Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

     


    I assume you're against all the anti-terrorist laws too, which chip away at 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights?

    The idea that "freedom" is greater when there is no law is silly.  Lawlessness just means your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you who can exert their will.  Sane societies make rules that maintain important freedoms, but limit the ability of people to do things that have negligible benefits but cause significant risk to others.  This is just mature, sensible policy-making that creates a society that is safe and ordered enough for people to exercise meaningful freedom. Chaos and lawlessness may be "freedom" in some theoretical way, but in practice you are less free when in constant danger from the lawless than you are when lawlessness is limited.

     



    Laws just mean your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you as well.  Do you think Nazi Germany was free since they were free from crime with a police state. 

    There's a big difference between laws passed through a democratic process and those imposed by a dictator.  Yes, laws limit some freedom.  But absolute freedom never truly exists.  You're always restricted in some way.  If there are no laws and you live in a society with other people, then your freedom will be restricted by the choices those other people make that affect your life.  If they choose in their freedom to drive drunk, then your ability to drive will be limited by the risk their actions create for you.   

    Frankly I'm surprised that you seem taken aback by the concept that laws are the opposite of freedom.  This is a fairly well understood concept. Anarchy would be complete freedom.

    This is a fairly simplistic view.  The lack of law (and the resulting anarchy) doesn't actually make you more free--it makes you more subject to the arbitrary and unregulated actions of others who are free to do whatever they want.  If they are free to kill you and they do so, how are you more free?  You're just dead.  

    It's all about how much freedom we are willing to concede in the name of safety.  You could be free from taxes but then there will be no military or roads etc.  It's about drawing a line, and I like mine in a different place than you. 

     

    It's about balance.  What freedoms are truly important and meaningful and beneficial.  And which have little benefit, but create significant risk and danger to others or interfere in significant ways with others' freedoms?  

    The terrorist acts you are referring to do not effect US citizens.  Foriegn terrorist do not have rights under the US constitution.

    Many of them do affect citizens.  For instance, the National Defense Authorization Act, which Obama signed last year, allows the government to detain citizens indefinitely without trial on the suspicion of terrorism.  Also, you seem willing to accept lose interpretations of the amendments like the Fifth and Sixth that never state that the rights described are restricted only to citizens.  Most use generic terms like "people."

    You keep saying reasonable gun laws, but you advocated that the second ammendment meant the National Guard last week which is not a reasonable gun law by anyones definition but yours.  I suggest that if Canada provides you the safety you desire than go there. 

    I didn't say anything about the National Guard.  That was someone else. 

    And I do live in Canada now.  Still pay taxes (considerable ones) in the US though (as well as in Canada).




 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from agill1970. Show agill1970's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    Personally I think the first and foremost solution is to tackle the mental health care issue in our country head on and not cut corners or pinch pennies doing so.  We went from locking the mentally ill/unstable in basements and wards to locking them up in prisons or pushing iffy drugs down their throats.  And the level of care coincides with the level of your health benefits and or income.  Meaning there's far too many people who don't have access to care at all. 

    However, having said that I am a gun owner and a member of the NRA.  I don't agree with a lot of the NRA's prinicples and policies, however they are the only ones willing to fight the good fight for my ability to properly defend myself in a world full of monsters, mentally ill, and the truly desperate.  Do I own an "Assault Rifle" (a horribly misued and understood term by the way)?  No, nor do I feel I need to.  The problem is the NRA and other strong 2A advocates try to pull too far in one direction, while the grass eating scared of guns herd try to pull too far in the other.  There is a happy medium in there somewhere, and I'm all for finding it.  But I don't think it will solve gun crime in American by any significant margin so long as the main issue of mental health care goes largely unaddressed.  Take a look at every single major mass shooting and you will see a person who was deeply troubled and in desperate need of help. 

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

     


    I assume you're against all the anti-terrorist laws too, which chip away at 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights?

    The idea that "freedom" is greater when there is no law is silly.  Lawlessness just means your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you who can exert their will.  Sane societies make rules that maintain important freedoms, but limit the ability of people to do things that have negligible benefits but cause significant risk to others.  This is just mature, sensible policy-making that creates a society that is safe and ordered enough for people to exercise meaningful freedom. Chaos and lawlessness may be "freedom" in some theoretical way, but in practice you are less free when in constant danger from the lawless than you are when lawlessness is limited.

     



    Laws just mean your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you as well.  Do you think Nazi Germany was free since they were free from crime with a police state. 

    There's a big difference between laws passed through a democratic process and those imposed by a dictator.  Yes, laws limit some freedom.  But absolute freedom never truly exists.  You're always restricted in some way.  If there are no laws and you live in a society with other people, then your freedom will be restricted by the choices those other people make that affect your life.  If they choose in their freedom to drive drunk, then your ability to drive will be limited by the risk their actions create for you.   

    Frankly I'm surprised that you seem taken aback by the concept that laws are the opposite of freedom.  This is a fairly well understood concept. Anarchy would be complete freedom.

    This is a fairly simplistic view.  The lack of law (and the resulting anarchy) doesn't actually make you more free--it makes you more subject to the arbitrary and unregulated actions of others who are free to do whatever they want.  If they are free to kill you and they do so, how are you more free?  You're just dead.  

    It's all about how much freedom we are willing to concede in the name of safety.  You could be free from taxes but then there will be no military or roads etc.  It's about drawing a line, and I like mine in a different place than you. 

     

    It's about balance.  What freedoms are truly important and meaningful and beneficial.  And which have little benefit, but create significant risk and danger to others or interfere in significant ways with others' freedoms?  

    The terrorist acts you are referring to do not effect US citizens.  Foriegn terrorist do not have rights under the US constitution.

    Many of them do affect citizens.  For instance, the National Defense Authorization Act, which Obama signed last year, allows the government to detain citizens indefinitely without trial on the suspicion of terrorism.  Also, you seem willing to accept lose interpretations of the amendments like the Fifth and Sixth that never state that the rights described are restricted only to citizens.  Most use generic terms like "people."

    You keep saying reasonable gun laws, but you advocated that the second ammendment meant the National Guard last week which is not a reasonable gun law by anyones definition but yours.  I suggest that if Canada provides you the safety you desire than go there. 

    I didn't say anything about the National Guard.  That was someone else. 

    And I do live in Canada now.  Still pay taxes (considerable ones) in the US though (as well as in Canada).






    Do you seriously believe the US constitution applies to non-US citizens?  They felt the general terms for people were adequate since it was established in the title that the document was in reference to US citizens.  It's not the planet earth constitution.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from vertigho. Show vertigho's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

     


    I assume you're against all the anti-terrorist laws too, which chip away at 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights?

    The idea that "freedom" is greater when there is no law is silly.  Lawlessness just means your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you who can exert their will.  Sane societies make rules that maintain important freedoms, but limit the ability of people to do things that have negligible benefits but cause significant risk to others.  This is just mature, sensible policy-making that creates a society that is safe and ordered enough for people to exercise meaningful freedom. Chaos and lawlessness may be "freedom" in some theoretical way, but in practice you are less free when in constant danger from the lawless than you are when lawlessness is limited.

     



    Laws just mean your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you as well.  Do you think Nazi Germany was free since they were free from crime with a police state. 

    There's a big difference between laws passed through a democratic process and those imposed by a dictator.  Yes, laws limit some freedom.  But absolute freedom never truly exists.  You're always restricted in some way.  If there are no laws and you live in a society with other people, then your freedom will be restricted by the choices those other people make that affect your life.  If they choose in their freedom to drive drunk, then your ability to drive will be limited by the risk their actions create for you.   

    Frankly I'm surprised that you seem taken aback by the concept that laws are the opposite of freedom.  This is a fairly well understood concept. Anarchy would be complete freedom.

    This is a fairly simplistic view.  The lack of law (and the resulting anarchy) doesn't actually make you more free--it makes you more subject to the arbitrary and unregulated actions of others who are free to do whatever they want.  If they are free to kill you and they do so, how are you more free?  You're just dead.  

    It's all about how much freedom we are willing to concede in the name of safety.  You could be free from taxes but then there will be no military or roads etc.  It's about drawing a line, and I like mine in a different place than you. 

     

    It's about balance.  What freedoms are truly important and meaningful and beneficial.  And which have little benefit, but create significant risk and danger to others or interfere in significant ways with others' freedoms?  

    The terrorist acts you are referring to do not effect US citizens.  Foriegn terrorist do not have rights under the US constitution.

    Many of them do affect citizens.  For instance, the National Defense Authorization Act, which Obama signed last year, allows the government to detain citizens indefinitely without trial on the suspicion of terrorism.  Also, you seem willing to accept lose interpretations of the amendments like the Fifth and Sixth that never state that the rights described are restricted only to citizens.  Most use generic terms like "people."

    You keep saying reasonable gun laws, but you advocated that the second ammendment meant the National Guard last week which is not a reasonable gun law by anyones definition but yours.  I suggest that if Canada provides you the safety you desire than go there. 

    I didn't say anything about the National Guard.  That was someone else. 

    And I do live in Canada now.  Still pay taxes (considerable ones) in the US though (as well as in Canada).






    Do you seriously believe the US constitution applies to non-US citizens?  They felt the general terms for people were adequate since it was established in the title that the document was in reference to US citizens.  It's not the planet earth constitution.



    Our (American) freedoms were restricted via the many laws that were passed post-9/11, as well. These don't strictly apply to non-US citizens.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you seriously believe the US constitution applies to non-US citizens?  

    It limits what the US government can do to people, including non-US citizens.  The Courts have debated how far the Constitution goes in protecting non-US citizens living in the US or under the control of the US government, but (until recently under some terrorism legistlation) the constitution was seen, for instance, as guaranteeing citizens and non-citizens alike the right to trial if accused of a crime by the US or a state government. 

    They felt the general terms for people were adequate since it was established in the title that the document was in reference to US citizens.

    No, there's no "title" that establishes this and the preamble reads "We the people."  The word "citizen" is used only certain situations (usually to define eligibility for office).  The bill of rights uses the word "people" almost exclusively.  

     It's not the planet earth constitution.

    [/QUOTE]

    And many of the new anti-terrorism laws do apply to US citizens as well.  If you're really worried about freedom, I suggest joining the ACLU.  The NRA is only focused on one narrow and relatively insignificant issue.  The ACLU is focused on more important ones. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     



    Do you seriously believe the US constitution applies to non-US citizens?  

    It limits what the US government can do to people, including non-US citizens.  The Courts have debated how far the Constitution goes in protecting non-US citizens living in the US or under the control of the US government, but (until recently under some terrorism legistlation) the constitution was seen, for instance, as guaranteeing citizens and non-citizens alike the right to trial if accused of a crime by the US or a state government. 

    They felt the general terms for people were adequate since it was established in the title that the document was in reference to US citizens.

    No, there's no "title" that establishes this and the preamble reads "We the people."  The word "citizen" is used only certain situations (usually to define eligibility for office).  The bill of rights uses the word "people" almost exclusively.  

     It's not the planet earth constitution.






  • That's an interesting take.  Maybe you should take a class in government.  Did you ever notice that the US does not posess a police force to go around protecting the first ammendment rights of North Koreans, or we don't run around forcing speedy trials in other countries?  This is not debated.  It reads, "We the people of the United States."  Who do you think the people of the United States are? 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SFBostonFan. Show SFBostonFan's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    I copy & paste this from my earlier post as I really would like some comments on my suggestions.

    Polls simply ask "should the 2nd amendment be repealed" and "don't people have a right to defend themsleves". Well naturally as asked in this manner 97% of responses are affirmative and 3% are the "turn your other cheek" idiots/sheep/ cowards etc.

     

    I do not believe in complete gun control as the goverment has enough controls but I believe in the following modifications or addendums etc.:

    1. Handguns only and not rapid fire ones but ones where the trigger needs to be activated with each shot.

    2. Rifles for hunters should be single shot and no telescopes used. I am not in favor of killing  animals either so if the shooter misses, the animal has a chance to run. Yup, I know many poor people need the food. But with one shot at a time it becomes a bit of a sport too. I mean even the Bull in the ring has a slight chance to gore the Matador !!!

    3. Automatic, high powered, multiple shot rifles should be outlawed. The shooter used this to kill kids & fired multiple shots at them. These are not needed to protect yourself from a thief, rapist etc., a pistol will do !!! And I do agree that by the time one calls 911 for help it may be too late so handguns should be allowed for people to protect themselves.

    4. For the gun enthusiasts who enjoy shooting, go to a gun club but the weapons are provided. If you own a rifle, it must be kept at the gun club sort of like beer drinkers keeping their mugs in a bar.

    So, with a single shot pistol, yup a loonie could still kill many people but many could escape and maybe a brave adult , security, former military etc., could charge, tackle, disarm etc. the shooter.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     



    Do you seriously believe the US constitution applies to non-US citizens?  

    It limits what the US government can do to people, including non-US citizens.  The Courts have debated how far the Constitution goes in protecting non-US citizens living in the US or under the control of the US government, but (until recently under some terrorism legistlation) the constitution was seen, for instance, as guaranteeing citizens and non-citizens alike the right to trial if accused of a crime by the US or a state government. 

    They felt the general terms for people were adequate since it was established in the title that the document was in reference to US citizens.

    No, there's no "title" that establishes this and the preamble reads "We the people."  The word "citizen" is used only certain situations (usually to define eligibility for office).  The bill of rights uses the word "people" almost exclusively.  

     It's not the planet earth constitution.






    That's an interesting take.  Maybe you should take a class in government.  Did you ever notice that the US does not posess a police force to go around protecting the first ammendment rights of North Koreans, or we don't run around forcing speedy trials in other countries?  This is not debated.  It reads, "We the people of the United States."  Who do you think the people of the United States are? 



  • But a North Korean citizen arrested in the US for violating US law still has a right to trial by jury. The Constitution guarantees them that right.  (This is not controversial by the way as anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of the law knows.) Maybe it's you who needs the class in government?   

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     



    Do you seriously believe the US constitution applies to non-US citizens?  

    It limits what the US government can do to people, including non-US citizens.  The Courts have debated how far the Constitution goes in protecting non-US citizens living in the US or under the control of the US government, but (until recently under some terrorism legistlation) the constitution was seen, for instance, as guaranteeing citizens and non-citizens alike the right to trial if accused of a crime by the US or a state government. 

    They felt the general terms for people were adequate since it was established in the title that the document was in reference to US citizens.

    No, there's no "title" that establishes this and the preamble reads "We the people."  The word "citizen" is used only certain situations (usually to define eligibility for office).  The bill of rights uses the word "people" almost exclusively.  

     It's not the planet earth constitution.






    That's an interesting take.  Maybe you should take a class in government.  Did you ever notice that the US does not posess a police force to go around protecting the first ammendment rights of North Koreans, or we don't run around forcing speedy trials in other countries?  This is not debated.  It reads, "We the people of the United States."  Who do you think the people of the United States are? 



    But a North Korean citizen arrested in the US for violating US law still has a right to trial by jury. The Constitution guarantees them that right.  (This is not controversial by the way as anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of the law knows.) Maybe it's you who needs the class in government?   



    So an illegal alien can go buy a gun and vote since they have the rights of the US Constitution right?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to agill1970's comment:

    Personally I think the first and foremost solution is to tackle the mental health care issue in our country head on and not cut corners or pinch pennies doing so.  We went from locking the mentally ill/unstable in basements and wards to locking them up in prisons or pushing iffy drugs down their throats.  And the level of care coincides with the level of your health benefits and or income.  Meaning there's far too many people who don't have access to care at all. 

    However, having said that I am a gun owner and a member of the NRA.  I don't agree with a lot of the NRA's prinicples and policies, however they are the only ones willing to fight the good fight for my ability to properly defend myself in a world full of monsters, mentally ill, and the truly desperate.  Do I own an "Assault Rifle" (a horribly misued and understood term by the way)?  No, nor do I feel I need to.  The problem is the NRA and other strong 2A advocates try to pull too far in one direction, while the grass eating scared of guns herd try to pull too far in the other.  There is a happy medium in there somewhere, and I'm all for finding it.  But I don't think it will solve gun crime in American by any significant margin so long as the main issue of mental health care goes largely unaddressed.  Take a look at every single major mass shooting and you will see a person who was deeply troubled and in desperate need of help. 

     




     

    Great Post, I am in agreement. Stop giving guns to the crazy folks. I mean really??  Gun owners dont want to turn down money, I get that, but we shouldnt leave it up to them. Make every person that wants a gun get evaluated. I mean if you dont have a record, what does that mean?? Just means u may not have been caught before or u you are just now thinking of murdering but a clean record should not be a green light to carry. Weed out the crazies. Why are we giving permits to young, white males who live in nice neighborhoods?? Im sorry, I have to call it straight. Most these cases are well off, white males who are young and have nice surroundings.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to ccsjl's comment:

    In 1934 the National Firearms Act, (NFA), severely restricted all fully automatic weapons, (which are machine guns, and sub machine guns) as well as sawed-off shotguns, pen pistols, cane pistols, etc. from ownership by the general public. These weapons since then have only been available to Class 3 Federal firearms license holders, which requires extensive background checks, secure gun vaults in the home, as well as expensive taxes to be paid on the weapons themselves. Since the NFA not a single legally owned machine gun  has been used in a crime. Lets all call our Senators and Congressmen today DEMANDING that any firearm above 22 rimfire caliber and capable of accepting any clip or magazine above 10 round capacity IMMEDIATELY be upgraded to class 3 status.



         Boston.com has political forums to spew your opinion(s) on this topic. Please take it there.

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

     


    So an illegal alien can go buy a gun and vote since they have the rights of the US Constitution right?



    Did I say that?  I think I said trial by jury is guaranteed both to citizens and non-citizens when they are accused by the US of violating one of the US's laws (except now in certain terrorism cases). 

    I suggest you spend some time studying this text (you do know what it is, don't you?).  Then we can talk about rights of citizens versus rights of people . . . think a bit about why "citizen" is used in some contexts and "person" in others. 

     

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

     
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    FACTS:

    1) Across the USA, there are over 20,000 gun rrstriction laws. I'm guessing that this mental  midget broke 20,500 of them. Just guessing.....

    2) Chicago and Washington DC, yes, the seat of outr cfederal gov t, have the toughest gun ownership restrictions in the country. Yet, those streets have turned into the OK Corral and High Noon on  Main Street. Why's that?

    3) Connecticut has some of the toughest gun ownership laws in the country, yet this happened with legally owned/purchased/obtained weapons. Why's that?

    4) It's clear to just about everyone that the real issue is the CULTURE of having a gun, and for what purpose. Yet, it seems that leftists want to ban guns (Tut, tut! It all STARTS with "assault rifles". Where's it end?). What causes this "culture"? All the shooters were young, male, and "gamers". Hmmmm....ban those video games like Assassin (1-15)? There is no reset button i n life. Then, we can go after those violent movies. Now, don't even begin to give me stuff about "voilating the rights of those innocent people that own these games and go to these movies". Too hypocritical.

    5) What do we do next IF all guns are confiscated or banned? Seems to me we need to apply the "Well, they're going to do it anyeway...... " theory of raising a kid (related to booze, birth cntrol, ectc) to gun wnership too. 

    6) If they run out of guns or get to over 35,000 national laws, what's next? Motor vehicles, seeing that they kill more than guns do on an annual basis? After all, the best way to protect ourselves, especially our kids, is to get rid of the instrument, right?

    A gun lying there all by itself does NOT kill anyone. Only irresponsible people (to themselves, their families, or to mankind in general) are using guns as weapons against humanity. Why's that? Find out the cause and fix it. No need to punish the innocent gun owner or the legal purchaser. Why punish the entire school of kids because Littel Johnny, Jimmy, or Sally (equal opportunity, ya know) decided to knowingly break a school rule and bring a water pistol to school?

    Now, for the record, I am NOT a gun owner. It just seems strange that leftists cried that the Patriot Act punishes and took rights away from the innocent Americans NOT involved in terrorism, and whine aboiut intrusive airport searches as a violation of someone'[s rights. Yet, they seem perfectly OK with violating some folks rights over more "feel good" legislation proposals.  

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    I love all these people who insist the Second amendment gives them "the right to keep and bear arms" without restriction. The Supreme Court could bust the second amendment wide open by simply pointing out that restrictions against firearm ownership were in place since day 1. When the Constitution became law of the land in 1789, it did not recind the laws on the books that prohibited slaves from owning firearms. Funny how the NRA yahoos never mention that fact..

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Inokea4coolaid. Show Inokea4coolaid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted over the weekend showed 54 percent favor tougher laws, about the same as the 51 percent in favor earlier in the year.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

     


    So an illegal alien can go buy a gun and vote since they have the rights of the US Constitution right?



    Did I say that?  I think I said trial by jury is guaranteed both to citizens and non-citizens when they are accused by the US of violating one of the US's laws (except now in certain terrorism cases). 

    I suggest you spend some time studying this text (you do know what it is, don't you?).  Then we can talk about rights of citizens versus rights of people . . . think a bit about why "citizen" is used in some contexts and "person" in others. 

     

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

     



    The 14th ammendment is not the entire constitution.  You want to keep reframing the argument from all people receive all the rights of the Constitution to some people who are in the US receive some of the rights.  You can read into it all you want, simple fact is it's a US Constitution and the rest of the world doesn't give crapp what's in it.  It is designed as the basis for the US government not for the world.  We have no authority to protect the freedom of speech of people in China or anywhere else.  We do not now, nor will we ever protect the rights of people around the world in accordance with the Bill of Rights.  Don't believe me, look around.

    But now we're way off course.  Look, for some reason you want to impose restrictions on a place where you don't live.  I don't get it, I don't agree with it, but good luck to you.  If it was up to me there would be less laws and less government.  I want a minimalist government and I'm aware that cutting social and economic programs means a higher level of financial and physical risk.  I'm willing to accept that, many people agree with me.  You feel it's worth the safety to remove that choice, I don't.  We get our say at the ballot.  I'm done here.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

     

     


    The 14th ammendment is not the entire constitution.  You want to keep reframing the argument from all people receive all the rights of the Constitution to some people who are in the US receive some of the rights.  You can read into it all you want, simple fact is it's a US Constitution and the rest of the world doesn't give crapp what's in it.  It is designed as the basis for the US government not for the world.  We have no authority to protect the freedom of speech of people in China or anywhere else.  We do not now, nor will we ever protect the rights of people around the world in accordance with the Bill of Rights.  Don't believe me, look around.

    [/QUOTE]

    But I've never said that.  You claimed that the restrictions on the various "due process" amendments only affected foreign terrorists. I made two points in reply:

    1. That some of those restrictions do affect US citizens (and I gave the example of the National Defense Authorization Act)

    And

    2. That some of those due process Constitutional protections also apply to non-US citizens when accused of crimes by the US or a US state

    Both of these things are true.  You've gone off on some odd tangent about the Constitution not being applicable in China.  Yeah, of course.  But that wasn't what I was saying. 

    The broader question I'm asking is "If you are so worried about infringements on second amendment rights are you also equally worried about the infringements on fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendment rights that result from anti-terrorism laws?"  If, however, you're so concerned about freedom and liberty, then anti-terrorism laws must really get you angry.  If you don't care too much about loss of a right to jury trial and only care about the loss of the right to carry a Glock, then I can't take you seriously as someone who really cares about liberty.  What you care about then is guns. So which is it?  Are you concerned about infringements on all these amendments, or just the second? 

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

     

     


    The 14th ammendment is not the entire constitution.  You want to keep reframing the argument from all people receive all the rights of the Constitution to some people who are in the US receive some of the rights.  You can read into it all you want, simple fact is it's a US Constitution and the rest of the world doesn't give crapp what's in it.  It is designed as the basis for the US government not for the world.  We have no authority to protect the freedom of speech of people in China or anywhere else.  We do not now, nor will we ever protect the rights of people around the world in accordance with the Bill of Rights.  Don't believe me, look around.



    But I've never said that.  You claimed that the restrictions on the various "due process" amendments only affected foreign terrorists. I made two points in reply:

    1. That some of those restrictions do affect US citizens (and I gave the example of the National Defense Authorization Act)

    And

    2. That some of those due process Constitutional protections also apply to non-US citizens when accused of crimes by the US or a US state

    Both of these things are true.  You've gone off on some odd tangent about the Constitution not being applicable in China.  Yeah, of course.  But that wasn't what I was saying. 

    The broader question I'm asking is "If you are so worried about infringements on second amendment rights are you also equally worried about the infringements on fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendment rights that result from anti-terrorism laws?"  If, however, you're so concerned about freedom and liberty, then anti-terrorism laws must really get you angry.  If you don't care too much about loss of a right to jury trial and only care about the loss of the right to carry a Glock, then I can't take you seriously as someone who really cares about liberty.  What you care about then is guns. So which is it?  Are you concerned about infringements on all these amendments, or just the second? 

     




    All, but when the ACLU wants to say that when I detain someone who is firing an AK-47 at me that they are not a prosoner of war they are allowed a trial with evidence I take issue with that.  They get the rights of any combatant under the Geneva conventions.  I do not try to comb through war zones to build criminal cases.  It's suicide, and it's unprecedented.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    I'm pretty sure it says in Numbers that you shall have one law for the native and the alien.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

     

     


    The 14th ammendment is not the entire constitution.  You want to keep reframing the argument from all people receive all the rights of the Constitution to some people who are in the US receive some of the rights.  You can read into it all you want, simple fact is it's a US Constitution and the rest of the world doesn't give crapp what's in it.  It is designed as the basis for the US government not for the world.  We have no authority to protect the freedom of speech of people in China or anywhere else.  We do not now, nor will we ever protect the rights of people around the world in accordance with the Bill of Rights.  Don't believe me, look around.



    But I've never said that.  You claimed that the restrictions on the various "due process" amendments only affected foreign terrorists. I made two points in reply:

    1. That some of those restrictions do affect US citizens (and I gave the example of the National Defense Authorization Act)

    And

    2. That some of those due process Constitutional protections also apply to non-US citizens when accused of crimes by the US or a US state

    Both of these things are true.  You've gone off on some odd tangent about the Constitution not being applicable in China.  Yeah, of course.  But that wasn't what I was saying. 

    The broader question I'm asking is "If you are so worried about infringements on second amendment rights are you also equally worried about the infringements on fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendment rights that result from anti-terrorism laws?"  If, however, you're so concerned about freedom and liberty, then anti-terrorism laws must really get you angry.  If you don't care too much about loss of a right to jury trial and only care about the loss of the right to carry a Glock, then I can't take you seriously as someone who really cares about liberty.  What you care about then is guns. So which is it?  Are you concerned about infringements on all these amendments, or just the second? 

     




    All, but when the ACLU wants to say that when I detain someone who is firing an AK-47 at me that they are not a prosoner of war they are allowed a trial with evidence I take issue with that.  They get the rights of any combatant under the Geneva conventions.  I do not try to comb through war zones to build criminal cases.  It's suicide, and it's unprecedented.



    If you're treating people detained on the battlefield as Prisoners of War and following the Geneva Conventions then no one objects.  The ACLU is more concerned when "enemy combatants" are denied both the rights of POWs and the rights of criminal due process.  Traditionally, you were either a POW (and subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention that apply to POWs) or a criminal (and subject to criminal due process).  In the war on terrorism, there is an attempt to create a third class of persons with no rights at all.  This the ACLU objects to -- and in my opinion, quite rightly.  I'm not exactly a fan of the government being able to declare with no process at all that someone has no rights and can be detained for ever with no trial.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    Ban all gun sales tomorrow.  Who F'ing cares.  There are all ready 100's of millions of guns in private hands.  Everyone who wanted a gun should already has a gun.  I have 3.........I'm good.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    My answer is simple--Everyone should go out and buy an assault rifle so we can assault the assaulters when they assault. And every school should buy one for the Principle and VP and train them at the range. Now it's a fair fight when these NutJobs come gunning!!!!!!

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

     


    I assume you're against all the anti-terrorist laws too, which chip away at 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights?

    The idea that "freedom" is greater when there is no law is silly.  Lawlessness just means your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you who can exert their will.  Sane societies make rules that maintain important freedoms, but limit the ability of people to do things that have negligible benefits but cause significant risk to others.  This is just mature, sensible policy-making that creates a society that is safe and ordered enough for people to exercise meaningful freedom. Chaos and lawlessness may be "freedom" in some theoretical way, but in practice you are less free when in constant danger from the lawless than you are when lawlessness is limited.

     



    Laws just mean your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you as well.  Do you think Nazi Germany was free since they were free from crime with a police state. 

    There's a big difference between laws passed through a democratic process and those imposed by a dictator.  Yes, laws limit some freedom.  But absolute freedom never truly exists.  You're always restricted in some way.  If there are no laws and you live in a society with other people, then your freedom will be restricted by the choices those other people make that affect your life.  If they choose in their freedom to drive drunk, then your ability to drive will be limited by the risk their actions create for you.   

    Frankly I'm surprised that you seem taken aback by the concept that laws are the opposite of freedom.  This is a fairly well understood concept. Anarchy would be complete freedom.

    This is a fairly simplistic view.  The lack of law (and the resulting anarchy) doesn't actually make you more free--it makes you more subject to the arbitrary and unregulated actions of others who are free to do whatever they want.  If they are free to kill you and they do so, how are you more free?  You're just dead.  

    It's all about how much freedom we are willing to concede in the name of safety.  You could be free from taxes but then there will be no military or roads etc.  It's about drawing a line, and I like mine in a different place than you. 

     

    It's about balance.  What freedoms are truly important and meaningful and beneficial.  And which have little benefit, but create significant risk and danger to others or interfere in significant ways with others' freedoms?  

    The terrorist acts you are referring to do not effect US citizens.  Foriegn terrorist do not have rights under the US constitution.

    Many of them do affect citizens.  For instance, the National Defense Authorization Act, which Obama signed last year, allows the government to detain citizens indefinitely without trial on the suspicion of terrorism.  Also, you seem willing to accept lose interpretations of the amendments like the Fifth and Sixth that never state that the rights described are restricted only to citizens.  Most use generic terms like "people."

    You keep saying reasonable gun laws, but you advocated that the second ammendment meant the National Guard last week which is not a reasonable gun law by anyones definition but yours.  I suggest that if Canada provides you the safety you desire than go there. 

    I didn't say anything about the National Guard.  That was someone else. 

    And I do live in Canada now.  Still pay taxes (considerable ones) in the US though (as well as in Canada).







    Prolate: This set of responses is very rational, well considered, and ethically based. Anyone willing to consider the reasoning of your positions, even if they start from a different set of positions, would be moved to reconsider some aspects of their own positions.

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share