Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Seat belt law does not ban anything"

Sure it does. Before these laws, many people chose not to wear their seal belts. These laws ban that choice. That's a thing. If people were choosing not to wear seat belts despite the danger, I presume they felt like they had a good reason to do so. Now it's illegal to make that choice.

OK. Let me fix the "thing" thing. "Seat belt law does not ban anything. It does not ban cars nor even superfast, super-powerful cars. It does not remove several ton trucks from the road. It doesn't require background checks. It doesn't restrict your right to own any of those. The greatest potential and actual reduction of vehicle deaths is safe, sane, drivers." Do you see the connection--seat belt law does not restrict the power of the automobile (whereas gun control laws do restrict the power of weapons). And vehicle death reduction is mostly due to sane, safe drivers, as is the safe, sane, case in gun deaths, the laws in each case notwithstanding.


"seat belt laws have no impact on your ability to defend yourself against tyranny."

The feds have nukes, stealth bombers, those cool bombs that destroy caves, rail guns, etc. So the only reason they aren't using those against me, is because I might have a couple of guns in a vault? That makes more sense, than I can make when I say that smart laws might save a few lives? Really?

The loss of constitutional protections has been incremental because that is the only way the character of a free people could be chipped away. Any federal military attack on the people of this country would obviously be the downfall of that government. Nor is it the Progressive intention to have a military war against the American people. The intention is to eliminate the hold the Constitution has on the governance of this country. That is done by philosophically and psychologically, and by regulation, invading, not the people, but their institutions. And that method began before our country had the weapons to which you refer. It has been very successful to this point, albeit, it has taken a long time. And the character of our people has dramatically changed vis a vis freedom, what it is, and how it is protected. The word is not often used, except by people who are now marginalized as kooks.

We do not have to fear government nukes, stealth bombers, etc., if we fear the loss of freedom. People will mobilize against such attacks, especially if they have weapons, not to speak of the military commanders who would turn on such a government. We have to fear the loss of the American character that jealously guarded against governmental intrusion against freedom. We have to fear (and I don't feel comfortable using that word--maybe concern would be better) the imprecise, mushy, emotional, language that influences us to, rather brainlessly, accept the notion that government gives us freedom and tells us what it is.

Mass immigration, BTW, not mass shootings, has been part of what I believe is the intended changing of the American character.

We are somehow mesmerized into believing that an all-powerful benevolent government is far more beneficial to us than the responsibility of being free. What on earth, and I mean that literally, gives us to believe that once limitations on government are erased government will always be benevolent. All the Constitution does is keep government in its proper place regarding individual freedom. It's what I referred to in another thread as freedom insurance. Things like the Second Amendment are parts of the insurance policy that helps to guaranty it. You like to say cars are different. They are necessary to our way of life. We can't overregulate their use even though their misuse causes more unconsented death than guns of any type in our country. And that it is wise of us to have automobile and health insurance, costly and imperfect as they may be, but a policy that may guard against some future tyranny--well that's a different argument because some mass shootings happen.

"the connection is so minute that it is shameful to try it"

I disagree. every night this week, I heard gun advocates claim that no gun control laws can effectively ban all attacks. They are saying, that because the laws aren't perfect, that they are worthless. I hear that every single night, all night long, from the right. It's one of the most common statements.

You said "In other words, they seem to be saying that unless a proposed gun law guarantees that there will be zero gun deaths, that there's no sense in enacting any laws."

That is an absurd, sophist, statement. You try to gloss over the nonsense about people saying that if zero gun deaths occur as a result of a law there's no sense in enacting any laws" with your notion that they "seem" to be saying that. Do you really hear that every night of the week--they are actually saying that? That's BS--of course, if it "seems" that way to you, I can't argue against what something seems to you.

"The balance between freedom and subjugation, if there is a balance, must weigh in favor of freedom if freedom is the object."

Limitless freedom isn't the object, we know this.

