Post by: JeffDG on June 24, 2016, 09:26:55 AM
Quote
Ben Carson on Thursday said lawmakers should reconsider how the Second Amendment works amid a raging debate over guns.
“Let’s put on the table — what is the reason for the Second Amendment?” he said on MSNBC. "And, is there a reason that we need to change those things right now?
Post by: Dav8or on June 24, 2016, 10:09:56 AM
Quote
“I think the people who are protesting certainly feel that they are absolutely, 100 percent right,” he said of Wednesday’s Democratic House sit-in to demand action on gun control legislation.
“But of course the people on the other side feel that they’re 100 percent right too," the former GOP presidential candidate added. "That’s why we need to get back to a point of having civil discussion.”
The thing is, one side has a legal document to back them and the other is just- "What we ought to do..." A civil discussion rarely leads anywhere when you have two sides so diametrically opposed.
Also from the article-
Quote
“Let’s put on the table — what is the reason for the Second Amendment?” he said on MSNBC. "And, is there a reason that we need to change those things right now?
What is the reason for any of the Amendments?? Is there a reason to change any of them right now? Once again, the Constitution contains the instructions for changing amendments. Get the votes, or shut up.
Post by: nddons on June 24, 2016, 07:32:06 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284706-carson-lets-put-second-amendment-on-the-table
Yep, about a year ago I questioned Carson's bona fides with respect to the Second Amendment. I was right.
Post by: Anthony on June 25, 2016, 02:56:51 AM
Yep, about a year ago I questioned Carson's bona fides with respect to the Second Amendment. I was right.
If this is true we are in trouble.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 25, 2016, 04:02:02 AM
If this is true we are in trouble.
otoh - it might be an opportunity to reaffirm our right to selfdefense and stop all the BS from people who can't understand prefatory as opposed to operative
Post by: JeffDG on June 25, 2016, 06:03:53 AM
otoh - it might be an opportunity to reaffirm our right to selfdefense and stop all the BS from people who can't understand prefatory as opposed to operativeRiiiight...politicians are totally going to "open up" the second amendment in order to make it so they have less power over the weapons people have,
Post by: Lucifer on June 25, 2016, 06:06:24 AM
otoh - it might be an opportunity to reaffirm our right to selfdefense and stop all the BS from people who can't understand prefatory as opposed to operative
Very true.
Speaking of constitutional rights, wasn't it just this week we had a big conservative and constitutionalist that was in the republican primaries that voted to degrade even more of our 4th amendment rights?
Post by: LevelWing on June 25, 2016, 07:22:09 AM
Post by: Bob Noel on June 25, 2016, 09:59:16 AM
Riiiight...politicians are totally going to "open up" the second amendment in order to make it so they have less power over the weapons people have,
I can dream, can't I?
btw - where are all the democrats that own guns?
Post by: Dav8or on June 25, 2016, 01:17:33 PM
I can dream, can't I?
btw - where are all the democrats that own guns?
There actually are quite a few. They just aren't single issue voters and either don't care about gun rights as much as conservatives, or believe that the guns they have will never be taken away as long as we use "common sense".
Post by: bflynn on June 25, 2016, 01:30:04 PM
Go back and reference my previous thread on a proposal to help control ownership of AR rifles by the mentally ill and terrorists. Neither side is willing to give an inch on what they "believe", even to secure what they believe. That is why Congress is deadlocked and why nothing happens.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 25, 2016, 01:31:56 PM
There actually are quite a few. They just aren't single issue voters and either don't care about gun rights as much as conservatives, or believe that the guns they have will never be taken away as long as we use "common sense".
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"common sense"
Therein lies the problem. The democrat "leadership" hasn't shown "common sense" in quite some time.
oh btw - democrats certainly are single issue votes. Just have a candidate come out against abortion and watch them go ape shit. Or have a candidate come out (no pun) against perverts and watch them go ape shit. But, according to you, a constitutional right isn't important to those democrats.
Post by: Anthony on June 25, 2016, 03:41:12 PM
Post by: JeffDG on June 25, 2016, 03:55:49 PM
The Second Amendment is not up to government interpretation. It is a NATURAL RIGHT in which we hold as HUMAN BEINGS.You might want to tell that to the guy you're planning on voting for in November, because it appears he doesn't share your opinion.
Post by: nddons on June 25, 2016, 03:59:48 PM
Never going to happen.Can you give us the Cliff Notes version on your proposal?
Go back and reference my previous thread on a proposal to help control ownership of AR rifles by the mentally ill and terrorists. Neither side is willing to give an inch on what they "believe", even to secure what they believe. That is why Congress is deadlocked and why nothing happens.
By the way, when "nothing happens" with respect to the Second Amendment, that's precisely how Congress is supposed to work.
Post by: nddons on June 25, 2016, 04:01:39 PM
The Second Amendment is not up to government interpretation. It is a NATURAL RIGHT in which we hold as HUMAN BEINGS.Bingo. Too bad Dr. Carson doesn't understand this.
Post by: JeffDG on June 25, 2016, 04:02:16 PM
Bingo. Too bad Dr. Carson doesn't understand this.Neither does Donnie...he's all in for the "No Fly, No Buy" rule.
Post by: JeffDG on June 25, 2016, 05:09:43 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hawaii-becomes-first-us-state-to-place-gun-owners-on-fbi-database/ar-AAhBtsP?ocid=sf
Post by: Mase on June 25, 2016, 06:18:15 PM
Post by: nddons on June 25, 2016, 06:23:06 PM
So, since Donnie boy wants to remove your 2A rights if you're on a watch list, what do all his sycophants think of this:Lovely.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hawaii-becomes-first-us-state-to-place-gun-owners-on-fbi-database/ar-AAhBtsP?ocid=sf
Post by: nddons on June 25, 2016, 06:24:41 PM
A few grains of sodium chloride required; RedState is notoriously anti-Trump.I don't see Red State quoted in this thread. Am I missing something?
