[quote]pushharder wrote:
And as usual your primary concern continues to be that of the state and it’s “rights.”
[/quote]
Because states’ rights matter, especially with respect to a state’s inherent power to police internally matters of public safety, health and morals.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I have no doubt that is your entire point. Well said.[/quote]
Well, that is where the power comes from - a state’s right to legislate in the name of public safety. States have always had this right.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
With TB, if the “can” ever existed the “should” is sent packing. It’s just “can” forever and ever and ever. [/quote]
Straw man, but in any event, no, there is simply no reason to consider “should” if the answer to the first question is “no, you can’t.”
Once we decide we can, then we decide what we should do.
It’s pretty straightforward. That is how basic constitutional civics works.
If you jump right to “we should…[pass a certain kind of law]”, then you have conceded that you think “we can…[pass a certain law]”.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And I argue that the threshold position should be approached from the opposite direction. [/quote]
When drafting a constitution to decide what goes in it? Sure? After the constitution is already in effect, nope.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And you’ll be the judge of whether that “violation” occurred?[/quote]
Me? No. The authorized branch(es) of government? Yes. They do that kind of stuff.
Good Lord. Of course not.
That’s why this gets old fast. Historical proof isn’t “unassailable” - important, but not unassailable. There are other reasons to consider.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That’s what straight history has certainly taught me. [/quote]
You don’t do straight history. You’re a kind of post-modernist - you make up history that suits you (“the Second Amendment has always applied to the states,” and so forth) and then pretend it happened. That much is plain.
It’s better than running around with a copy of Unintended Consequences and falling flat on my face with tangled shoelaces.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I believe you meant “right to pass gun laws in the name of the name of public safety,” right?
Your answer generally revolves somewhere around Well, from 1856 - 1859 Caldwell County in Kentucky restricted the right of green eyed people shorter than 5’6" from carrying muskets containing powder manufactured in other Kentucky counties south of the 38th parallel therefore the state of Oregon or even the North American Continental Czar, i.e., the US federal government, can now ban semi-automatic rifles from having magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds or other such “reasonable” horseshit. After all that makes it “constitutional,” right?[/quote]
Probably not - there’d be no rational basis to restrict people shorter than 5-6 (is that how tall you are?) with green eyes. That would be an Equal Protection problem.
So, Push - what is your take? Are state and local laws prohibiting felons and/or the mentally ill from owning guns unconstitutional?
If so, why?
The problem with laws that deny “fill in the blank” to felons and/or the mentally is, what else will you restrict ?
If the lack of moral turpitude is determined to be at a dangerous level, you could argue that these people should not drive, not be allowed to have steak knives, or have dental floss in their homes.
How far do you take this ?
I have found that any time a government imposes restrictions on “fill in the blank”, it usually ends up with it being expanded to more and more blanks.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The problem with laws that deny “fill in the blank” to felons and/or the mentally is, what else will you restrict ?
If the lack of moral turpitude is determined to be at a dangerous level, you could argue that these people should not drive, not be allowed to have steak knives, or have dental floss in their homes.
How far do you take this ?
I have found that any time a government imposes restrictions on “fill in the blank”, it usually ends up with it being expanded to more and more blanks. [/quote]
Excellent stuff, this is precisely the point I was making re: the article posted by Doc. If a state can prohibit felons from owning guns, what’s the next category? And the next category? The Second Amendment does not textually provide for certain categories of people to be restricted from gun ownership. But it is generally undisputed that some categories are available to restrict (i.e., the mentally ill).
So where do you decide to draw the line? And more importantly, how do you decide? And who does?
Vacant navel-gazing with libertarian platitudes of the awesomely awesome awesomeoness of freedom won’t get it done. How do we balance the right recognized by the Second Amendment with a state’s right to legislate in the name of the public safety of its citizens?
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Someone is mentally challenged. They are stuck in the mindset of a 3 year old for all their adult life, and can only form basic, simple sentences. She typically needs help picking out her outfit day-to-day, cannot read,[/quote]
And therefore cannot vote.
Has the state taken her right to vote away? No. She lost it as a natural corollary of her being illiterate.[/quote]
The state took away her right to vote BECAUSE of her inability to make an informed choice. You know, the same reason children can’t vote. Now in all reality, if you took this principle to its extremes, a large percentage of the American public wouldn’t be allowed to vote due to making poorly informed decisions, but that’s another matter.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
She has disallowed herself: the state only has authority over her because she is not in possession of her own individual authority.
