Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Especially after you tell them how to think. Enjoy your paranoia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is not paranoia to understand that the Progressive, leftist, vision, philosophy, desire, is to create a world order, or you can drop the "a" and just call it a desire to create world order. But the "a" is significant. It denotes one order for world governance.

The League of Nations was a Progressive idea. But it wasn't "a" enough. So it transformed into the United Nations. Supposedly a more cohesive, centralized, and powerful unification rather than a league of disparate and conflicting interests.

Calling this attempt to create a world order "new" is probably a holdover from Bush Sr.'s referring to it that way. It is no longer new. But it is consistent with the 150 year old Progressive, leftist, ideal of governance being centralized and omnipotent. Actually that ideal is way older than that, being the way that larger, monarchical or dictatorial societies have always operated. So every Progressive solution to perceived, or depicted, problems, world or otherwise, is to impose some centralized top-down regulation. This ideal disparages notions of local or individual power (the "village" power that Hillary mouths, except her notion of village is the whole country, or the whole world).

And any "problem" or "crisis" is an event which the Progressive Left uses to convince us that a higher "controlling authority" (as Al Gore might call it) is needed. Gun "control" (actually, elimination) has always been a need of the Progressive Left, and of dictators and authoritarians of all stripes. Now there is even the Progressive push to impose U.N. regulation of guns. Even destructive climate patterns call for centralized regulation. I urge everyone to actually read past proposed climate accords. They are nominally about climate "control," but they accomplish that by a central world governance imposed on every nation and its economy. They are directives that direct national economies, technology patents, private rights, world taxation, to name a few things offhand.

None of that is to say it is "bad" or "good." Probably more people think it is good than those who think it is bad. But the dismissal of the drive for a world order, bad or good, is either being blind or ignorant.

[Sea Dangles]

Suit yourself, I am just not buying whatever it is you are selling. I don't think I am alone when I call it kooky, but I respect your right to be kooky.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Suit yourself, I am just not buying whatever it is you are selling. I don't think I am alone when I call it kooky, but I respect your right to be kooky.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks. I needed someone to encourage me to suit myself. You're suggestion (encouragement also?) that I am trying to sell my thoughts is also very generous of you. But I prefer, at this time, to give them gratis. I realize that is rather kooky in our selfish, materialistic, capitalistic, greedy U.S.of A. Or maybe I am not as giving as I allow myself credit for, and just don't want to admit that my expressions aren't good enough to sell. Probably not even good enough to give away. Probably too wordy and detailed with "verbal gymnastics" rather than effective verbal punches to the cerebral cortex. And I must admit that you are very good at such punching. The lack of detail and ratiocination in your replies is as good or better than some of Trump's best.

You are the master of the pissing match. I bow out to your superior ability.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I watched both videos. The video with Hillary speaking also linked other videos of her and others talking about banning guns. This one is of one of her delegates being taped by O'keefe of Project Veritas. Pretty straightforward admitting the desire to ban guns and how it must be lied about to the public with statements similar to "sensible gun legislation.":

I know right?
But I am the one wearing tin foil

Suit yourself and think what you want
I can only control what I can control, I will support people like Rand Paul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

I'm fine with being considered kooky also as long as I am prepared(or paranoid as some think)

Good one detbuch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

"The News Paper of Record"

Repeal the Second Amendment
Bret Stephens
Bret Stephens OCT. 5, 2017

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones.which amendment did we repeal to get same sex marriage?

Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the “right” itself ceases to be. not sure how to interpret this

Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty.ummmm, yeah stupid...

Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people is a sensible goal, but due process is still owed to the potentially insane. I'm thinking pens and keyboards too


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/o...dment-nra.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

ahhhh...the " theory of expandability"...now you've taken this thread to a whole new level.... from sub atomical partical perspective of course

Oh I agree, and that's why I didn't bring it up, detbuch did. He said we need to be wary of gun restrictions because the restrictions can be expanded. My point was that all laws can potentially be expanded. So expandability doesn't mean a law s bad.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"No, it's not the same issue"

How is it not the same issue? If the issue is "sometimes it's OK to limit freedoms in the interest of saving lives" than what's the difference?