Post by: Mase on June 25, 2016, 06:37:20 PM
Post by: LevelWing on June 25, 2016, 09:37:28 PM
So, since Donnie boy wants to remove your 2A rights if you're on a watch list, what do all his sycophants think of this:There's so much wrong with that law. Read: everything.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hawaii-becomes-first-us-state-to-place-gun-owners-on-fbi-database/ar-AAhBtsP?ocid=sf
Post by: bflynn on June 26, 2016, 02:03:22 AM
Can you give us the Cliff Notes version on your proposal?
Attach ownership of AR rifles to membership in the unorganized militia, then have the states regulated the unorganized militia to exclude the mentally ill and those on terror watchlists. Congress cannot constitutionally abridge the right of weapons ownership but the States can regulate the militia. Other weapons, such as shotguns and hunting rifles, are unaffected.
The right freaks out even though the militia gets armed. The left freaks out even though they get the gun control that they held the preschool temper tantrum over.
Post by: Anthony on June 26, 2016, 02:58:22 AM
Attach ownership of AR rifles to membership in the unorganized militia, then have the states regulated the unorganized militia to exclude the mentally ill and those on terror watchlists. Congress cannot constitutionally abridge the right of weapons ownership but the States can regulate the militia. Other weapons, such as shotguns and hunting rifles, are unaffected.
The right freaks out even though the militia gets armed. The left freaks out even though they get the gun control that they held the preschool temper tantrum over.
The AR-15 is a "hunting rifle". It is no different from other semi automatic rifles. Many hunt with the AR-15 and other semi auto rifles. The 2A is about un-infringed ownership and carry of firearms, not about hunting. It is a personal right, not only for the militia.
Gun control laws only affects the law abiding, not criminals, terrorists, nor nut jobs. When will you liberals realize this?
Post by: Bob Noel on June 26, 2016, 04:16:04 AM
Attach ownership of AR rifles to membership in the unorganized militia, then have the states regulated the unorganized militia to exclude the mentally ill and those on terror watchlists. Congress cannot constitutionally abridge the right of weapons ownership but the States can regulate the militia. Other weapons, such as shotguns and hunting rifles, are unaffected.
The right freaks out even though the militia gets armed. The left freaks out even though they get the gun control that they held the preschool temper tantrum over.
Please define "AR rifles"
btw - do people realize that some of the same features that make the M-16 attractive to the military also make .223rem semi-automatic rifles attractive for hunting and target shooting?
Some of those features are:
less expensive per round than the .308win rounds
lighter than .308win rounds
high velocity makes the rounds shoot relatively flat
light recoil
extremely easy to repair and clean
pistol grip is a more natural grip for a rifle (but I prefer the classic rifle look - the M-16 is ugly)
Post by: LevelWing on June 26, 2016, 07:44:54 AM
The AR-15 is a "hunting rifle". It is no different from other semi automatic rifles. Many hunt with the AR-15 and other semi auto rifles. The 2A is about un-infringed ownership and carry of firearms, not about hunting. It is a personal right, not only for the militia.The AR-15 is not a hunting rifle. It is simply a rifle, like any other. You can use it for hunting but saying it is a hunting rifle is as misleading as saying it's an "assault rifle."
Gun control laws only affects the law abiding, not criminals, terrorists, nor nut jobs. When will you liberals realize this?
Post by: LevelWing on June 26, 2016, 07:47:03 AM
Attach ownership of AR rifles to membership in the unorganized militia, then have the states regulated the unorganized militia to exclude the mentally ill and those on terror watchlists. Congress cannot constitutionally abridge the right of weapons ownership but the States can regulate the militia. Other weapons, such as shotguns and hunting rifles, are unaffected.I disagree with this. States like California will be able to determine who can take what weapons home and soon it'll end up like it is now: citizens have little rights with regards to guns in certain states.
The right freaks out even though the militia gets armed. The left freaks out even though they get the gun control that they held the preschool temper tantrum over.
I like the way it is now, except we need to change certain parts of the NFA. I would also like seeing reduced wait times from the ATF for NFA weapons.
Post by: bflynn on June 26, 2016, 09:15:15 PM
There are other parts of this, for example protections against the States from completely disarming the unorganized militia, also the ability to own more than rifles. If you can maintain your own F-14, go for it. But the gist of the proposal is the single sentence description.
BTW, I am a moderate.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 27, 2016, 04:21:05 AM
Don't worry about it. The Left refuses this too because they don't want to formally admit that AR rifles are legitimate to be owned. They refuse to accept any kind of compromise because they are also fanatics.
There are other parts of this, for example protections against the States from completely disarming the unorganized militia, also the ability to own more than rifles. If you can maintain your own F-14, go for it. But the gist of the proposal is the single sentence description.
BTW, I am a moderate.
I don't understand what "compromise" you expect when it comes to constitutional rights?
Post by: bflynn on June 27, 2016, 05:09:24 AM
I don't understand what "compromise" you expect when it comes to constitutional rights?
The constitutional right for a state not to control the militia? Is that the one you are thinking of?
Or is it the realistic right to free speech to complain when Dems take over the government again, appoint more radical judges and start passing all these stupid guns laws they've been talking about? Then what are you going to do, justify their paranoia by shooting the cop that comes to disarm you?
What I proposed is that we affirm the right of the militia to be armed with ARs, then direct the states to apply a minimum of regulation to their militia with due process to remove the mentally ill and terrorists. Or do you argue that they should be armed too?
The AR-15 was the predecessor to the M-16. The term AR (from Armalite) is now a generic term like Kleenex that applies to any rifle which roughly approximates the M-16 mil-spec. Yes, an AR is slightly different. An AR is a military style weapon which is one of the major reason it has a PR problem. The media's hype over the very few times it has been used to shoot people is another.
Like I said, don't worry about it. The Left hates the idea too.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 27, 2016, 05:39:52 AM
The constitutional right for a state not to control the militia? Is that the one you are thinking of?
