National School Walkout

[seer]

No - we have required that you earn that gun as a privilege - meeting the requirements for having one. And we would have limited the total number of guns you may have. And we will have. at the same time, significantly reduced the probability that this scenario will play out because there will be (in time) fewer guns. And your answer does NOT respond to what I asked. It just repeats an NRA talking point - it is a deflection. The question was how an invented THING became an inherent "right." Was that at the moment of its' invention? Did it happen later? And how is this "thing" bound to the human person in a way that no other object is? After all, a crossbow will help you defend yourself, but we don't have an inherent right to that? So will shuriken, throwing knives, a well locked house, and the list goes on. But we do not seem to have "inherent rights" to any of these things. ONLY a gun. What, exactly, is it about a gun that makes it an "inherent right?"

When the Founders were speaking of the right to bear arms, in and outside of the Constitution, they were not speaking of baseball bats and bow and arrows. They were speaking of the common arms of the day. Which would include, but not limited to, firearms. And again, criminals will not give up their firearms, nor will you be able to prevent imports of illegal firearms (as my previous link showed). As long as there is a appetite for firearms, like with dope, people will get them. So by preventing me from owning a firearm, when the criminal has one, you are effectively removing my ability to defend my self or family.

Your statements were that you hoped people who were fighting against gun rights remembered who had the guns. When pressed on it, you made it clear you would take up arms against fellow citizens and specifically stated you would have that right because "they would be the aggressors." Yes - you did not say the words "I will kill them," but I specifically cited the reality that, if the laws change, and law enforcement came for your guns, they would use "proportional force" and you defended your right to "defend yourself." I noted several times that you had the right to defend yourself - in a court of law, but you did not have the right to take up arms against law enforcement or fellow citizens. You defended that right several times, and this is the first time you have suggested you would not fire on fellow citizens. So which is it?

First, I was exactly right, it is my side that has all the guns, the point being they will not lay down if the government attempts to take them away. And yes, if someone came to my house to take my gun I would want to fight, I understand this Patriotic zeal. But I do not have the desire to actually kill anyone - especially to protect one old 22 bolt action rifle. But I would certainly help, in any way I could, the Patriots.

Actually, I have come to agree with them. It wasn't more than a week or so ago that I was arguing for temperance - tighten the background checks, create the universal database, and fund research so we can know what to do. Those were my three points - the last one being "because we lack objectively derived data." I wanted to balance reasonable gun control with respecting the "right" to own a gun. Then it became clear to me that this whole "we respect the constitution" thing is a smokescreen - and we have been, for decades now, allowing an entire population who place "guns" above their fellow citizens to arm themselves. As that began to dawn on me, I began to dig more into the existing data, and into the 2nd Amendment. You, and the kids, and what I have found in my research, have shown me that I was wrong. The is no "right" to own a "thing." It's a chunk of metal. No human being has an inherent right to own a chunk of metal - whatever shape it may take. No human being has an inherent right to a possession. The entire notion is ludicrous.

The 2nd Amendment is a dangerous amendment. It has been used by gun lovers for decades now to justify the proliferation of a possession that does harm. Guns are not a right. They are a privilege - like driving a car, or having a job. They should be treated as such. It may not happen in my lifetime, but we WILL eventually get there.

Don't blame us for turning you into an anti-freedom fascist, that was always in your heart.

[seer]

Nice to hear and the universal BG checks.

As for the rest, if the money were allocated to adequately ensure that system were in place to "catch" someone who runs afoul of the law or changes mental health status AFTER passing a background check and securing a firearm, I would agree with you. That would require the NRA and gun-lobby to stand down on their efforts to thwart funding such initiatives. The background check system was mandated by a 2011 law. To date, 11% of the funds required have actually been allocated. When you poke into why the rest has not, it's because the NRA and gun lobby push on their representatives HARD to block the allocation. Why? Because as long as the funds are not allocated, the background-check system is flawed. As long as it's flawed, they can say, "see - waste of time - it doesn't work."

Round and round we go. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be a comedy.

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the NRA, though I took a few of their gun safety courses when I was a kid. Excellent courses BTW.

[Roy]

Roy, do we have more regulations today than in my younger years? Yes or no?

The original claim was not about regulations or background checks, but about whether obtaining a gun is easier. The ease of purchase due to technological advances, coupled with the much greater supply, far outweigh any minor delays for background checks.

No matter how you try to pretend otherwise, you can still walk into a gun store and buy a shotgun. That has not changed.

