This is a point that intrigues me. There’s even controversy about losing “privileges” for life, such as in this case:

TL;DR is that this kid, at 17, had already had his driver’s license revoked twice…this 3rd time, he (17 years old, for reference) was street racing, drunk. Tried to pass a car, crashed into a tree. He survived, one of his passengers went into a coma but ended up surviving. Judge revoked his license for life. Yet driving is “only” a privilege, not a “right” as the 2nd amendment is.

In a roundabout way, my point is, this kid thrice showed his reckless behaviour would not be stopped by a judge, and it took until the third time for one to take it away for life. How then, can one take away a fundamental right to protect one’s life after only one felony (which could even be a non-violent one)? Only #'s 1 and 10 in the following are felonies, but point remains:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2649896/posts

There are some ridiculous felonies out there. Also, this:

Even if you insist that these are just extreme cases of stupid laws, the fact remains; being able to defend yourself from being killed or maimed is kinda a big deal, yes? Why then, if someone committed a crime SO heinous that he can longer even defend his own life, is he not imprisoned for life, or executed?