That's but one. I'm hoping we agree that there are many constitutional rights.
Or is it the realistic right to free speech to complain when Dems take over the government again, appoint more radical judges and start passing all these stupid guns laws they've been talking about? Then what are you going to do, justify their paranoia by shooting the cop that comes to disarm you?
I will not shoot any LEO that comes to disarm me.
What I proposed is that we affirm the right of the militia to be armed with ARs, then direct the states to apply a minimum of regulation to their militia with due process to remove the mentally ill and terrorists. Or do you argue that they should be armed too?
Do the mentally ill have a right to free speech?
I believe that all rights are in tension with other rights. If someone wants to constrain a constitutional right, there needs to be a sound, rational basis for the constrant. Fear of black guns and gross ignoranace is completely inconsistent with rational thought.
To date, no one has provided a sound rational reason for the 1994 ASW and other such attempts to eliminate scary looking guns.
The AR-15 was the predecessor to the M-16. The term AR (from Armalite) is now a generic term like Kleenex that applies to any rifle which roughly approximates the M-16 mil-spec. Yes, an AR is slightly different. An AR is a military style weapon which is one of the major reason it has a PR problem. The media's hype over the very few times it has been used to shoot people is another.
I suppose people don't like the idea of the CMP Service Rifle class of shooting competitions. The whole idea is to use something approximately equivalent to the rifles and handguns issued by the military. The M1 was a popular for some time. I'm assuming the 1911 is still used.
I'm still confused by labeling the "AR" as a "military style weapon", unless you purpose is to create fear and perpetuate misunderstanding. I'm hoping people will eventually figured out how the "AR" has morphed in the civilian market.
Post by: Little Joe on June 27, 2016, 07:51:12 AM
There actually are quite a few. They just aren't single issue voters . . .Yes they are. But 2A isn't their single issue.
Post by: bflynn on June 28, 2016, 03:42:59 PM
To date, no one has provided a sound rational reason for the 1994 ASW and other such attempts to eliminate scary looking guns.
Too many people are acting irresponsibly with them? When I was growing up, we had shotgun racks in our truck and used them. It wasn't a problem. Nobody got shot, nobody was an idiot. The few that were were made examples of and it worked. Today you'd probably get in trouble for just having the shotgun rack, let alone actually carrying a shotgun in it.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that we need to up our game on prosecuting gun crime. If you commit a violent crime with a gun, the punishment should start at 20 years and rapidly go up.
I'm still confused by labeling the "AR" as a "military style weapon", unless you purpose is to create fear and perpetuate misunderstanding. I'm hoping people will eventually figured out how the "AR" has morphed in the civilian market.
Do you know the history of the weapon? The AR-15 was originally made by the ARmalite company and sold to Colt either just before or at the beginning of Vietnam when Colt turned it into the M-16. They made it THE military rifle of the Army and it now has a mil-spec. If you want to argue chicken and egg then I think it's semantics because the reality is the weapons are military style.
The AR branding comes from the original AR-15 and is a term similar to Kleenex; it is descriptive of a class of gun. An AR is any rifle which roughly complies with the M-16 mil-spec. Most AR rifles do not fully meet the military specification but it's the general class and action that defines it. So the answer to your question is that I use the term "AR" because that is what gun sellers use because that's the generic description of the type of rifle.
Understand that I believe in gun ownership. I am of the opinion that anyone who doesn't responsibly own at least one gun rank slightly above people who don't vote. I am afraid that the time is coming very soon when we will be told that "for our own good", we need to turn in rifles. Hence my proposal is a pre-emptive strike to have these weapons declared as the rifle of the militia. The compromise is to say that "dangerous" people can't have them.
Post by: LevelWing on June 28, 2016, 04:00:06 PM
Understand that I believe in gun ownership. I am of the opinion that anyone who doesn't responsibly own at least one gun rank slightly above people who don't vote. I am afraid that the time is coming very soon when we will be told that "for our own good", we need to turn in rifles. Hence my proposal is a pre-emptive strike to have these weapons declared as the rifle of the militia. The compromise is to say that "dangerous" people can't have them.There should be no compromise on individuals owning weapons. The Second Amendment is clear and agreeing to allow weapons to go into a militia is giving up our rights. As for people trying to tell us to turn in our weapons? Good luck.
Post by: Little Joe on June 28, 2016, 06:18:55 PM
snipHow about "for our own good", people shouldn't be allowed to vote for politicians that promise frees stuff.
I am of the opinion that anyone who doesn't responsibly own at least one gun rank slightly above people who don't vote. I am afraid that the time is coming very soon when we will be told that "for our own good", we need to turn in rifles. Hence my proposal is a pre-emptive strike to have these weapons declared as the rifle of the militia. The compromise is to say that "dangerous" people can't have them.
Post by: bflynn on June 28, 2016, 08:12:38 PM
There should be no compromise on individuals owning weapons. The Second Amendment is clear and agreeing to allow weapons to go into a militia is giving up our rights. As for people trying to tell us to turn in our weapons? Good luck.
That ship sailed a long time ago. We have compromised weapons ownership for a long time.
Did you realize that you are opposing taking weapons away from those suspected of terrorism and the mentally ill? They are they ones affected. Is that really the ground you want to stand on while refusing an affirmation that the militia can own military style weapons?
Post by: LevelWing on June 28, 2016, 08:18:38 PM
That ship sailed a long time ago. We have compromised weapons ownership for a long time.Not to the extent you're proposing. I also view your proposal as giving in and handing over weapons. Once you do that, it becomes even easier to take them permanently. As it stands now, it would be very difficult to take guns in America given their prevalence and ever growing numbers.
Did you realize that you are opposing taking weapons away from those suspected of terrorism and the mentally ill? They are they ones affected. Is that really the ground you want to stand on while refusing an affirmation that the militia can own military style weapons?Where did I say that?