You were comparing guns to seat belts. One is a Bill of Rights issue. The other isn't

"Restrictions are bad if they create legal precedents which can be used to expand the power to restrict"

Can you name a single law that can't be potentially expanded? If expandability makes a law bad, then all laws are bad.

In the instances where the Constitution enumerates a power given to the government, that power is unlimited. That power is absolutely expandable so long as it doesn't drift (expand) into areas not enumerated as governmental power or are constitutionally limited or denied to government. If laws fall in an area limited by the Constitution, they cannot expand outside of that constitutional scope. If laws are prohibited by the Constitution, they are bad laws.

If laws that are allowed by the Constitution can be "interpreted" in ways that facilitate the creation of laws which are actually limited or denied by the Constitution, those interpretations erode the Constitution and set precedents for further erosion and eventual destruction of the Constitution.

If laws such as seat belt law are used as interpretive examples that justify limiting specifically constitutionally guarantied rights (such as the Second Amendment) such interpretation erodes the Constitution.

Examples of laws that unconstitutionally limit freedom as a result of "interpreting" existing law ("good" or "bad" law) are way, way, too numerous to list, even to research and find. The federal regulatory agencies, for instance, and their thousands and thousands of regulations which all stem from an "interpretation" that the federal Congress has the power or right to delegate its authority of regulation to unelected agencies. Nowhere in the Constitution is there such a delegatory power granted to Congress. The Constitution specifically entrusts legislation to Congress itself, to the elected representatives of the people, not to unaccountable, unelected agencies, and worse, to agencies that have legislative, executive, and judicial power such as the federal regulatory agencies have. And all that has mushroomed from early precedents, especially under the FDR New Deal administration's creation of several of these agencies including, for example, agency actions that led to the freedom busting Supreme Court's expansion of the Commerce Clause.

The meaning of "commerce" was expanded from merely the trade of goods (as was defined during the founding era) to include the production or manufacture of them. And the original meaning of the clause's wording "among the several States," was defined as commerce occurring across State lines, and was mostly meant to prevent States from impeding commerce between them such as when States imposed tariffs on goods from other States. The regulation of purely intrastate commerce, (occurring within the State) was left to the States themselves.

That all was expanded to mean any trade, production, or manufacture which in the aggregate might have a "substantial effect" on [the expanded definition of] "commerce," and whether it occurs within a State or across State lines. Which, actually, affects in some way most human activity in our country. And that expanded interpretation has resulted in many important Court decisions which would not have been possible under the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and has, in itself, given the federal government an almost unlimited power to regulate most aspects of our lives if and when it chooses to do so. If we add to that other such interpretations of different parts of the Constitution along with the many thousands of regulations imposed on us by the hundreds of federal regulatory agencies, there isn't much, due to its expanded power, that the federal government can't regulate if it wants, and if it appoints enough Progressive judges to approve.


"how can you insure that this will always be so?"

I can't. What I can be sure of, is that bump stocks can be used to slaughter huge numbers of people in no time. So we can worry about hypotheticals (which sound like something that someone wearing a tin foil hat would say), or we can respond to things that actually happen.