I have said on various threads, including this one, what is meant by freedom by the Founders in regards to natural rights and the Constitution. It is not license to trespass against anyone else's freedom. It comprises the virtue to understand and practice what freedom really is. License is not freedom. It depends on subjugating others to your will, not on respecting their freedom. It has to be mutually consented or it is tyranny.

The founders were specific on that, that they weren't designing an anarchy. Some limits on freedom are perfectly constitutional. There is a tradeoff between liberty and security.

Those are vague words. Could you flesh them out?

Cars cause a lot of deaths. I have never, not once, heard anyone call for a ban on cars. We aren't a society that wants to ban everything that's dangerous. Not even close.

What do cars have to do with it?

I don't see a big benefit to allowing things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines. I see a very big benefit, to a few less graves being dug during mass shootings (I am not talking about street crime).

OK. If bump stocks are not allowed to be made, then nobody can have what does not exist. Constitutional arguments can be made against such a ban, but my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points. I think that's the way Progressives eventually get tough stuff passed. They wear you down to where you just give in to feed them a bone so they'll go away. Of course, feeding the bone just encourages them to even come after more.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

OK. If bump stocks are not allow to be made, then nobody can have what does not exist. Constitution arguments can be made against such a ban, but my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points. I think that's the way Progressives eventually get tough stuff passed. They wear you down to where you just give in to feed them a bone so they'll go away. Of course, feeding the bone just encourages even to come after more.

If you are trying to prove to me that seal belts and bump stocks are not the same thing, let me save you the trouble, I concede that they are not identical from a subatomic particle perspective. However, when the state of CT was considering seat belt laws, I heard the same exact arguments from people...this is tyranny, when does it stop, these are my rights, it's my choice blah blah blah. It was like a Mad Lib game (remember those?), you could remove "gun" and insert "seat belt". That law took away a degree of liberty, for the purpose of saving lives. In that regard, it's the same exact issue we are discussing here.

"my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points."

I'm making one point. Just one, and that is this...Restrictions on our freedoms (be it the freedom to buy bump stocks or the freedom to not wear one's seat belt or the freedom to possess child pornography) are not always a bad thing. The Bill Of Rights was never, ever meant to be absolute. Freedom of speech was never meant to include threatening people or child pornography (which is a 'thing', right?) Freedom of religion doesn't include human sacrifice.

And as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, here is a rule from the University of VA rulebook of 1819..."“No student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind…”

That rule was ratified by the school's board of directors, which included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Therefore, he Bill of Rights is not a catalogue of absolutes and it never was. We can have reasonable restrictions on the second amendment, and indeed the first amendment, without infringing upon our freedoms. I can't buy child pornography legally, but I can still say that Congress is full of jerks and write a letter criticizing the president (especially the last one) without fear of the gulag.

[detbuch]

belts and bump stocks are not the same thing, let me save you the trouble, I concede that they are not identical from a subatomic particle perspective. However, when the state of CT was considering seat belt laws, I heard the same exact arguments from people...this is tyranny, when does it stop, these are my rights, it's my choice blah blah blah. It was like a Mad Lib game (remember those?), you could remove "gun" and insert "seat belt". That law took away a degree of liberty, for the purpose of saving lives. In that regard, it's the same exact issue we are discussing here.

No, it's not the same issue. And your blah blah arguments that you repeat over and over when they are based on emotion and "saving a few lives" are actually a lib game.

"my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points."

I'm making one point. Just one, and that is this...Restrictions on our freedoms (be it the freedom to buy bump stocks or the freedom to not wear one's seat belt or the freedom to possess child pornography) are not always a bad thing. The Bill Of Rights was never, ever meant to be absolute. Freedom of speech was never meant to include threatening people or child pornography (which is a 'thing', right?) Freedom of religion doesn't include human sacrifice.

Restrictions are bad if they create legal precedents which can be used to expand the power to restrict. The mantra (blah blah) is always to save some lives.

And "freedom" of religion can only be free if it respects the freedom of all. If someone does not want to be sacrificed it would not be freedom to sacrifice her. In the Founders notion of "freedom" that which is not consented to is not freedom. Unconsented to sacrifice would obviously not be a freedom of religion, it would be an unconstitutional license.