Post by: bflynn on June 29, 2016, 04:12:11 AM
It is coming. Best to get something for it and to get it as localized as possible.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 29, 2016, 04:43:20 AM
You said that you oppose state regulation of the militia to remove guns from the mentally ill and terrorists. Ironically that is probably the one part that is most Constitutional about this. States could do this today and there might be complaints but I am fairly sure that it would survive the courts.
It is coming. Best to get something for it and to get it as localized as possible.
Over the years lots of stuff has survived the courts. Doesn't make it right (only makes it legal).
Post by: bflynn on June 29, 2016, 05:38:17 AM
Post by: LevelWing on June 29, 2016, 07:02:08 AM
You said that you oppose state regulation of the militia to remove guns from the mentally ill and terrorists. Ironically that is probably the one part that is most Constitutional about this. States could do this today and there might be complaints but I am fairly sure that it would survive the courts.I'm opposing your idea because I view it as caving and giving up my rights over some future possibility that someone will try and take my weapons, which I don't find likely.
It is coming. Best to get something for it and to get it as localized as possible.
Post by: bflynn on June 29, 2016, 08:47:30 AM
I'm opposing your idea because I view it as caving and giving up my rights over some future possibility that someone will try and take my weapons, which I don't find likely.
It's an affirmation of the 2nd Amendment. I'm not understanding why you say caving. It's actually more than what we have today because the idea includes an agreement by both sides that the militia gets to own military style weapons, including AR weapons. If the left had their way, they would ban these "machine guns" because they're "dangerous". The agreement takes banning them off the table
Do you claim that the mentally ill should have access to buy guns? Should those who are under investigation from terrorism? The Supreme Court just upheld the right to restrict all firearms from violent domestic abusers. Should they also have access to guns? How about felons? How can you defend a principle that says "everyone gets guns means EVERYONE and must include those who we believe will kill someone with them"?
I recognize the slippery slope aspect of this. I just think that it's not defensible.
It is the right of the State to organize the militia, including the unorganized militia. I presume that includes deciding who can be part of the militia and who cannot. That part is irrelevant to hunting and self defense. You still get hunting rifles, pistols and shotguns. What non-militia activity do you want to do that can't be covered by one of those three?
Post by: JeffDG on June 29, 2016, 09:29:56 AM
Should those who are under investigation from terrorism?Yes. People who have had no charges filed against them, and have had no access to due process should be able to exercise the full panopoly of civil rights afforded to the people of the United States.
The Supreme Court just upheld the right to restrict all firearms from violent domestic abusers.People convicted of crimes can have their civil rights curtailed. They have had access to due process and have been judged guilty by a fair and impartial court.
[/size]
Should they also have access to guns? How about felons? How can you defend a principle that says "everyone gets guns means EVERYONE and must include those who we believe will kill someone with them"?I believe in the principle that people have rights until such time as, with due process, such rights are stripped from them. People have the right to liberty, yet upon findings of a court, they can be locked up in jail. That doesn't mean that people don't have a liberty right, it just means that they only have such right until they are ajudicated in some manner by a court of competent jurisdiction.
[/size]
I recognize the slippery slope aspect of this. I just think that it's not defensible.I can see no situation where people should be denied their rights without due process. Period, full stop.
Post by: bflynn on June 29, 2016, 02:57:58 PM
I can see no situation where people should be denied their rights without due process. Period, full stop.
In general I agree with you. But, people accused of violent domestic abuse are relieved of their weapons. And they should be because history shows they have a strong tendency to use them.
But otherwise - if a State exercised due process then you'd be ok? A letter than says "you're being excluded from the militia because of X reason and you have two weeks to appeal this. After that time, you may not possess these weapons. You may turn them in at the armory to be held until your case is settled or you may sell them yourself."
Which means the whole thing won't work for super secret terrorist investigations because the FBI won't actually tell anyone that they're the target of an investigation.
Post by: LevelWing on June 29, 2016, 03:19:25 PM
In general I agree with you. But, people accused of violent domestic abuse are relieved of their weapons. And they should be because history shows they have a strong tendency to use them.No, they shouldn't. If someone is so enraged and determined to hurt someone in the home then they'll find a way to do it regardless if there's a weapon accessible. Being arrested is not due process, either.
But otherwise - if a State exercised due process then you'd be ok? A letter than says "you're being excluded from the militia because of X reason and you have two weeks to appeal this. After that time, you may not possess these weapons. You may turn them in at the armory to be held until your case is settled or you may sell them yourself."You're really stuck on your militia idea. My issue is that it caves on the Second Amendment completely. Individuals have the right to bear arms regardless of them being in a militia or not. You argue that the States should have the right to set it up and manage it how they see fit but we've seen how the 10th Amendment has been destroyed in so many other circumstances that I wouldn't put it past a leftist president or Supreme Court to overrule that as well.
Which means the whole thing won't work for super secret terrorist investigations because the FBI won't actually tell anyone that they're the target of an investigation.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 29, 2016, 04:21:53 PM
In general I agree with you. But, people accused of violent domestic abuse are relieved of their weapons. And they should be because history shows they have a strong tendency to use them.
How many people accused of violent domestic abuse subsequently use a weapon other than a firearm?
How many people are falsely accused of violent domestic abuse?
Post by: bflynn on June 29, 2016, 05:29:00 PM
No, they shouldn't. If someone is so enraged and determined to hurt someone in the home then they'll find a way to do it regardless if there's a weapon accessible. Being arrested is not due process, either.
So in addition to being in favor of terrorists and the mentally ill having guns, you're also in favor of accused spousal abusers having guns.
Please don't tell anyone else that.
Post by: LevelWing on June 29, 2016, 05:31:35 PM
So in addition to being in favor of terrorists and the mentally ill having guns, you're also in favor of accused spousal abusers having guns.Where did I say anything about terrorists or mentally ill? As for the spousal abusers, I don't understand why anyone would be in favor of allowing rights to be taken without due process. You're trying to change and manipulate what I said, and it isn't working.
Please don't tell anyone else that.
I'm not in favor of anyone losing their rights without due process.
Post by: asechrest on June 29, 2016, 06:10:18 PM
So in addition to being in favor of terrorists and the mentally ill having guns, you're also in favor of accused spousal abusers having guns.
Please don't tell anyone else that.
Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, which makes it an awfully poor event by which to remove rights. I could call the police this moment and accuse you of assaulting me. Should your rights be taken away for that?
Post by: nddons on June 29, 2016, 07:34:11 PM
No, they shouldn't. If someone is so enraged and determined to hurt someone in the home then they'll find a way to do it regardless if there's a weapon accessible. Being arrested is not due process, either.Exactly.
You're really stuck on your militia idea. My issue is that it caves on the Second Amendment completely. Individuals have the right to bear arms regardless of them being in a militia or not. You argue that the States should have the right to set it up and manage it how they see fit but we've seen how the 10th Amendment has been destroyed in so many other circumstances that I wouldn't put it past a leftist president or Supreme Court to overrule that as well.
Post by: nddons on June 29, 2016, 07:37:10 PM
How many people accused of violent domestic abuse subsequently use a weapon other than a firearm?Given the sensitivity of young people to "violence" of words, I likely committed about 5 "thoughts and words" felonies today.
How many people are falsely accused of violent domestic abuse?
I can see THAT type of thing happening in the next 10 years.
Post by: nddons on June 29, 2016, 07:39:05 PM
So in addition to being in favor of terrorists and the mentally ill having guns, you're also in favor of accused spousal abusers having guns.Why are you so afraid of due process?
Please don't tell anyone else that.
Can you not see how unsupported allegations, "enemies lists" and unaccountable governmental decisions can lead to tyranny?
Post by: nddons on June 29, 2016, 07:41:36 PM
Where did I say anything about terrorists or mentally ill? As for the spousal abusers, I don't understand why anyone would be in favor of allowing rights to be taken without due process. You're trying to change and manipulate what I said, and it isn't working.Beat me to it.
I'm not in favor of anyone losing their rights without due process.
Post by: bflynn on June 30, 2016, 07:20:15 AM
Where did I say anything about terrorists or mentally ill?
...
I'm not in favor of anyone losing their rights without due process.
You're not in favor of anyone, including terrorist and the mentally ill, losing their gun rights without due process. You understand how I make the leap to you supporting terrorists and the mentally ill having guns, right?
And yes, I am a little caught up on the militia since it's keenly intertwined with the 2nd Amendment. If you want to say it's an absolute then should anyone be able to have a .50 sniper rifle? Tank? Nuclear hand grenade? B2? SR-71?
I have answers for these but I'd like to hear yours.
Post by: JeffDG on June 30, 2016, 07:24:00 AM
You're not in favor of anyone, including terrorist and the mentally ill, losing their gun rights without due process. You understand how I make the leap to you supporting terrorists and the mentally ill having guns, right?The people are armed such that they can form a militia should the need arise. The people do not need to be in the militia to be armed. The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear on all of this.
And yes, I am a little caught up on the militia since it's keenly intertwined with the 2nd Amendment. If you want to say it's an absolute then should anyone be able to have a .50 sniper rifle? Tank? Nuclear hand grenade? B2? SR-71?
I have answers for these but I'd like to hear yours.
.50 sniper rifle? Yes, should be permitted
Tank, B2, SR-71: No. It's not an arm that can be borne by a person
Nuclear Hand Grenade: If you can find one, fantastic.
The "militia" clause of the 2nd is read ass backwards these days. The purpose behind it was that the people (to whom the right is granted) needed to be armed in such a way as to be available if/when the militia were needed.
Post by: LevelWing on June 30, 2016, 11:36:05 AM
You're not in favor of anyone, including terrorist and the mentally ill, losing their gun rights without due process.Again, you're trying to twist this and it isn't working. I'm not in favor of terrorists or those who are mentally ill of having weapons but that must first be adjudicated by the proper authority, which is a court. Just because someone is suspected of being a terrorist does not make them one. I am against the "no fly, no buy" bill because it implies that the government can add someone to the list, without telling them, and causes that person to lose their civil rights without due process. The list can also be easily abused and the perfect example of this is how the IRS treated conservative groups.
As for the mentally ill, it goes along the same lines but is far more tricky. Who determines that you are mentally ill? The police? A doctor? If it's a doctor (which certainly seems reasonable) what is the criteria that must be met to remove weapons? Remember that at one time, homosexuality was in the DSM IV and considered a mental illness, which means if you use that criteria then they shouldn't have been allowed to own guns.
You understand how I make the leap to you supporting terrorists and the mentally ill having guns, right?No. I've been pretty clear on my stance on due process. You're reaching.
And yes, I am a little caught up on the militia since it's keenly intertwined with the 2nd Amendment. If you want to say it's an absolute then should anyone be able to have a .50 sniper rifle? Tank? Nuclear hand grenade? B2? SR-71?Why shouldn't someone have a .50 caliber sniper rifle? As for the tanks, nuclear weapons, or bomber/reconnaissance aircraft, outside of a select few people in the U.S., who can actually afford that? It's also not something a single person can use.
I have answers for these but I'd like to hear yours.
Post by: bflynn on June 30, 2016, 11:55:02 AM
I'm not in favor of anyone losing their rights without due process.
I'm not in favor of terrorists or those who are mentally ill of having weapons but that must first be adjudicated by the proper authority, which is a court.
I'm not trying to twist this - can you see my confusion? You state once "not in favor of anyone losing their rights", but then "not in favor of terrorists...having weapons".
I get the due process part of what you say, but I even said there was a due process part and you still disagreed. So you ARE in favor of terrorists and others losing their rights when declared by a court. I propose that the militia clause of the Constitution is the constitutional way to do that. Of course there has to be due process involved.
You disagree on what is essentially agreement, so it just comes across to me as you wanting to disagree.
outside of a select few people in the U.S., who can actually afford that? It's also not something a single person can use.