Yes, what has actually happened, while we have been gradually conditioned to want the federal government to "do something" about every crisis and public emotional trauma, is that we have been encumbered by thousands of regulations, many of which most of us are unaware, which, in fact if not in total practice, has created a basically unlimited government waiting for enough crises to convince us that the latent total power it actually has garnered due to the erosion of constitutional limitations, must be implemented--to make our lives better and secure and free from emotional trauma, of course. And when that happens, there will no longer be a constitutional guaranty that the agenda of those in power can be prevented from doing things to us we don't like. When government has unlimited power and demonstrates its use of that power, history shows that such a government is ripe for the taking by some ego-maniacal, narcissistic, Stalin, Hitler, Caesar, Kim il whatever, or becomes one that imposes the worst of "democracy" in which collective groups rule over minorities, especially the minority of actual producers. In either case, the wealth and security of its citizens diminishes or is lost. But while things are still good, that seems unlikely. The slowly but gradually rising temperature of the water that baths them in good times is not noticed until it's too hot and too late to escape, or until its time for one of those persistent revolutions that human societies resort to when the rulers go too far. And yeah, they vote in dictatorships. The ballot as a last resort may not cut it.

Yeah, let's do the bump stock regulation. Hey, it wasn't as if there weren't mass shootings without its use. Hey, it's not as if those simple hand guns that we think are OK aren't used to kill way more people than bump stocks and semi-automatic weapons do. Oh, right, the really bad weapons kill more at once than the nice handguns do at once. No doubt, after we somehow eliminate public ownership of the heavy duty bad stuff and limit the people to acceptable hand guns, there will be no more cries demanding we do something about the overall larger gun violence that those handguns in the hands of bad guys wreak.

Yeah, right.

It ain't really, ultimately, about the danger of big guns vs. little ones. It's about transforming how we are governed. Guns, in the hands of common folks can get in the way of that transformation. Not necessarily, but possibly, if enough folks are of the mind to resist.[/QUOTE]

"You were comparing guns to seat belts. One is a Bill of Rights issue. The other isn't"

You seem to be cherry picking. But fine, let's stick to the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights is not absolute, and was never, ever intended to be. The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to threaten someone, nor to possess child pornography.

Child pornography, like firearms, is a tangible thing. And its existence has been banned, in the interest of public safety (same argument I am making here). There are extremist kooks out there who claim that laws banning child pornography, are a violation of the first amendment, since that amendment doesn't specify that kiddie porn is excluded. The people who want to legalize kiddie porn, are using the same exact argument and language you are using. There is zero difference. So if your argument supports the possession of bump stocks, why doesn't it support the right to possess kiddie porn?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

My point was that all laws can potentially be expanded. So expandability doesn't mean a law s bad.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

Scott it's historical fact that the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also wrote a rule saying that no guns were allowed on the University of Virginia campus. Therefore, the only conceivable conclusion, is that they never intended for the 2nd amendment to be absolute. They were literally the same guys.

All of our freedoms have restrictions. Only rarely do the extremists shriek that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. Gun control always triggers those extremists remarks. Always.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to threaten someone, nor to possess child pornography. this is correct,
no where in the 1st Amendment does is state a right to possess or do these things

Child pornography, like firearms, is a tangible thing. And its existence has been banned, in the interest of public safety (same argument I am making here). There are extremist kooks out there who claim that laws banning child pornography, are a violation of the first amendment, since that amendment doesn't specify that kiddie porn is excluded. The people who want to legalize kiddie porn, are using the same exact argument and language you are using. There is zero difference. So if your argument supports the possession of bump stocks, why doesn't it support the right to possess kiddie porn?

I see what you are trying to do there....I'm really concerned about you....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

All of our freedoms have responsibilities.

fixed it for you

[Nebe]

The 1st amendment protects you for when you want to talk about kiddie porn, argue about kiddie porn and ask about kiddie porn. I’d imagine a freak like Scott could walk around Washington square and talk about it all day. He just can’t own or share physical examples of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

fixed it for you

No, you didn't. The freedoms absolutely have restrictions, which I can be arrested for violating.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The 1st amendment protects you for when you want to talk about kiddie porn, argue about kiddie porn and ask about kiddie porn. I’d imagine a freak like Scott could walk around Washington square and talk about it all day. He just can’t own or share physical examples of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right, you can talk about it, fantasize about it...but you cannot possess it, nor can an artist create it and say it's protected free speech. Because the freedoms are not absolute, they were never intended to be, nor have they ever been.

