Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (20) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 17147  
Subject: My gift to you libs Date: 1/27/2013 7:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For those of you who don't have me P-boxed (and I wouldn't blame you if you did... I'm most decidedly not your friend) I present to you a true gift, one that would render the NRA powerless, the Dems electable anywhere, etc. Namely, the liberal pro-gun argument. It's from Daily Kos so I know you trust the source, I'm not sending you to Faux-News or the NRA:

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-...

You're welcome. Happy solstice or whatever you celebrate and exchange gifts over.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: alstroemeria Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17124 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/27/2013 8:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
For those of you who don't have me P-boxed (and I wouldn't blame you if you did... I'm most decidedly not your friend)

I don't have anybody P-boxed. But I don't read everybody's posts either, not even every post by people closer to my heart. I may be retired, but time is the stuff life is made of.

Happy solstice or whatever you celebrate and exchange gifts over.

Winter solstice was over a month ago and vernal equinox is nearly 2 months in the future--didn't you learn basic physical science? Or is this an attempt at rudeness cloaked in humor, or proof you're a qualified member of the party of stupid?

As it happens, we celebrate Yule--survival of our family, humanity and our planet for the past year and hope for the coming year--often on a day other than December 25th. Our week-long celebration includes evergreens, lights, music, games, walks and feasting as well as gift-giving. But you're right about no religious rituals, although I used to perform on my violin at our vice-principal's small church's Christmas service. A gift of another sort--time and work.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17125 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/27/2013 1:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
What argument are you thinking there is. I have no issue with the 2nd Amendment. I do believe though that there should be gun regulations and control. No one....no one needs an AK-47, or armor piercing weapons. If the military or police have it, the average person doesn't need it.

Now explain to me where I am in violation of the Constitution?

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17126 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/27/2013 1:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
P.S. I celebrate Christmas.

Christians tend to do that.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17127 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/27/2013 3:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Now explain to me where I am in violation of the Constitution?

Read the link. You are indeed advocating for a violation of our rights. In fact, if the police have them that alone is reason enough to justify civilians have them. This coming from someone who works in a police department.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17128 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/27/2013 5:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You are indeed advocating for a violation of our rights



No I'm not. Let's look at the 1st amendment. The USSC has said that free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you like(yelling fire in a crowded theatre for instance). There are laws against slander and libel. So how is regulating weapons taking your right to own a weapon. Why is regulating or some sort of control any different than laws which regulate speech?

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17129 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/27/2013 6:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No I'm not. Let's look at the 1st amendment. The USSC has said that free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you like(yelling fire in a crowded theatre for instance). There are laws against slander and libel. So how is regulating weapons taking your right to own a weapon. Why is regulating or some sort of control any different than laws which regulate speech?

Because you're comparing apples and oranges. You cite uses of speech to justify the government regulating means of arming. Certain uses of firearms are regulated, just like uses of speech. You can't slander someone (unless it's true) legally, but you can't shoot someone (other than in self-defense) legally either. Both are instances of the use being regulated, not the means. If the Feds could ban speech via the Internet or books then you'd have an analogy to their being able to ban semi-automatic weapons or handguns.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mjolah Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17130 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/28/2013 8:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You confuse "regulation" with "confiscation" or "prohibition." Yes, there are laws against certain uses of guns - thankfully. But the Constitution does not prohibit regulation to "balance" the rights of people. For example, you may claim a Second Amendment right to have a gun on your person, but I have a property right to prohibit you from having it on my property. I could also argue that I have a First Amendment right of "free association" to NOT associate with those carrying guns - which would require you to let me know if you have one (i.e., concealed carry violates my First Amednment rights).

The Constitution has always place constraints on various rights. The Constitution itself grants people the "right" of interstate travel - but I still need a drivers license and insurance to use my preferred mode of exercising that right (my car). Why would not licensure and insurance be an appropriate regulation of firearm owners?

Add to that, "statutory construction" (interpretation) - which includes the Constitution - require that each and every word be given meaning. If it didn't have meaning, why is it in there? The words "a well regulated militia" require interpretation. Some argue it means "trained" (ok, so let's require "training" for all gun owners - like we do for all drivers). Some would argue it gives the governemnt the right regulate more broadly. Whatever, it must be given some meaning, or it shouldn't be there - and that is a debate that continues, but the SCOTUS (in an opinion by Scalia - not the most liberal by any stretch) has indicated that it does, in fact, give the governm,ent the right to impose restrictions on gun ownership.