If we put a $19,000 tax on ARs and raise the price of to $20,000, you'd be ok with effectively banning them? Because outside a select few, who can afford that?
My answer is that sniper rifles, tanks, airplanes ships and nuclear weapons are strategic, they are political weapons. There are political consequences to their use. War is diplomacy continued by other means, a private citizen is not authorized to conduct diplomacy.
Post by: asechrest on June 30, 2016, 11:59:54 AM
I'm not trying to twist this - can you see my confusion? You state once "not in favor of anyone losing their rights", but then "not in favor of terrorists...having weapons".
I get the due process part of what you say, but I even said there was a due process part and you still disagreed. So you ARE in favor of terrorists and others losing their rights when declared by a court. I propose that the militia clause of the Constitution is the constitutional way to do that. Of course there has to be due process involved.
You disagree on what is essentially agreement, so it just comes across to me as you wanting to disagree.
If we put a $19,000 tax on ARs and raise the price of to $20,000, you'd be ok with effectively banning them? Because outside a select few, who can afford that?
My answer is that sniper rifles, tanks, airplanes ships and nuclear weapons are strategic, they are political weapons. There are political consequences to their use. War is diplomacy continued by other means, a private citizen is not authorized to conduct diplomacy.
This isn't hard. They are not in favor of removal of rights before due process is had. The accusation phase is not the right point to remove rights.
Post by: LevelWing on June 30, 2016, 12:13:33 PM
I'm not trying to twist this - can you see my confusion? You state once "not in favor of anyone losing their rights", but then "not in favor of terrorists...having weapons".No, I can't see your confusion and this isn't that complicated. I've been pretty clear on this.
If we put a $19,000 tax on ARs and raise the price of to $20,000, you'd be ok with effectively banning them? Because outside a select few, who can afford that?I don't understand your point with this. Who's going to put this tax on these weapons and where did I say I'd be alright with banning them? My point was that 1.) they are individual weapons and 2.) are affordable by the average person.
Post by: bflynn on June 30, 2016, 12:18:09 PM
Post by: LevelWing on June 30, 2016, 03:27:01 PM
Quote from: Roll Call
The House will vote on a counterterrorism package that will include a provision to prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns, Speaker Paul D. Ryan told Republicans on a conference call Thursday, according to a source on the call.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/ryan-plans-vote-guns-next-week
The Senate has already voted down on several of these bills.
Post by: acrogimp on June 30, 2016, 04:50:02 PM
The House will have a vote next week on guns.Rather than hyperventilate about misinterpretations of what a surrogate said, or making up in their minds what a President Trump MIGHT do, people should be fucking burning up the House phone lines and letting the Traitor Paul Ryan have it for actually taking action on such wrongheaded denials of due process and irresponsible expansions of Federal power.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/ryan-plans-vote-guns-next-week
The Senate has already voted down on several of these bills.
I thought Paul Ryan was supposed to be some kind of big 'C' conservative, yet none of his recent actions/inactions show an appreciation, respect or understanding of our Constitution or conservative principles.
Disgusting.
'Gimp
Post by: LevelWing on June 30, 2016, 05:00:26 PM
Rather than hyperventilate about misinterpretations of what a surrogate said, or making up in their minds what a President Trump MIGHT do, people should be fucking burning up the House phone lines and letting the Traitor Paul Ryan have it for actually taking action on such wrongheaded denials of due process and irresponsible expansions of Federal power.The two aren't mutually exclusive. In other words, one can be concerned about what a President Trump may do while also being upset at what a Speaker Ryan is currently doing. I agree that people should be calling their representatives and demanding that there is a "no" vote as this is a bill pending a vote and it shouldn't pass.
I thought Paul Ryan was supposed to be some kind of big 'C' conservative, yet none of his recent actions/inactions show an appreciation, respect or understanding of our Constitution or conservative principles.Paul Ryan is certainly not the conservative he claimed to be when he ran for the House.
Disgusting.
'Gimp
Post by: Lucifer on July 01, 2016, 05:53:50 AM
Paul Ryan is certainly not the conservative he claimed to be when he ran for the House.
(Warning, the following reply contains "Sarcasm" and may be offensive to some)
But...but...but....He's from Wisconsin. He uses words like "freedom" and "liberty" in his speeches!
You, you......Trumpkin!
Post by: Anthony on July 01, 2016, 06:00:14 AM
Paul Ryan is certainly not the conservative he claimed to be when he ran for the House.
Very disappointing. He touted himself as a true conservative, and turned out to be Obama's bitch.
Post by: bflynn on July 01, 2016, 05:22:13 PM
Very disappointing. He touted himself as a true conservative, and turned out to be Obama's bitch.
I tend to think that Ryan is not so much Obama's bitch as he is in an impossible position. He had to try to ride herd on a large group of fanatics who don't all agree on what they're fanatics about. None of them want to compromise, all of them look for reasons to disagree and nobody knows the art of compromising. At the core, that is why Congress is deadlocked. It isn't Republicans, it isn't Democrats, it isn't liberals, conservative or progressives, it's all of them.
The solution is get all the fanatics out of Congress, including the one you agree with.
Post by: JeffDG on July 01, 2016, 05:26:19 PM
The solution is get all the fanatics out of Congress, including the one you agree with.The only "term limit" I support would be the "No Running For Office While You Hold Office"
Post by: Mase on July 01, 2016, 06:47:30 PM
I tend to think that Ryan is not so much Obama's bitch as he is in an impossible position. He had to try to ride herd on a large group of fanatics who don't all agree on what they're fanatics about. None of them want to compromise, all of them look for reasons to disagree and nobody knows the art of compromising. At the core, that is why Congress is deadlocked. It isn't Republicans, it isn't Democrats, it isn't liberals, conservative or progressives, it's all of them.
The solution is get all the fanatics out of Congress, including the one you agree with.
Which explains why he really didn't want to be Speaker.
