It has happened.

Status
Not open for further replies.

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
24,572
Amongst the proposals opposed by the NRA is one that would require stolen guns to be reported. Guns used in a crime that weren't reported stolen would result in penalties to the registered gun owner. It won't keep people from steeling guns, but it would work against those who buy guns and voluntarily supply them to criminals.

All I'm being convinced of is the NRA isn't concerned about safety where guns are concerned. But I knew that already.
Consider the very premise you are working from. In order for it to result in "penalties to the registered gun owner," you have to first have gun ownership registration, which completely undermines the very intent and purpose of the Second Amendment and which is also specifically prohibited, by law, at the federal level (not the state level).

What you are referring to is a "straw purchase" which is already illegal but is almost never prosecuted. The NRA firmly supports agressive prosecution of straw purchasers. But until we actually start doing it, what good would it do to be able to identify that many more people that are commiting a crime that we continue to demonstrate we have no real intention of punishing?
 

ErnieM

Joined Apr 24, 2011
7,991
In the recent Newton Connecticut shooting the accused began by murdering his own mother to obtain the guns he later used. I suppose his mother is guilty of not preforming a firearm transfer background check on her own son post (her own) mortem.

I guess my consciousness isn't high enough to conceive of any law that may have prevented his actions that day, but I don't smoke that funny stuff.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,364
I consider every premise I communicate, so there is never a reason to ask me to do so. I don't believe for a moment that registration requirement undermined the 2nd amendment. I now that's the NRA position, but it just doesn't wash. The NRA supports prosecution of crimes, but doesn't support giving law enforcement the tools to actually prosecute them. It's not a serious position of support if you're opposing granting the necessary tools.
 
Last edited:

loosewire

Joined Apr 25, 2008
1,571
You guys have a selective memory about things,its nice to be in the position

you are in to talks about our rights or are you. Our rights don't matter to you,what

about your rights..you don't want them...talk has no meaning..rights do, they are

written. Talk--Talk--until you give them away. Don't believe what you read in the

paper or hear in the news. They feed you pablum,baby food...make you weak in the

knee's. A little back bone to speak for your self----we talk about self made men on

this Forum all the time. Loosewire
 
Last edited:

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
12,301
The girl was black. The boy was white. Ergo, racism.

Race card politics is getting really, really old fast...
If it is so old why does it keep happening? Reality and perception are very often unrelated. It looks the way it looks.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,074
Ensuring one's God given inalienable rights should never come down to a vote at the ballot box.
Unfortunately it does in our system of government. I'd recommend you re-read the Declaration of Independence. Bear in mind that four score and seven years post that declaration was rendered null and void by President Lincoln. Mob rule has always been prevelent. It is only subdued by the opposition via compromise. This system of government is designed to prevent mob rule. Why do you think the Senate has two members for each state and a single senator can filabuster? Why do you think the House of Representatives are apportioned by population? Ever hear of the "Connecticut compromise" and it's effect on the U.S. system of government? What about the Missouri Compromise and it's effect on the Government?

How did West Virginia skirt the rules to gain statehood?

History is replete with attempts of mob rule and the subsequent compromises ... some that became banners for those to illustrate racism.
 

Metalmann

Joined Dec 8, 2012
692
This has already started in Florida.:

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/bradshaw-gets-1-million-for-violence-prevention-un/nXbs4/


His reasoning for such garbage?:


“Every single incident, whether it’s Newtown, that movie theater, or the guy who spouts off at work and then goes home and kills his wife and two kids — in every single case, there were people who said they knew ahead of time that there was a problem,” Bradshaw said. “If the neighbor of the mom in Newtown had called somebody, this might have saved 25 kids’ lives.”
Bradshaw is readying a hotline and is planning public service announcements to encourage local citizens to report their neighbors, friends or family members if they fear they could harm themselves or others.


So now, everybody can get all paranoid, and turn in their neighbors for fun and profit.

Don't think this system will be abused?


DHS--"See Something, Say Something", paranoia at it's finest.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,025
McCarthyism? Around every corner a potential terrorist or enraged lunatic. With all the reports of "suspicious" neighbors, I'm sure we'll need to double or triple the amount of law enforcement and agents, not to mention redoubling our efforts to hunt down and abolish every last aspect of privacy.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
24,572
That's already too far. When one's natural rights depend on the whims of the majority, mob rule is established. Tyranny of the majority and all that...

Then, only through armed insurrection can those rights be restored.

Luckily, we still have a SCOTUS that, for the most part, continues to affirm the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The very notion of "God given", "inalienable", and "natural" rights is an illusion.

In fact, the very notion of "rights" itself comes down to a social contract among humans. You have the "right" of free speech only because a sufficient number of other humans in your society have done two things: (1) they have agreed not to interfere with your exercising your "right" of free speech, and just as importantly, (2) they have agreed to actively prevent other humans from interfering with your "right" of free speech.

As soon as either of those two things stop being true, then you no longer have whatever "right" is involved.

That is the danger of a democracy, as the Founding Fathers were very much aware and why they didn't set the United States up as a democracy. The set it up as a constitutional republic. The purpose of the Constitution was to create a set of bounds and checks and balances such that as long as enough people are willing to enforce enough of the Constitutional limits on those that want to ignore them, it is very difficult (not impossible) for the tyranny of the majority to gain hold. But when people insist that the Constitution must be intepreted as a "living document" what they mean is that the bounds set forth should be twisted and ignored in order to achieve what the majority appears to want, thus undermining it ability to suppress tyranny. Do times change and should the Constitution change to reflect that? Sure. But there is a clear cut set of procedures to do that and they have been used on numerous occasions. You ammend the Constitution to reflect the necessary changes, you do not re-interpret it so as to suit your desires. The former requires a drawn out process that requires extremely broad agreement of the entire population on what changes should be made to our highest law, while the second is all up to the whim of five individuals. Given that the checks and balances embodied in the Constitution itself were the result of a strong intent to prevent a small group of people from imposing their will on everyone, which route do you think the Founding Fathers favored?
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
7,983
What happens when a state gives individuals the right to not be shot by a firearm? It is surprising that we don't have that right already. The converse is available, in that murder is outlawed so a murderer will get punished but nobody has been given the right to be safe, or happy or not be murdered. We have the right to be armed but no right to stay alive.

The interesting result of states giving people the right not to be shot would create a quandary because, as I read it, the 9th amendment would be in conflict with the 2nd amendment.

You may say both can be true and work at the same time. That might be true if everyone is rational. However, the NRA is strictly against background checks on all sales and gun registries because those actions MIGHT EVENTUALLY LEAD TO WEAPONS BANS. If those fighting for their right to not be murdered take the same view, they will take actions to prevent what MIGHT EVENTUALLY LEADTO A MURDER.

At that point, who's rights would be violated, gun owners or any potential victim (which would include gun owners).
 

Metalmann

Joined Dec 8, 2012
692
"The purpose of the Constitution was to create a set of bounds and checks and balances such that as long as enough people are willing to enforce enough of the Constitutional limits on those that want to ignore them, it is very difficult (not impossible) for the tyranny of the majority to gain hold."




The Constitution, was to stop/limit the Government; (Not necessarily the People), doing what they are now doing on a daily basis.

Nobody does fear-mongering...like the Government.

All for more money, and control....

Napolitano, now says she needs another 4.5-6.5 BILLION tax dollars.

She will blow it mostly on more new Fusion Centers, and crowd/citizen control.

Just like she did in Boston.

In Kansas, they may just lock down the whole damn State.

Unless Kansas obey the Feds.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
24,572
What happens when a state gives individuals the right to not be shot by a firearm?
Why would you only give them that right? Why wouldn't you also give individuals the right not to be stabbed by a knife? Or not to be hit by a car? Or not to crash in an airplane? Or not to be hit by an out-of-control skier?
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,025
Why would you only give them that right? Why wouldn't you also give individuals the right not to be stabbed by a knife? Or not to be hit by a car? Or not to crash in an airplane? Or not to be hit by an out-of-control skier?
That's what I was thinking. We add the "right to not be murdered" to "Bill of Silly Rights" Under "Right to be 6ft tall", "Right to a million bucks", and "Right to win every competition"

That was just overly silly. I hope it was satire and not an honest attempt at a logical argument.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,364
I think it's called a hypothetical, and used to illustrate a point. It doesn't make me feel very secure that folks who don't get simple rhetoric want to carry guns in public.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
24,572
I think it's called a hypothetical, and used to illustrate a point. It doesn't make me feel very secure that folks who don't get simple rhetoric want to carry guns in public.
But to be useful, it has to be coherent. This one wasn't.
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
4,231
I think it's called a hypothetical, and used to illustrate a point. It doesn't make me feel very secure that folks who don't get simple rhetoric want to carry guns in public.
Perhaps you, GopherT, or #12 could make use of your higher level of consciousness and explain to us lowly country bumpkins what his point was. That's assuming, of course, that we could understand it.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,025
I think it's called a hypothetical, and used to illustrate a point. It doesn't make me feel very secure that folks who don't get simple rhetoric want to carry guns in public.
I got it fer sher. He hypothetically compared one positive right and one negative right - one of which exists and the other is fantasy and quite obviously impossible to guarantee. He lays out his complete scenario, mostly plausible, until he gets to the point where the argument should be made: "You may say both can be true and work at the same time. That might be true if everyone is rational. However, " and then instead of making a point that follows the pattern of logic he had just constructed, he just lets the wheels fall off. The words following that quote should have been "...however, the right to not be shot cannot possibly be guaranteed and therefore the right to protect oneself against being shot should be championed." But they weren't close to that. They weren't anything related to the previous text. They were a blatant non sequitur.

I apologize if I tread on your right to feel secure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top