Threatening people would be a coercion of sorts, not an act of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.

Child pornography would be subjugating children who are not capable of having mature, constitutional notions of their rights, of what participating in pornography could do to their growth, etc. It would not be an act of freedom.

Again, you must understand the Founder's idea of freedom in order to discuss it.

And as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, here is a rule from the University of VA rulebook of 1819..."“No student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind…”

That rule was ratified by the school's board of directors, which included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Therefore, he Bill of Rights is not a catalogue of absolutes and it never was. We can have reasonable restrictions on the second amendment, and indeed the first amendment, without infringing upon our freedoms.

Schools (especially private ones as many were in the founding days) and localities can restrict such things. The federal government is far more limited by the Constitution.

I can't buy child pornography legally, but I can still say that Congress is full of jerks and write a letter criticizing the president without fear of the gulag.[/QUOTE]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

belts and bump stocks are not the same thing, let me save you the trouble, I concede that they are not identical from a subatomic particle perspective. However, when the state of CT was considering seat belt laws, I heard the same exact arguments from people...this is tyranny, when does it stop, these are my rights, it's my choice blah blah blah. It was like a Mad Lib game (remember those?), you could remove "gun" and insert "seat belt". That law took away a degree of liberty, for the purpose of saving lives. In that regard, it's the same exact issue we are discussing here.

No, it's not the same issue. And your blah blah arguments that you repeat over and over when they are based on emotion and "saving a few lives" are actually a lib game.

"my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points."

I'm making one point. Just one, and that is this...Restrictions on our freedoms (be it the freedom to buy bump stocks or the freedom to not wear one's seat belt or the freedom to possess child pornography) are not always a bad thing. The Bill Of Rights was never, ever meant to be absolute. Freedom of speech was never meant to include threatening people or child pornography (which is a 'thing', right?) Freedom of religion doesn't include human sacrifice.

Restrictions are bad if they create legal precedents which can be used to expand the power to restrict. The mantra (blah blah) is always to save some lives.

And "freedom" of religion can only be free if it respects the freedom of all. If someone does not want to be sacrificed it would not be freedom to sacrifice her. In the Founders notion of "freedom" that which is not consented to is not freedom. Unconsented to sacrifice would obviously not be a freedom of religion, it would be an unconstitutional license.

Threatening people would be a coercion of sorts, not an act of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.

Child pornography would be subjugating children who are not capable of having mature, constitutional notions of their rights, of what participating in pornography could do to their growth, etc. It would not be an act of freedom.

Again, you must understand the Founder's idea of freedom in order to discuss it.

And as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, here is a rule from the University of VA rulebook of 1819..."“No student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind…”

That rule was ratified by the school's board of directors, which included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Therefore, he Bill of Rights is not a catalogue of absolutes and it never was. We can have reasonable restrictions on the second amendment, and indeed the first amendment, without infringing upon our freedoms.

Schools (especially private ones as many were in the founding days) and localities can restrict such things. The federal government is far more limited by the Constitution.

I can't buy child pornography legally, but I can still say that Congress is full of jerks and write a letter criticizing the president without fear of the gulag.

And how can you insure that this will always be so?[/QUOTE]

"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?

"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.

"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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

[COLOR="Blue"]


If expandability makes a law bad, then all laws are bad.

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

[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.

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

"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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[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

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....

[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.

[scottw]

between you and Eben the nonsense is epic

[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

[Slipknot]

I like it when people on the internet tell me what I think
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I like it when people on the internet tell me what I think
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

Show me where I did that Chris
I'm not paranoid but you are free the assume anything you want
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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]

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

[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

[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]

[scottw]

a fabulous free speech debate....could not stop listening

https://livestream.com/accounts/7106...deos/163491464

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

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

Pat Robertson has taught you well Bruce. Are you still hanging with the John Birch society as well?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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 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.

.

[Nebe]

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