.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I see what you are trying to do there....I'm really concerned about you....

If you are concerned, then you don't know what I am doing, probably because I am not articulating it well.

If it's unconstitutional to impose restrictions to the second amendment for the sake of public safety, why is it considered not unconstitutional to impose restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety? That's all I'm asking, and neither you nor detbuch (two guys I deeply respect and agree with 95% of the time) have come close to answering that. I don't think you can, because I don't think there is a conceivable retort to that.

We can disagree about where to draw the lines, to be sure. But that's not what the pro-gun folks usually argue. They always use the same tired arguments (slight exaggeration for effect)::

I need my guns to protect against a tyrannical government (because Seal Team Six might seize my home if I didn't have a deer hunting rifle in my basement)

Banning bump stocks would not be a 100% guarantee that there would be zero gun crime in the future, therefore we shouldn't do anything, because only perfect laws are worth ratifying.

If we let the feds ban bump stocks today, we go down a slippery slope where tomorrow if I criticize Trump, I will be put into a gulag. Because today, apparently, there are zero restrictions on anything I might do, so this would be the very first time in the history of the USA that the feds have ever said "no" to me.

I feel like I'm talking to people who are trying to defend slavery. That's how hard it is for me to believe that otherwise rational and logical people, can be so...I don't know... extremist? thoughtless? Unsympathetic to the victims? I have very close friends who agree with you and detbuch, these are guys of high intelligence and very solid moral character. I just can't fathom their position on this issue.

[Nebe]

I think a painter can paint nude children and not be arrested for it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

between you and Eben the nonsense is epic

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

between you and Eben the nonsense is epic

That’s our job
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If you are concerned, then you don't know what I am doing, probably because I am not articulating it well.

you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi

You can fantasize about Pelosi. You just can’t own one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You can fantasize about Pelosi. You just can’t own one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

[QUOTE=scottw;1129673][/QUOTE

I’m in love

https://goo.gl/images/ExV5jp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi

I feel like I'm talking to a liberal too. You are claiming I am saying things, that bear no resemblance to anything I have ever said.

"you act as there are no gun laws"

In what way am I acting as if there are no laws? Of course there are laws. In my opinion, they can be improved. In fact, I am very confident they can be improve din a way which (1) saves a few lives (but doesn't eliminate 100% of gun violence, obviously), and (2) doesn't trample on the intent of the second amendment. That's all I am saying. I'm not saying the earth is flat...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I feel like I'm talking to a liberal too. You are claiming I am saying things, that bear no resemblance to anything I have ever said.

"you act as there are no gun laws"

If it's unconstitutional to impose restrictions to the second amendment for the sake of public safety, why is it considered not unconstitutional to impose restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety?


In what way am I acting as if there are no laws? Of course there are laws. In my opinion, they can be improved. In fact, I am very confident they can be improve din a way which (1) saves a few lives (but doesn't eliminate 100% of gun violence, obviously), and (2) doesn't trample on the intent of the second amendment. That's all I am saying. I'm not saying the earth is flat...

:kewl you seem upset that I'm not a hysterical as you

I agreed with regard to bump stocks....limit the number of guns?...he had a bunch but only used "two" I believe

restrictions "to the second amendment" can not stop people from doing evil acts...just as "restrictions to the 1st"...cannot stop someone from yelling fire in a theater(talk about tired arguments)

that is why Rights come with Responsibilities...not restrictions.....restrictions are a joke to someone lacking responsibility....restrictions mainly restrict those that are already responsible

Freedom is exercising your inalienable Rights with Responsibility....I think socialism might be exercising the rights they allow you *with restrictions

you have yet to offer any "restrictions" that would have prevented the shooting in Vegas...

can you identify a few restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety? I'm just curious

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I'm fine with being considered kooky also as long as I am prepared(or paranoid as some think)

Good one detbuch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bring that prep work into your bomb shelter which is stocked with canned goods and respirators. It probably doubles as a place to hide from twisters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Bring that prep work into your bomb shelter which is stocked with canned goods and respirators. It probably doubles as a place to hide from twisters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One man’s survivalist shelter is another man’s snow flake’s safe space.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Scott it's historical fact that the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also wrote a rule saying that no guns were allowed on the University of Virginia campus. Therefore, the only conceivable conclusion, is that they never intended for the 2nd amendment to be absolute. They were literally the same guys.

No, that is not the only conclusion. Property rights were of paramount importance to Jefferson and Madison, as well as the other Founders. Ownership of property would include the right to not permit guns, or most anything else in any domicile or place of business. Ownership by a group, consortium, governing body of a private institution, could ban most anything from their physical space.

The minutes of the University Board of Visitors which contain the ban you refer to were not directly, or indirectly attributed to Jefferson or Madison. They did not, as you say, write the rules. They attended the meeting, and may well not have objected to the ban, but they certainly would not have said that the board could not make the ban. The ban included all sorts of things that could lead to "riotous" behavior including alcohol.

The ban did nothing to curb the absolute right to own guns. Nor the right to how many. Jefferson owned many guns. And he recommended carrying a gun with you. But no freedom in the Bill of Rights allows you to trespass someone else's constitutional rights. Obviously, there is no constitutional right to bear arms or anything else, including yourself, into a private home whose owner forbids it. Again, freedom, as understood by the Founders, is only such when it does not destroy someone else' freedom. It must be mutual among all parties. Under such freedom, you cannot impose your property on someone else's property.


All of our freedoms have restrictions.

An expressed freedom cannot be restricted. Restriction denies freedom. Denied freedom is obviously not freedom. If there is something that needs to be restricted, it would not be included in the expressed freedom in the first place. If you later want to exclude a portion of freedom, it would be necessary to re-express what that freedom is, that is you would have to amend it. Otherwise, that freedom is uncertain, always open to "interpretation," so will be a tool to actually deny freedom in the name of freedom. Or in the name of something else.

Only rarely do the extremists shriek that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. Gun control always triggers those extremists remarks. Always.

You sound very extreme with your "never", "only", "always", and "all". You also seem to be shrieking. You're also not making a lot of sense. What is it with the rarely shrieking that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. The Constitution is inherently loaded with restrictions. The enumerated powers of the federal government restricts it from everything (the vast residuum of rights left to the people that Madison spoke of) except the rights expressly given to it. The Bill of Rights further sets in stone some specifically expressed restrictions on the government. The vast restrictions on government are necessarily constitutional, not unconstitutional.

The restrictions on the people can be imposed by the federal government if it is within the scope of its enumerated powers. I don't find such an enumeration for gun control.

Of course, there are mass shootings, and garden variety criminal shootings, and suicides, and family squabbles, and accidents. And those hurt the psyche of the population. And even though there is no enumeration that empowers the federal government to attend to the emotional disturbance of the people, it is deemed to be, by the emotionally stricken shriekers, the only venue that can prevent or make smaller such disturbance. As well, it is the go to authority, in spite of no empowering enumeration, to ameliorate hunger, poverty, gender dysfunction, physical health, mental health, education, employment, all commerce in every facet of it . . . well . . . just about anything it puts its mind to.

Why on earth do we bother having all these other levels of government, and religious, charitable, and private, associations, and community organizations, and educational institutions as well as private think tanks and philosophical societies trying to tend to human problems?

The federal government could pretty well fix everything.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Bring that prep work into your bomb shelter which is stocked with canned goods and respirators. It probably doubles as a place to hide from twisters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't afford that luxury, I'm too busy paying taxes and insurance so others can leach off our government and sit around all day raking in the free bucks wondering how they are going to spend it and how they can take more from the suckers that are America.

I will take responsibility for myself like more able bodied Americans can do, thank you very much

[Slipknot]