[Roy]

Nice to hear and the universal BG checks.

As for the rest, if the money were allocated to adequately ensure that system were in place to "catch" someone who runs afoul of the law or changes mental health status AFTER passing a background check and securing a firearm, I would agree with you.

Legislation was proposed that would allow mental health history to be made available during background checks. It was repealed last year. Documented mental breaks are not being reported.

[carpedm9587]

When the Founders were speaking of the right to bear arms, in and outside of the Constitution, they were not speaking of baseball bats and bow and arrows. They were speaking of the common arms of the day. Which would include, but not limited to, firearms. And again, criminals will not give up their firearms, nor will you be able to prevent imports of illegal firearms (as my previous link showed). As long as there is a appetite for firearms, like with dope, people will get them. So by preventing me from owning a firearm, when the criminal has one, you are effectively removing my ability to defend my self or family.

The case still has not been made as to why owning a "thing" is an inherent right. Until that case is made, the FFs were simply wrong. The inherent right is self-protection. And the proliferation of guns in our country is largely due to gun-rights advocates. So forgive me if I am not all that sympathetic to your plight. What is happening is simple: for years gun-rights advocates have been pushing back on any attempt to exert control on degrees of gun ownership or responsibility. As a result, and because of their purchases, we have an explosion of gun ownership in America. When a gun is introduced into a home, statistically - it increases the probability that that gun-owner, or a member of his household, will be harmed by their own firearms significantly above the probability they will be harmed someone wielding a different gun (a statistic that has been ignored each time I've posted it). And given that 70% of the gun-related crimes are committed with a weapon NOT owned by the criminal...well, just where do you think they are getting these guns? Statistically, most are stolen. So the cycle looks like this:

1. We want more guns - we have the right to more guns (and the right not have to lock them up, etc. etc.)
2. Guns proliferate, and more guns are stolen
3. Gun-related violence escalates
4. We have the right to defend ourselves...
5. Go to 1

Meanwhile, those of us who are NOT fans of guns are caught in the crossfire. Forgive me for thinking the entire loop is insane, and for not being sympathetic to your pleas for "let us defend ourselves," when the very way you want to defend yourself is causing the problem!

First, I was exactly right, it is my side that has all the guns, the point being they will not lay down if the government attempts to take them away. And yes, if someone came to my house to take my gun I would want to fight, I understand this Patriotic zeal. But I do not have the desire to actually kill anyone - especially to protect one old 22 bolt action rifle. But I would certainly help, in any way I could, the Patriots.

Yes, "your side" owns the guns. And since you have returned to your initial point, assuming the scenario is that the 2nd Amendment has been repealed and stringent gun-control is now the law of the land, you have made yourself a criminal - so you forfeit any claim to being "law-abiding" since you are obviously willing (if not able) to run afoul of the law if you disagree with it. Calling yourself a "patriot" doesn't change the fact that, if the will of the majority is to change this rule, you are taking it on yourself to decide they don't have the right to do so. There is no dictatorship in this scenario. There is the majority of the population saying, "we do not want this anymore." You're not a patriot in that scenario; you're a thug wrapping yourself in a flag.

Don't blame us for turning you into an anti-freedom fascist, that was always in your heart.

Yet another claim to know what is in my heart... why am I not surprised.

And nowhere in that post did I "blame" anyone. I looked at the evidence, provided by you, the kids, my research, etc., and I determined I was wrong. Emphasis, I determined I was wrong. You provided part of the information, but none of the decision.

As for the "anti-freedom facist" label, you're opinion is duly noted. No one is restricting your "freedom" by noting that you do not have an inherent right to own an object. It's a thing. Balancing "things" against "lives," lives win every time, in my book. And when the majority makes a decision in this country, and rule of law shifts, a "patriot" respects rule of law. Labeling yourself "patriot" and me "anti-freedom fascist" doesn't make it so. It's just propaganda.

[Sparko]

I didn't see that question - and the answer, obviously, is no. It's somewhat of a silly question.



A dictatorship is not a representative democracy - so you're mixing apples and oranges. EVERYONE should fight a dictatorship. The better question is "what would I do is the people of this country voted to repeal the 1st amendment? I would first resist that in every legal way I possibly could. I would petition, engage the media, start protests, start an educational campaign, and so forth. If, after all that trying, the majority of the people in this country voted to repeal the 1st amendment, I would recognize that as the will of the majority. Then I would find a different country to live in because this would no longer be the right country for me.