I applaud the Second Amendment. As I do all of the Bill of Rights amendments - but I abhor those who think the right is absolute (or who "covet" their guns in what I would consider abnormally dangerous ways), and believe there is middle ground - lest we now allow private ownership of grenade launchers, tanks, drones, and other "arms" of modern warfare.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17131 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/28/2013 10:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For example, you may claim a Second Amendment right to have a gun on your person, but I have a property right to prohibit you from having it on my property.

True. Your home is your castle. You're free to bar me from carrying there, just as I'm free to never darken your door under that agreement.

I could also argue that I have a First Amendment right of "free association" to NOT associate with those carrying guns - which would require you to let me know if you have one (i.e., concealed carry violates my First Amednment rights).

That's a flawed understanding the the right of free association IMHO. Your right to express yourself alone or in a group with like-minded individuals doesn't trump my right to defend myself in public. I can't keep you from expressing yourself, you can't keep me from defending myself, even under the bizarre theory that my being prepared to defend myself prevents you from expressing yourself. FWIW I'm armed 24/7/365, as are millions of other residents of Michigan, civilian and law-enforcement.

The Constitution has always place constraints on various rights. The Constitution itself grants people the "right" of interstate travel - but I still need a drivers license and insurance to use my preferred mode of exercising that right (my car). Why would not licensure and insurance be an appropriate regulation of firearm owners?

Because it would place an undue financial burden on those wanting to exercise their rights. If you require licenses and insurance for those exercising their right to keep and bear arms we might as well bring back the poll tax.

Add to that, "statutory construction" (interpretation) - which includes the Constitution - require that each and every word be given meaning. If it didn't have meaning, why is it in there? The words "a well regulated militia" require interpretation. Some argue it means "trained" (ok, so let's require "training" for all gun owners - like we do for all drivers). Some would argue it gives the governemnt the right regulate more broadly. Whatever, it must be given some meaning, or it shouldn't be there - and that is a debate that continues, but the SCOTUS (in an opinion by Scalia - not the most liberal by any stretch) has indicated that it does, in fact, give the governm,ent the right to impose restrictions on gun ownership.

It's quite clear that the ability of the people to form a militia (under state control or not) is dependent upon their being armed in the first place. The people being armed is a requirement to form a militia if need be, a milita is not required for the people to be armed. As it happens militia statutes still exist in state and federal laws, it is the duty of every citizen to come to the defense of their state/country in the case of an attack. Yes, that means you too. If I have to do so I'll be armed. Good luck deflecting an enemy with a recitation of your views on how their invasion is depriving you of your right to free association... I'm sure they'd enjoy that speech as they're carting you off to dig your own grave.

I applaud the Second Amendment. As I do all of the Bill of Rights amendments - but I abhor those who think the right is absolute (or who "covet" their guns in what I would consider abnormally dangerous ways), and believe there is middle ground - lest we now allow private ownership of grenade launchers, tanks, drones, and other "arms" of modern warfare.

I no longer support any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. If you can afford a tank I'm fine with you owning one. I used to support restrictions but arguing with liberals has changed my mind on that. I won't fall into the "b-b-b-but we can ban this!" game any longer. If the government has it we can have it, end of story. They are our servants, after all, why should they be better armed than we, their bosses? We don't "belong" to the government, they belong to us.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: mjolah Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17132 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/28/2013 11:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Because it would place an undue financial burden on those wanting to exercise their rights. If you require licenses and insurance for those exercising their right to keep and bear arms we might as well bring back the poll tax."

And how would that be an undue burden, considering we impose a variety of burdens on the exercise of rights (i.e., the insurance and license requirement to drive a car?). It can't be OK for one right, and not OK for another. An explanation is in order. Are you equating the right to carry a gun to the right to vote? Good. Then I hope to see you at the rallies to voice opposition to right wing attempts to disenfreanchise and steal elections.

We can argue about the first amendment right of Free Association (and you analyze it as a right of free expression - different thing entirely - might I suggest you actually read the text of the Amendments), but the truth is, the rights conflict. Why should one have to do *anything* in order to preserve their right of association, privacy, "their castle" or whatever, just so you can carry a concealed weapon?