Post by: Little Joe on July 02, 2016, 08:26:09 AM
Which explains why he really didn't want to be Speaker.Yet, he wouldn't run for President because he wanted to remain speaker.
Post by: asechrest on July 02, 2016, 05:15:44 PM
Yet, he wouldn't run for President because he wanted to remain speaker.
He wouldn't run for president because he didn't want to run for president.
Post by: JeffDG on July 02, 2016, 05:56:11 PM
Yet, he wouldn't run for President because he wanted to remain speaker.IIRC he wasn't Speaker when he said he wasn't running for POTUS
Post by: Little Joe on July 03, 2016, 04:51:11 AM
IIRC he wasn't Speaker when he said he wasn't running for POTUSRyan became speaker on Oct 29, 2015.
The "draft Paul Ryan" effort was in March 2016, but he declined, choosing to remain Speaker.
Post by: JeffDG on July 03, 2016, 05:24:18 AM
Ryan became speaker on Oct 29, 2015.OK, but he also declined to run for POTUS about March of 2015, so this is not new.
The "draft Paul Ryan" effort was in March 2016, but he declined, choosing to remain Speaker.
Post by: bflynn on July 05, 2016, 10:03:18 AM
The only "term limit" I support would be the "No Running For Office While You Hold Office"
I didn't say anything about term limits.
The problem I see comes from political gerrymandering of congressional districts. That means the race for most of the House seats are almost always decided in the primary of the dominant party for that district. For example, the NC-4th where I used to live holds a D+20 rating on the Cook Partisan index. Whoever gets nominated out of the Democrat primary will get elected in the general election. Therefore, the candidate who wins will not be a centrist, they will be the one that is most appealing to Democrat primary voters. Primary voters tend to be the most dedicated and the most radical, so they will elect someone they like - equally radical and dedicated. Not to leave out Republicans, but the same thing happens on their side too, 10 of the 13 NC districts are solid Republican, the other 3 are even more solidly Democrat. Out of 435 races for Congress, only about 50 can be called "competitive" and only about 20 of those are really toss ups. The balance of power in the House was set by the Census and by the State legislatures, not by people's voting.
Therefore, you get fanatics in Congress, people who have no idea how to set aside one thing they want to get another thing they want more, such as a trade off of acknowledging the right of the States to arm their militias with ARs in exchange for tightening the controls on ho wand by whom the weapons can be purchased. Or from the right's perspective, securing the right to own ARs in exchange for taking them away from terrorists and the mentally ill.
If I were the sole person in charge of it, I would require that every district in each state be politically balanced to within 1% except the last one. But I'm not and I don't see that idea being agreed to by the people who draw the congressional districts.
Post by: Steingar on July 06, 2016, 02:39:47 PM
That was then and this is now, and we have one heck of a kick-ass expensive army. Best and most expensive on Earth. So why do we need those militias again?
That's my reading, and I am far from alone. Don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty big firearms supporter. I just think the support of the second amendment is not as good as you gentlemen think it is.
Post by: Little Joe on July 06, 2016, 02:41:21 PM
That was then and this is now, and we have one heck of a kick-ass expensive army. Best and most expensive on Earth. So why do we need those militias again?To protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Post by: Steingar on July 06, 2016, 02:42:26 PM
To protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
We've got an army for that, genius. And a National Guard. And a well-armed bureaucracy, if you guys are right.
Post by: Little Joe on July 06, 2016, 02:45:20 PM
We've got an army for that, genius. And a National Guard. And a well-armed bureaucracy, if you guys are right.We sure do. And they could just possibly be the domestic enemies we need to defend against. Especially the well-armed bureaucracy.
Post by: bflynn on July 06, 2016, 03:20:42 PM
Oh, because the British army was the domestic enemy. ... Being necessary to the security of a FREE state.
Here is how I rationalize it. Imagine your sworn enemy was in charge of the government for good. Do YOU want to have weapons that give you a chance to change that? Or are you willing to suffer under their rule with no hope of change? Even if you are not willing to fight for a free state, would you force others who are willing to fight to suffer instead?
The issue is not guns, it is people. Morality used to hold people back from violence. Where did morality go?
Post by: You Only Live Twice on July 06, 2016, 06:00:15 PM
It's an affirmation of the 2nd Amendment. I'm not understanding why you say caving. It's actually more than what we have today because the idea includes an agreement by both sides that the militia gets to own military style weapons, including AR weapons. If the left had their way, they would ban these "machine guns" because they're "dangerous". The agreement takes banning them off the table
Do you claim that the mentally ill should have access to buy guns? Should those who are under investigation from terrorism? The Supreme Court just upheld the right to restrict all firearms from violent domestic abusers. Should they also have access to guns? How about felons? How can you defend a principle that says "everyone gets guns means EVERYONE and must include those who we believe will kill someone with them"?
I recognize the slippery slope aspect of this. I just think that it's not defensible.
It is the right of the State to organize the militia, including the unorganized militia. I presume that includes deciding who can be part of the militia and who cannot. That part is irrelevant to hunting and self defense. You still get hunting rifles, pistols and shotguns. What non-militia activity do you want to do that can't be covered by one of those three?
What happens when the enemy (foreign or domestic) seizes the state armory, which would do before the take ov er- and takes all of the more capable offensive weapons?
Post by: You Only Live Twice on July 06, 2016, 06:01:17 PM
The issue is not guns, it is people. Morality used to hold people back from violence. Where did morality go?
Taken by the Communists, who are very patient.
Post by: bflynn on July 06, 2016, 06:50:15 PM
What happens when the enemy (foreign or domestic) seizes the state armory, which would do before the take ov er- and takes all of the more capable offensive weapons?
Why do you think all the weapons would be in a state armory? If we populate the (unorganized) militia with rational and moral people then they can have almost any tactical weapon and keep them at home.
Post by: nddons on July 06, 2016, 09:40:03 PM
We've got an army for that, genius. And a National Guard. And a well-armed bureaucracy, if you guys are right.
Did you ever hear of the Posse Comitatus Act, genius?
Post by: Steingar on July 07, 2016, 06:29:46 AM
Post by: Mase on July 07, 2016, 07:47:47 AM
The thought of you guys with your pop guns fighting off the US military or even law enforcement services is laughable at best. You should get over yourselves. Better armed folks than you have tried it and it didn't end well for them.
It worked out OK for General Washington.
Post by: Dav8or on July 07, 2016, 08:55:59 AM
The thought of you guys with your pop guns fighting off the US military or even law enforcement services is laughable at best. You should get over yourselves. Better armed folks than you have tried it and it didn't end well for them.
You know, in Iraq the whole weight of the US military was fighting against guys armed with "pop guns". The insurgency did pretty well actually and in the end took a large portion of that country. In Afghanistan, who controls the country, our guys and the mighty military, or guys in the shadows and bushes with pop guns? If you look at a map of the country and the places that the official government controls, I would say the guys in the bushes actually control most of it.
A determined and organized insurgency can stop and even push back a military force. People having arms is pretty much all that keeps soldiers from kicking in doors, you getting a rifle butt to the head and them doing whatever they want. Ask the Jews of Europe how they felt about being unarmed.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on July 07, 2016, 09:12:01 AM
The thought of you guys with your pop guns fighting off the US military ... is laughable at best. You should get over yourselves.
LMAO, that's what they said about the North Vietnamese.
Oh, and the "JV" ISI"L"...
Post by: You Only Live Twice on July 07, 2016, 09:12:57 AM
It worked out OK for General Washington.In that case we were equally armed, technologically.
Post by: Steingar on July 07, 2016, 10:23:39 AM
You know, in Iraq the whole weight of the US military was fighting against guys armed with "pop guns". The insurgency did pretty well actually and in the end took a large portion of that country. In Afghanistan, who controls the country, our guys and the mighty military, or guys in the shadows and bushes with pop guns? If you look at a map of the country and the places that the official government controls, I would say the guys in the bushes actually control most of it.
A determined and organized insurgency can stop and even push back a military force. People having arms is pretty much all that keeps soldiers from kicking in doors, you getting a rifle butt to the head and them doing whatever they want. Ask the Jews of Europe how they felt about being unarmed.
Both nations are in ruins. North of a half million Iraqis died in our little conquest, and that was with us trying to minimize civilian casualties. The armed standoffs that occurred here between govco and those who opposed it ended really badly for those who opposed it, as in everyone dead and/or crispy crittered.
Moreover, if the every existence of our government were at stake I could see them taking the gloves off, something they didn't do in Nam or Iraq. To be honest I'm not certain I wouldn't prefer a semi-tyrannical government to what's going on in Somalia, Syria, or Lebanon. According to the Ferengi Sacred rules of Acquisition, War is good for business as is Peace. Anarchy is really, really bad for business.
Post by: Little Joe on July 07, 2016, 10:54:10 AM
Both nations are in ruins. North of a half million Iraqis died in our little conquest, and that was with us trying to minimize civilian casualties.Straying off topic for a minute, but trying to minimize civilian casualties is a fucked up way to fight a war, or even to reduce death and destruction. Trying to minimize civilian casualties makes a war drag on unnecessarily long and exposes your own soldiers to added risk.
It is better to go in and kick ass and end the war asap. We entered WWII in '41 and were victorious by '45. How long have we been in the Mddle East now?
Post by: Lucifer on July 07, 2016, 11:00:31 AM
.
It is better to go in and kick ass and end the war asap. We entered WWII in '41 and were victorious by '45. How long have we been in the Mddle East now?
But we went into WW2 with the purpose to win. We didn't have troops or commanders calling lawyers back in the US to ask permission to shoot a hostile. We didn't have lobbyist for military products company advising the executive branch and congress on why we needed to keep extending campaigns, which would of course meant more production of said companies.
War is big business today. Dwight Eisenhower knew that and warned us when he left office.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on July 07, 2016, 11:47:03 AM
Straying off topic for a minute, but trying to minimize civilian casualties is a fucked up way to fight a war, or even to reduce death and destruction. Trying to minimize civilian casualties makes a war drag on unnecessarily long and exposes your own soldiers to added risk.
It is better to go in and kick ass and end the war asap. We entered WWII in '41 and were victorious by '45. How long have we been in the Mddle East now?
Since Tom Jefferson.
Post by: bflynn on July 07, 2016, 12:52:58 PM
Since Tom Jefferson.
Actually before. We've been involved with the Middle East since 1784 - the country of Morocco likes to brag about it being the first to recognize the United States as a new country, but it's also the first to board and seize an American ship in 1784. As colonies of the British, we flew the British flag and were entitled to the protection the British paid to the North African pirates..errrr, sultans (the Barbarby Pirates). Once we became our own country, that protection ended and they freely raided our merchant ships in the area, very profitably. Under the Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were ambassadors to the region with the intent of negotiating peace, but the sultans prices for the "protection" were more than the GDP of the new country. This time was the source of Jefferson's knowledge of the Koran and why he said that every American should read that book so they would know how Muslims viewed us and what they intended to do.
As presidents, neither Washington nor Adams wanted to do anything about the problem and unsuccessfully sought appeasement at the price of several hundred American flagged ships seized. When Jefferson became president, he dispatched what little Navy we had to deal with the problem of the pirates, fighting the first Barbary War in 1805, a war which included the US Marines marching to the shores of Tripoli...all 8 Marines and their officer. (I wonder how many Marines there were at the Halls of Montezuma?). In any case, the 9 Marines and 500 Greeks and Arabs captured the pirate town of Derne, being the first time that the pirates were forced to capitulate to a superior force. Peace was short lived and we had to fight them again in 1815. Apparently our success encouraged the European nations to take a stand because from 1815 to 1830 the major European powers fought and eventually defeated the Barbary pirates.
They quit when they were forced to. They never quit under appeasement, they just kept asking for more money.