Quote:
|
Quote:
have we banned George Soros from owning nukes??:huh: |
Quote:
Banning bump stocks doesn't guarantee that this kook would not have shot up the concert in Vegas. It very possibly, could have saved some lives. |
Quote:
"It isn't 1 in 100 skittles. it is one in 500,000" I don't know what the % is, I have heard it's as high as 3% - 5% who support the jihad. It's not 1 in 500,000, that would mean 4,000 jihadists. No one knows what the number is. "I will take those odds fine" You have every right to say that. And I have every right to say, "I don't want to roll those dice". I don't think that makes you an idiot, and I sure don't think my stance makes me an idiot. Nor do I think it makes me an Islamophobe, which is how most people on the left describe my position. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post But I'll say two things.. (1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward". |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government. You somehow are OK with that if it saves even one life. The only way, in my opinion, that could be your point of view is that you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it. And that goes for all the other limitations you perceive to exist on the other rights the Constitution protects. So the whole thing should be abolished. Write a new one. Or, more conveniently, do as the Progressives do, just make new laws and appoint judges who will uphold them. |
Quote:
I don't have media research data at my fingertips. But I listen to what people are saying. Many, many people who oppose gun laws, use this logic. In my opinion, it's flawed logic. I doubt there's a single law on our books that's 100% effective. |
Quote:
I agree. I didn't insert it here, someone else did. "Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government." So if the government wants to ban bump stocks, it's reasonable to assume the next step, is they will, what? Kill me and take my IRA? That's tin foil hat conspiracy theory. Again, the founding fathers made it clear through their actions, that the Bill Of Rights isn't absolute. "you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it." OK, so unless one thinks bump stocks should be allowed, one has zero regard for the US Constutution. Not everything ends up at one radical extreme or the other. Again, I can go on TV and call the President horrible names, the First Amendment gives me that right. But I can't threaten him or anyone else. The freedoms are not an "all or nothing" scenario, and I cannot fathom you would state that they are. |
Quote:
I admit I drink my share of kool aid but happily I can say its not from 1 source or 1 flavor:btu: |
Quote:
Exceptions for human transgression against law in cases of extreme urgency can always, without creating laws for every possible exception, be implied. It would be absolutely reasonable to understand the existence of such a right. No law need be written to express that idea. That would be inherent in human nature. Probably part of those vast residuum of rights left to the people which are outside of the government's enumerated constitutional powers. But the threads of human nature are too vast to be defined. Government, on the other hand, and its laws, must necessarily be defined. Loose definitions cannot suffice for law. For there to be compliance, there must be definite parameters to law, extreme exceptions to compliance notwithstanding. So defined government has little to no room to legislate outside of the scale to which it is constitutionally bound. If there is no constitution, no scale, there is no boundary and government can do as it wishes. It could be understood that there may arise a very extreme circumstance that a constitutionally limited government would have to act outside of the scope granted to it, usually involving some sort of an existential threat to the nation. That is why a strong executive was created by the Constitution, but such a circumstance would have to be of the utmost danger. The mass shootings, common murders, etc., are not at that level of threat to the nation. It is far more of a threat to the people of this nation if their right of defense against tyranny was limited because of criminal disturbances in various states. As for freedoms not being an all or nothing scenario as you put it, they must be discussed in terms of the Founders understanding of freedom. That has also been described several times in various threads. In what way is the Founders view of freedom not absolute? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Liberals scream 'RACISM' when ever any note is made that 6.7% of the nation's population comprise 53% of gun homicides. Quote:
Illegal border crossers and visa overstays are law breakers simply by being here -- there is no such thing as a "law-abiding illegal immigrant" (see my sig-line). We are disgusted that liberals are so eager to ignore the crimes of illegal immigrants -- to the point of declaring certain areas of the USA to be a sanctuary for them. They get released back into society even if there is a detention order on them. Our disgust turns to rage when one of those released criminals kills an American; the blood-guilt for those deaths lays at your feet. Quote:
The 2nd Amendment and gun rights is a benchmark for one's understanding and respect for the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Liberals are willing (if not eager) to rationalize carving-out this right from the "rational continuum" of liberty for special treatment, ignoring inviolate rules and principles to achieve what they deem to be, much more important social policy objectives (i.e., "public safety"). In other words, how a person considers the 2nd Amendment is a short but reliable test to expose a wide breadth of deficiencies in understanding of the Constitution and its application (the legitimate extent of government). I recognize that some "conservatives" have their own litmus test . . . (i.e., abortion and LGBTQ rights) that expose their deficiencies in understanding and applying the Constitution. As far as I'm concerned -- being an Originalist / Strict Constructionist -- in their beliefs on the extent of government's powers over citizens, dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and Constitution-ignoring leftists have more in common than social/cultural conservatives and Constitutional Originalist conservatives. Each see government having a role in "regulating" (if not outlawing) what they consider, their fellow citizen's unacceptable behavior. That many dogma governed social/cultural conservatives cloak themselves in the claim that they are Originalists or Strict Constructionists disgusts me as much as the misrepresentations of living constitution leftists. . |
Quote:
Quote:
Big hint, only one side's "solution" to the "problem" are both reasonable and have a chance of being effective. Quote:
It's hilarious, the people who most employ the "absolute right" line are anti-gunners. I rarely hear any such thing from pro-gunners; when the government can take someone's life, how can any right be said to be "absolute"? The term when employed by anti-gunners is intended to quash dialogue rather than nurture it. It is uttered in the hope that the reader has as superficial an understanding of the issue as the speaker, so the speaker's opinion that any law the left can think up is A-OK is agreed to. . |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Nearly everyone will be in violation of the law; we are going to forced to cut off the belt loops on our pants . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-SnqKOXqbM |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com