Go read Scalia's opinion. You might find it interesting. While you are at it, go read all of hte SCOTUS opinions on Bill of Right issues. It will show you 1) the rights are subject to interpretation and must be considered in the context of the Constitution as a whole - and not in a vacuum; 2) that interpretation can change over time (pay parrticular attention to the cases on the Fourth Amendmentment and the distinction between procedural and substantive due process); and 3) the right to keep and bear arms is not there to protect us from foreign invaders (you've watched "Red Dawn" too many times).

Add to that requirements to get a broadcast license to exercise one's First Amendment rights, or incurring costs to adjudicate due process claims (or unlawful taking claims) all of which are protected in the Bill of Rights. Why is the Second Amendment right so special it must go totally unimpeded?

And by the way, your "stereotyping" ad hominum attack on liberals is taken as an indication that you can't actually articulate a coherent position. Stereotyping is always wrong and ad hominums are always a sign of desperation.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17133 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/28/2013 12:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Because you're comparing apples and oranges.



No, I'm not. I am saying that within the Constitutionality of a law, there are still regulations. Guns is no different. They can be regulated. I don't want to live in a society that allows anyone one to have any kind of gun. Nuclear weapons are arms. Since I have a right to bear arms, I would like a nuclear device please.

How far do you take unregulated weapons?

All of our rights come with a certain amount of responsibility. It doesn't mean we get to do, say or have anything we want.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17134 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/28/2013 12:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If the government has it we can have it, end of story.


Um....no, clearly it is not the end of the story.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17135 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/28/2013 12:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
There is a difference between regulating and banning or taking away guns. No one in this thread has advocated banning guns, or having them pried from your cold dead fingers. I'm not even hearing a serious argument for that in Congress.

What is being discussed is valid - regulating the kinds of guns that are out there. Too many people are dying needlessly. Those guns alone did not kill them....people did.


Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jerryab Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17136 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 1/28/2013 1:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The above is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

By definition, "A well regulated Militia" is limited in what it can do, use have, etc. That limitation is imposed by the govt. Thus, the govt does--per the US Constitution--have the unconditional right, power, and authority to restrict what weapons (if any) they (Militia) are allowed to use and/or carry.

"free State"--but what about a free Nation? People can't rationally claim the authors of the US Constitution did NOT know the difference between a "State" and a "Nation" or a "Country" or the "United States". Once a "State" joins the "United States", it is no longer a "free State"--it is part of the "United States". That is what the Civil War was all about....

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alstroemeria Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17138 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 2/3/2013 10:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
If the government has it we can have it, end of story.

End of story? I think not.

The government can draft people. Should individual citizens be able to conscript their neighbors' children into personal armies?

The govt collects taxes. Should individuals be able to tax?

The govt has jails...

The govt issues warrants to spy on people and enter private property to avert and investigate crime...

The govt has the equipment and expertise to print money...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17139 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 2/4/2013 10:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
End of story? I think not.

You do indeed think not. If you thought about it you'd quickly realize why it is required that the people be as well armed as the government in order for the nation to truly be free.

This isn't some radical concept... it's been one of the foundations of Western Civilization since the dawn of Western Civilization. We haven't progressed past "might makes right", we never can. It's a universal truth of life. Why you want to empower the government more than the people is a mystery to me... if you had ever studied history you'd see that it never turns out well for the people when that happens.

How do you expect to defend any of your rights if you give all the power to the government? What makes you think they'll be magnanimous forevermore? What makes you think they've ever really been so for that matter? You weren't enamoured with Bush from what I recall, do you think no Republican will ever be elected President again? Do you value your freedom so little that you'd cede it for nothing in return? You wouldn't be more safe if only the government had guns nor even if guns were to magically cease to exist tomorrow, of that there is no doubt.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mjolah Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17140 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 2/4/2013 11:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
We change based on ideas - not force. Yes, we were not enamoured of Bush - and even though he was reelected, we did not take up arms against the fascist regime, as we perceived it.

Do not confuse "liberal" with "doormat" or even "pacifist."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17141 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 2/5/2013 4:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
If you thought about it you'd quickly realize why it is required that the people be as well armed as the government in order for the nation to truly be free.



I'm still waiting for the nuclear weapon you seem to think I have a right to own. Only then will I be as well armed as the government.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17142 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 2/5/2013 4:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Do not confuse "liberal" with "doormat" or even "pacifist."



I especially like it when they confuse liberal with Stalin.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mjolah Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17143 of 17147
Subject: Re: My gift to you libs Date: 2/5/2013 5:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Um, I have an RC plan (a "HobbyZone Champ) that I'll donate to the cause! We all need drones too under the NRA philosopy!

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (20) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement