testtest

There is no Common Sense Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Once upon a time I thought red flag laws, if well defined and applied properly, were not a terrible idea. I rapidly realized that they would be neither well defined or applied properly.

I now truly believe that any gun control is worthless. A bad person will find the means to do what they want.

According the the FBI, blunt force objects killed approximately 3k people in 2017 or 2018, while rifles of all sorts killed approximately 300. Let’s ban those scary black rifles.

There is no logic to gun control, just knee jerk reactions and playing on people’s emotions.
 
Rights can be restrained under due process of law. Search and seizure, if probable cause can be established for example. Imprisonment for a felony can interfere with the right to vote, and the right to move to another state. These restrictions on our rights only apply when a crime has been committed and the felon has had a fair trial. Making terroristic threats and threatening to kill an individual is an assault under common law and most state statutes. Necessary elements of the crime of assault go beyond the mere speaking of the words. Additionally there has to be the means, the ability, and the true intent to follow through with the threats, evidence for which is supported by the circumstances. The existence of a mental illness does not constitute a crime, the genuine threat of killing someone is. Restricting the right to carry weapons requires a crime to be committed, which is already the law. Defining a class of persons, such as the severely mentally ill, or having a name appearing on a no-fly list, as people who lose their rights to bear arms is not common sense nor is it constitutional.
 
benstt said:
How about a law that actually keeps guns out of the hands on people with serious mental illness, and only them? Would you support that?
Click to expand...

Under your hypothetical , The same person who would have his right to own a firearm taken away would still be able to buy and own all the knives , fertilizer & fuel oil , and many other chemicals that would make him/her just as dangerous.

Here in the state of Illinois we have a form of what you talk about. It is called the F O I D ( firearm owners I D ) card . It is supposed to stop those who should not own a firearm from getting one. Background checks are done before a FOID card is issued to anyone in the state. Yet for some strang reason people keep getting shot by people who are not eligible to own a firearm of any kind .

It is not right to punish all for what one might do in the future.
 
benstt,

Many, many women suffer post-partum depression. I can tell you of an Orange County, CA woman who suffered severe post-partum depression. She intentionally ran over and killed her baby. Using your logic, should moms with newborn babies have their cars seized because of only one incident of which I'm aware?

By definition, all murderers are either psychopaths or sociopaths. Mental illness is not a defense to a crime. Insanity is, but it's extremely rare. The Policeman's Rule (insanity defense) is a difficult burden to overcome.

I'm an unabashed Founding Fathers conservative. The neocon co-opted Republican Party left me a long time ago. Mitch McConnell, who obviously hasn't been cured of TDS, has told Republican senators to accept results of a rigged election. Neocons want Trump gone more than Democrats.

benstt, here's a definitive example of politicians ulterior motives. In CA, decades ago a five-day waiting period (AKA: "cooling off" period) was foisted upon We the People of the totalitarian state of CA. It applied to only handguns. That waiting period was extended to twenty days, which was a hard sell, so it was scaled back to ten days. Then long guns were included within CA's waiting period. Think about how draconian that law is. If I have 10k invested in a Rocky Mountain big game hunt, and a week before opening day, my rifle were stolen, I could not legally possess another prior to my hunt. In CA, it's a felony to loan a firearm to anyone but immediate family members.

CA legislated a one-handgun-purchase-a-month law. Now long guns will be included within that oppressive and unconstitutional law.

A mentally infirm exclusion of Amendment II rights would begin with an easy sell: criminally insane. Eventually it would include post-partum depression, followed by your neighbors' statements that they saw you exhibiting strange behavior.

What about a mentally infirm episode in a person's life? I can't tell you of how many women I know who were so devastated by divorce that inpatient psych care was discussed. One such woman is now an honorably retired cop. I know of a woman who was admitted for inpatient psych treatment due to her devastating divorce. That was 20 years ago. She can never possess a firearm because she was an inpatient psych patient. Is that fair? She's a danger to no one. Yet because 20 years ago, divorce stress resulted in inpatient psych treatment, she can never own a firearm. What about an alcoholic who cleaned himself up 30 years ago at an inpatient facility and hasn't touched a drop since? Do you really want to deny him ability to shoot a round of trap?

If you know the end game, and it's not destruction of Amendment II, that's an impediment to the end game, you can predict plausible actions of America's fifth column. The end game is the New World Order, or globalism, or one-world-government, or super government: they're synonymous terms. By definition, the end game includes destruction of the United States of America as she was created by shed blood of our Founding Fathers.

Be very careful of what you wish for because you'll likely get it...and regret it.
 
xcalibur said:
Rights can be restrained under due process of law. Search and seizure, if probable cause can be established for example. Imprisonment for a felony can interfere with the right to vote, and the right to move to another state. These restrictions on our rights only apply when a crime has been committed and the felon has had a fair trial. Making terroristic threats and threatening to kill an individual is an assault under common law and most state statutes. Necessary elements of the crime of assault go beyond the mere speaking of the words. Additionally there has to be the means, the ability, and the true intent to follow through with the threats, evidence for which is supported by the circumstances. The existence of a mental illness does not constitute a crime, the genuine threat of killing someone is. Restricting the right to carry weapons requires a crime to be committed, which is already the law. Defining a class of persons, such as the severely mentally ill, or having a name appearing on a no-fly list, as people who lose their rights to bear arms is not common sense nor is it constitutional.
Click to expand...

They are not rights if government can abridge them or take them away. People can void their rights by committing crimes which result is loss of property (fines) and liberty (jail time).

Due process has become so fetid that it's darn close to an illusion. When courts decide the definition of due process, We the People lose.

There is no due process with red flag laws.
 
SATRP said:
They are not rights if government can abridge them or take them away. People can void their rights by committing crimes which result is loss of property (fines) and liberty (jail time).

Due process has become so fetid that it's darn close to an illusion. When courts decide the definition of due process, We the People lose.

There is no due process with red flag laws.
Click to expand...
Exactly, red flag laws ignore due process it the name of the “greater good.” Then the burden get placed on the person to prove it was wrong in the first place.

Red flag laws = back door gun confiscation.
 
My neighbor was ordered to surrender his firearms, because he suffers from PTSD as a result of his service during Vietnam. He was convinced by his doctor to provide his wife with a power of attorney to assist him in managing his affairs. He is a good, decent, honorable man who wouldn't hurt anyone and was crushed when he lost his civil rights guaranteed by the 2A.
 
SATRP said:
benstt,

Many, many women suffer post-partum depression. I can tell you of an Orange County, CA woman who suffered severe post-partum depression. She intentionally ran over and killed her baby. Using your logic, should moms with newborn babies have their cars seized because of only one incident of which I'm aware?

By definition, all murderers are either psychopaths or sociopaths. Mental illness is not a defense to a crime. Insanity is, but it's extremely rare. The Policeman's Rule (insanity defense) is a difficult burden to overcome.

I'm an unabashed Founding Fathers conservative. The neocon co-opted Republican Party left me a long time ago. Mitch McConnell, who obviously hasn't been cured of TDS, has told Republican senators to accept results of a rigged election. Neocons want Trump gone more than Democrats.

benstt, here's a definitive example of politicians ulterior motives. In CA, decades ago a five-day waiting period (AKA: "cooling off" period) was foisted upon We the People of the totalitarian state of CA. It applied to only handguns. That waiting period was extended to twenty days, which was a hard sell, so it was scaled back to ten days. Then long guns were included within CA's waiting period. Think about how draconian that law is. If I have 10k invested in a Rocky Mountain big game hunt, and a week before opening day, my rifle were stolen, I could not legally possess another prior to my hunt. In CA, it's a felony to loan a firearm to anyone but immediate family members.

CA legislated a one-handgun-purchase-a-month law. Now long guns will be included within that oppressive and unconstitutional law.

A mentally infirm exclusion of Amendment II rights would begin with an easy sell: criminally insane. Eventually it would include post-partum depression, followed by your neighbors' statements that they saw you exhibiting strange behavior.

What about a mentally infirm episode in a person's life? I can't tell you of how many women I know who were so devastated by divorce that inpatient psych care was discussed. One such woman is now an honorably retired cop. I know of a woman who was admitted for inpatient psych treatment due to her devastating divorce. That was 20 years ago. She can never possess a firearm because she was an inpatient psych patient. Is that fair? She's a danger to no one. Yet because 20 years ago, divorce stress resulted in inpatient psych treatment, she can never own a firearm. What about an alcoholic who cleaned himself up 30 years ago at an inpatient facility and hasn't touched a drop since? Do you really want to deny him ability to shoot a round of trap?

If you know the end game, and it's not destruction of Amendment II, that's an impediment to the end game, you can predict plausible actions of America's fifth column. The end game is the New World Order, or globalism, or one-world-government, or super government: they're synonymous terms. By definition, the end game includes destruction of the United States of America as she was created by shed blood of our Founding Fathers.

Be very careful of what you wish for because you'll likely get it...and regret it.
Click to expand...
Neither of us are going to pick up any ground here so I'm done with the discussion.
 
...and that's the way of the Left. Textbook. Present facts and rational thought, and they bail because they're emptyhanded when it comes to actual reasoning.

THAT's why we can't fight "common sense gun control" in the courts or the media, because none of the proponents stick around long enough to offer actual, logical arguments. It's all smoke, mirrors, and emotion - no fact, no reason, no logic.
 
I can understand both sides of the argument here. However, our rights under the Constitution (in my thinking) have been so tread upon already that I hesitate to willingly allow any more. As always, the problem is in drawing the line. Once a line is allowed, then moving the line under the premise of "common sense" becomes easier and easier. It would be better not to go down that road, but we are already way past the fork.
 
TEXASforLIFE said:
My last post got deleted for hyperbole reason and so this one probably will too? I was on topic and made replies to post others have made, but oh well! Did someone hit the report button? Must be a "Founding Member" then!
Click to expand...
I seen you're previous comment and thought it was pretty funny myself.

I think the mentioning of a political party is what got the post tossed.
 
Peglegjoe said:
...and that's the way of the Left. Textbook. Present facts and rational thought, and they bail because they're emptyhanded when it comes to actual reasoning.

THAT's why we can't fight "common sense gun control" in the courts or the media, because none of the proponents stick around long enough to offer actual, logical arguments. It's all smoke, mirrors, and emotion - no fact, no reason, no logic.
Click to expand...
What logical argument do you think you're having? What emotion have you identified in my posts? The only argument I've seen is "shall not be infringed" means no restictions at all, which is legally inaccurate for reasons I've put on here several times before. That isn't logic, that's a talking point. I quit discussing it with SATRP because his comments frequently devolve into conspiracy theories. Now, if we want to talk logic, lets do it. There is a material item we all enjoy, that being guns. Guns are incredibly fun and useful tools, but they are also incredibly destructive if used improperly. Some people are dangerous as hell because they have no grasp of reality and show an increased likelihood of using guns in a murderous way. A hypothetical law could deny such persons the means to inflict mass casualties, but some gun owners see it as a slippery slope (which itself is a fallacy and not logical at all) to everyone in the country losing every gun ever, so we chose to not even consider a restriction, because our material item is worth the lives of other people. Does that sound about right, or should I throw in "I'll use my AR to fight off government tanks and drones if the government gets uppity" to go along with it? What logical, well thought out argument do you think you're presenting?

The reason I quit having discussions with some on here is they don't understand the law and would rather fall back on either their incorrect understanding of what they wish the law is, or they quickly start spouting conspiracy theories about such things as the U.N. disarming the U.S. What benefit is there to me continuing to discuss anything with a person with such a point of view? I don't walk away because you present "facts and rational thought" I stop because you present some points based on incorrect premises, such as its unconstitutional to restrict 2A in any way, or that you're going to win a war against the government with small arms, or that the slippery slope is a real argument. None of those are true. So, I see it as a fools errand to try to discuss the topic any farther. Don't make the mistake of considering my withdrawal as a win, or me being overwhelmed by your "facts and rational thought." It's me seeing it as an unproductive exercise.
 
benstt said:
What logical argument do you think you're having? What emotion have you identified in my posts? The only argument I've seen is "shall not be infringed" means no restictions at all, which is legally inaccurate for reasons I've put on here several times before. That isn't logic, that's a talking point. I quit discussing it with SATRP because his comments frequently devolve into conspiracy theories. Now, if we want to talk logic, lets do it. There is a material item we all enjoy, that being guns. Guns are incredibly fun and useful tools, but they are also incredibly destructive if used improperly. Some people are dangerous as hell because they have no grasp of reality and show an increased likelihood of using guns in a murderous way. A hypothetical law could deny such persons the means to inflict mass casualties, but some gun owners see it as a slippery slope (which itself is a fallacy and not logical at all) to everyone in the country losing every gun ever, so we chose to not even consider a restriction, because our material item is worth the lives of other people. Does that sound about right, or should I throw in "I'll use my AR to fight off government tanks and drones if the government gets uppity" to go along with it? What logical, well thought out argument do you think you're presenting?

The reason I quit having discussions with some on here is they don't understand the law and would rather fall back on either their incorrect understanding of what they wish the law is, or they quickly start spouting conspiracy theories about such things as the U.N. disarming the U.S. What benefit is there to me continuing to discuss anything with a person with such a point of view? I don't walk away because you present "facts and rational thought" I stop because you present some points based on incorrect premises, such as its unconstitutional to restrict 2A in any way, or that you're going to win a war against the government with small arms, or that the slippery slope is a real argument. None of those are true. So, I see it as a fools errand to try to discuss the topic any farther. Don't make the mistake of considering my withdrawal as a win, or me being overwhelmed by your "facts and rational thought." It's me seeing it as an unproductive exercise.
Click to expand...
I completely see your point, but don’t say we won’t win a war against the government with just small arms when plenty of middle eastern countries provide some evidence to the contrary. How long have we been fighting in those places and we still haven’t actually won?
 
David N. said:
My neighbor was ordered to surrender his firearms, because he suffers from PTSD as a result of his service during Vietnam. He was convinced by his doctor to provide his wife with a power of attorney to assist him in managing his affairs. He is a good, decent, honorable man who wouldn't hurt anyone and was crushed when he lost his civil rights guaranteed by the 2A.
Click to expand...
That is so horribly sad.

My heart goes out to that American veteran who was exploited by a corrupted justice system.
 
This whole thread is hyperbole. A lady with a bunch of toy guns. She will never go to jail and the bottom line is there is a lot of stories out there that can be twisted to excite anyone who will listen. If we allow that to happen then we will find ourselves cowering in our homes afraid to go out. Yes we have issues to do deal with but we can not allow ourselves to be dragged into conversations that pit us against each other. Unfortunately it’s happening more and more on this forum.
 
somorris said:
I can understand both sides of the argument here. However, our rights under the Constitution (in my thinking) have been so tread upon already that I hesitate to willingly allow any more. As always, the problem is in drawing the line. Once a line is allowed, then moving the line under the premise of "common sense" becomes easier and easier. It would be better not to go down that road, but we are already way past the fork.
Click to expand...

My advice is to go with the side that's consistent with the United States Constitution.
 
benstt said:
What logical argument do you think you're having? What emotion have you identified in my posts? The only argument I've seen is "shall not be infringed" means no restictions at all, which is legally inaccurate for reasons I've put on here several times before. That isn't logic, that's a talking point. I quit discussing it with SATRP because his comments frequently devolve into conspiracy theories. Now, if we want to talk logic, lets do it. There is a material item we all enjoy, that being guns. Guns are incredibly fun and useful tools, but they are also incredibly destructive if used improperly. Some people are dangerous as hell because they have no grasp of reality and show an increased likelihood of using guns in a murderous way. A hypothetical law could deny such persons the means to inflict mass casualties, but some gun owners see it as a slippery slope (which itself is a fallacy and not logical at all) to everyone in the country losing every gun ever, so we chose to not even consider a restriction, because our material item is worth the lives of other people. Does that sound about right, or should I throw in "I'll use my AR to fight off government tanks and drones if the government gets uppity" to go along with it? What logical, well thought out argument do you think you're presenting?

The reason I quit having discussions with some on here is they don't understand the law and would rather fall back on either their incorrect understanding of what they wish the law is, or they quickly start spouting conspiracy theories about such things as the U.N. disarming the U.S. What benefit is there to me continuing to discuss anything with a person with such a point of view? I don't walk away because you present "facts and rational thought" I stop because you present some points based on incorrect premises, such as its unconstitutional to restrict 2A in any way, or that you're going to win a war against the government with small arms, or that the slippery slope is a real argument. None of those are true. So, I see it as a fools errand to try to discuss the topic any farther. Don't make the mistake of considering my withdrawal as a win, or me being overwhelmed by your "facts and rational thought." It's me seeing it as an unproductive exercise.
Click to expand...

Sir,

You've repeatedly resorted to numerous logical fallacies.

Amendment II is definitive. If you remain in doubt, read James Madison's The Federalist No. 46.

Article VI, Section 2, United States Constitution:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

In James Madion's plain language, he wrote that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the USA. No law that contradicts it can withstand it.

Article V of the United States Constitution explicates the amendment process. Hence, before any law can be created that contradicts the United States Constitution, the constitution must first be amended in process as described within Article V.

No court, not even the supreme court, has constitutional authority to amend the United States Constitution.

The issue is quite simple when distractions and falsities are pared: do we adhere to the United States Constitution? Or do we rationalize acts and laws contrary to it? Any basis for rationalizing violating the United States Constitution is spurious. "The court has opined..." is a lame excuse for rationalizing bad behavior. If Americans want to enact gun control laws, they can do so in one of two ways: consistent with the supreme law of the law, or capriciously. If we go with the latter, it would be de facto proof that the United States Constitution has been subjugated to caprice of politicians and judges/justices..

benstt, the above is factual and therefore logical. You seen to want to go with option 2, capricious amending of the United States Constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top