[/quote]
How did she disallow herself? Did she choose to be mentally handicapped?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Someone stabs another man in a bar fight. He is now a convicted felon. The other man lives, the felon has no violent record. The felon serves his time in prison without incident, pays reparations for the other’s injury, and is now again a free man. Two years later, he has committed no crimes, is gainfully employed, etc. Should this man not be able to own a firearm? I can’t say for 100% certain, but who can?
Someone is mentally challenged. They are stuck in the mindset of a 3 year old for all their adult life, and can only form basic, simple sentences. She typically needs help picking out her outfit day-to-day, cannot read, and can only be involved in the most basic social interactions with strangers. She has no violent history, but quite simply, cannot function in the adult world, or even at a kindergartner’s level. Is there anybody here that honestly thinks she should be allowed to own a gun?[/quote]
I think that in neither case should gun ownership be allowed. In the former case the felon has proven to be prone to violence. Whether or not he’s paid his dues is immaterial. He’s proven that he is not responsible enough to own a weapon in modern society.
In the second case it’s a matter of that person not being an adult (even if they are physically).
james[/quote]
People who file for bankruptcy also have proven they cannot handle money, or loans, or their bills.
Yet after a period of 7 years, their credit is clear, and they can go about their life anew.
Why shouldn’t a non-violent felon get the same deal ?
[/quote]
That is an excellent comparison; people VERY often become felons due to unplanned acts of anger that happen in a moment’s time. Someone who files for bankruptcy made a series of deliberate decisions, usually over the course of years or decades, showcasing (in my opinion) a generally greater lack of responsibility.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The problem with laws that deny “fill in the blank” to felons and/or the mentally is, what else will you restrict ?
If the lack of moral turpitude is determined to be at a dangerous level, you could argue that these people should not drive, not be allowed to have steak knives, or have dental floss in their homes.
How far do you take this ?
I have found that any time a government imposes restrictions on “fill in the blank”, it usually ends up with it being expanded to more and more blanks. [/quote]
Excellent stuff, this is precisely the point I was making re: the article posted by Doc. …
So where do you decide to draw the line? And more importantly, how do you decide? And who does?
Vacant navel-gazing with libertarian platitudes of the awesomely awesome awesomeoness of freedom won’t get it done. How do we balance the right recognized by the Second Amendment with a state’s right to legislate in the name of the public safety of its citizens?[/quote]
3 pages later, and where finally getting somewhere.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Only one question: do states have some ability to restrict the right of gun ownership in the name of public safety? Yes or no?
[/quote]
No.
If there is no caveat in the Constitution, AND common sense does not count ( your opinion ), then it is unconstitutional for the state to restrict gun ownership.
Felons and mentally incompetent have a right to own a gun.
Their right to use can be limited but their right to own cannot as it has been proved by reality; both historically and in practice, felons and the mentally incompetent have and currently do own guns.
[/quote]
Just to be clear…in YOUR ideal government, do people in jail have a right to own guns?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The problem with laws that deny “fill in the blank” to felons and/or the mentally is, what else will you restrict ?
If the lack of moral turpitude is determined to be at a dangerous level, you could argue that these people should not drive, not be allowed to have steak knives, or have dental floss in their homes.
How far do you take this ?
I have found that any time a government imposes restrictions on “fill in the blank”, it usually ends up with it being expanded to more and more blanks. [/quote]
Excellent stuff, this is precisely the point I was making re: the article posted by Doc. …
So where do you decide to draw the line? And more importantly, how do you decide? And who does?
Vacant navel-gazing with libertarian platitudes of the awesomely awesome awesomeoness of freedom won’t get it done. How do we balance the right recognized by the Second Amendment with a state’s right to legislate in the name of the public safety of its citizens?[/quote]
3 pages later, and where finally getting somewhere.
[/quote]
That sort of attitude is precisely one of the major factors in eroding everyday freedoms. The mindset of “Well, we got away with banning this, so why not this, this and this?”.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
People who file for bankruptcy also have proven they cannot handle money, or loans, or their bills.
Yet after a period of 7 years, their credit is clear, and they can go about their life anew.
Why shouldn’t a non-violent felon get the same deal ?
[/quote]
That’s a great question to ask. For me the distinction is that my bankruptcy didn’t harm anyone who wasn’t expecting it. Lenders assume that there’s a risk in me defaulting on my debts. They know that for every X number of loans they will lose out on Y percent. That’s why they charge interest and why that interest rate changes from person to person right? The bank has some expectation of me going into bankruptcy and they’re OK with that because it’s part of doing business. The seven years is a punishment not an expectation that I have changed my behavior. The only reason it’s not longer is that consumer groups have cried enough to make it so.
Me going to a bar and stabbing someone has harmed someone and that person has not assumed that they were going to get stabbed. You expect that someone will step on your foot or spill a drink on you. But you don’t expect that someone will stab you. When I get out of prison there’s still not an assumption of risk on the part of bar patrons that they might get stabbed by me.
Does that make sense the way I explained it?
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
People who file for bankruptcy also have proven they cannot handle money, or loans, or their bills.
Yet after a period of 7 years, their credit is clear, and they can go about their life anew.
Why shouldn’t a non-violent felon get the same deal ?
[/quote]
That’s a great question to ask. For me the distinction is that my bankruptcy didn’t harm anyone who wasn’t expecting it. Lenders assume that there’s a risk in me defaulting on my debts. They know that for every X number of loans they will lose out on Y percent. That’s why they charge interest and why that interest rate changes from person to person right? The bank has some expectation of me going into bankruptcy and they’re OK with that because it’s part of doing business. The seven years is a punishment not an expectation that I have changed my behavior. The only reason it’s not longer is that consumer groups have cried enough to make it so.
Me going to a bar and stabbing someone has harmed someone and that person has not assumed that they were going to get stabbed. You expect that someone will step on your foot or spill a drink on you. But you don’t expect that someone will stab you. When I get out of prison there’s still not an assumption of risk on the part of bar patrons that they might get stabbed by me.
Does that make sense the way I explained it?
james
[/quote]
Disagreed. A bank doesn’t expect people to go bankrupt, or they wouldn’t give out loans. The same way you don’t expect to get stabbed at a bar, or else you wouldn’t go to bars. But there is always the CHANCE of bankruptcy happening, which, like you pointed out, is part of why they charge interest. That’s the mitigation of the risk. For the average citizen, the mitigation is learning self defense, carrying a legal firearm on your person, avoiding bad parts of the neighborhood, etc.
You can’t say people don’t expect to be violently attacked, when such a large amount of Americans carry guns, take self defense classes, etc. If there wasn’t an expectation of possibly being violently assaulted at some point, none of those things would exist. So the argument of not expecting to be attacked isn’t valid. If the bank expected you to default, they wouldn’t give you the loan.
So yeah, there really is no fundamental difference.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Disagreed. A bank doesn’t expect people to go bankrupt, or they wouldn’t give out loans. The same way you don’t expect to get stabbed at a bar, or else you wouldn’t go to bars. But there is always the CHANCE of bankruptcy happening, which, like you pointed out, is part of why they charge interest. That’s the mitigation of the risk. For the average citizen, the mitigation is learning self defense, carrying a legal firearm on your person, avoiding bad parts of the neighborhood, etc.
You can’t say people don’t expect to be violently attacked, when such a large amount of Americans carry guns, take self defense classes, etc. If there wasn’t an expectation of possibly being violently assaulted at some point, none of those things would exist. So the argument of not expecting to be attacked isn’t valid. If the bank expected you to default, they wouldn’t give you the loan.
So yeah, there really is no fundamental difference. [/quote]
Banks absolutely do expect bankruptcy and that’s why they charge higher interest for people with poorer credit. They know that there’s a chance of that possibility and they prepare for that possibility. It’s just the cost of doing business.
Being stabbed isn’t a normal part of doing business in a bar.
james
Who chooses and by what right?
If one hasn’t thought it through from first principles, this is what one may see:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Disagreed. A bank doesn’t expect people to go bankrupt, or they wouldn’t give out loans. The same way you don’t expect to get stabbed at a bar, or else you wouldn’t go to bars. But there is always the CHANCE of bankruptcy happening, which, like you pointed out, is part of why they charge interest. That’s the mitigation of the risk. For the average citizen, the mitigation is learning self defense, carrying a legal firearm on your person, avoiding bad parts of the neighborhood, etc.
You can’t say people don’t expect to be violently attacked, when such a large amount of Americans carry guns, take self defense classes, etc. If there wasn’t an expectation of possibly being violently assaulted at some point, none of those things would exist. So the argument of not expecting to be attacked isn’t valid. If the bank expected you to default, they wouldn’t give you the loan.
So yeah, there really is no fundamental difference. [/quote]
Banks absolutely do expect bankruptcy and that’s why they charge higher interest for people with poorer credit. They know that there’s a chance of that possibility and they prepare for that possibility. It’s just the cost of doing business.
Being stabbed isn’t a normal part of doing business in a bar.
james
[/quote]
Again…if it was “normal” for people to go bankrupt, banks wouldn’t give out loans. It’s the rare exception, not the rule.
Just like if it was “normal” to get attacked every time you went out in public, you wouldn’t go out in public.
But people continue to go out in public, and banks continue to give out loans. Both take precautions, because they (the smart ones) know that there’s always a chance of having something bad happen to you.