But I need not worry - the right to speech IS an inherent right. Freedom to worship (or not) as I see fit IS an inherent right. The right to own a "thing" is not. No one yet has shown exactly what this right derives from. It is a vapor. The FFs made a mistake in their language - maybe even their intent. It needs to be reversed.

A dictatorship is must a matter of degree. Look at Venezuela where people "voted" to give power to their leader creating a dictatorship and giving up their rights. On paper it is still a democracy, in reality it is a dictatorship.

You feel it is fine for the people to give away their right to own guns, but not give away their right to freedom of speech, liberty, etc? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. You just categorize the rights you don't like as "not real" and then it is OK to eliminate them. Well if people do that to the rights you do value, you wouldn't like it one bit. And if they took away your rights you would not have the right to leave and go to another country. Ask some Cubans.

[carpedm9587]

Legislation was proposed that would allow mental health history to be made available during background checks. It was repealed last year. Documented mental breaks are not being reported.

I did not know - but I certainly am not surprised. Chalk up another win for the "freedom-loving" gun lobby and NRA...

[Sparko]

The people are. What the majority decides they wish this country to be, is what this country will be. If the people vote to repeal the 2nd, that will be what the people want.

So in other words you don't believe in rights at all. They are just some agreed upon privileges. So the right to own guns is just as much a right as freedom of speech then and you can't argue that it is not. You can't say the 2nd is "not real" because you don't like that it gives you the right to own a "thing" - that is not a reason, it is just your opinion. And if a majority of people decide that atheists should not have the right of free speech or allowed to run free on the street or own property, well then, you would just go right along with it because you are a law-abiding citizen. right?

It is people like you that allow countries with governments like the USSR, Cuba and Hitler's Germany to exist.

[Sparko]

Actually - not. The 5th amendment reads: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I'm going to presume you are referring to the underlined portion. This states that the government cannot deprive someone of property (which is the part you are referencing, I assume) without due process. It does not mean that anyone has an inherent right to have any particular property/possession. It merely means, if someone has it, the government cannot deprive them of it without due process. So I do not have an inherent right to have a house. If I DO have a house, I have the inherent right to keep that possession and the government cannot take it from me without due process. I do not have an inherent right to own a car (as I have been reminded so many times, even by you). If I DO have a car, I have the inherent right to keep that possession and the government cannot take it from me without due process.

So if the 2nd is repealed, the equivalent of eminent domain can be used to compensate people for their guns and collect them. A mandatory buy-back program, once the 2nd is repealed, would pass constitutional muster.

They can't deprive you of property without due process. but that implies that you have a right to own property in the first place. Owning property is a fundamental right that we recognize. Many countries don't allow that right. They need no due process because you don't own anything. They do.


Your argument that there is no right to own "things" is invalid.

[Sparko]

The case still has not been made as to why owning a "thing" is an inherent right. Until that case is made, the FFs were simply wrong.

The right to own property is a globally recognized right.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-decla...-human-rights/

[carpedm9587]

A dictatorship is must a matter of degree. Look at Venezuela where people "voted" to give power to their leader creating a dictatorship and giving up their rights. On paper it is still a democracy, in reality it is a dictatorship.

If the people vote away their control of their leadership - then it is no longer a democracy - it is a dictatorship. Their last act as a democracy was that vote.

You feel it is fine for the people to give away their right to own guns, but not give away their right to freedom of speech, liberty, etc? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. You just categorize the rights you don't like as "not real" and then it is OK to eliminate them. Well if people do that to the rights you do value, you wouldn't like it one bit. And if they took away your rights you would not have the right to leave and go to another country. Ask some Cubans.

No one has a "right" to own a "thing," as I have noted several times - and no one has shown how we incurred this "inherent right." So repealing the 2nd does not remove an "inherent right," it eliminates a false right the FFs baked into the constitution. Ergo, repealing the 2nd is not a problem.

And I do not categorize the rights I "don't like" as unreal. I categorize the rights that cannot be substantiated as "inherent" or "fundamental" as "unreal." When someone can explain how "owning a gun" is an inherent right, I'll consider revising my stance.

[JimL]

So in other words you don't believe in rights at all. They are just some agreed upon privileges. So the right to own guns is just as much a right as freedom of speech then and you can't argue that it is not. You can't say the 2nd is "not real" because you don't like that it gives you the right to own a "thing" - that is not a reason, it is just your opinion. And if a majority of people decide that atheists should not have the right of free speech or allowed to run free on the street or own property, well then, you would just go right along with it because you are a law-abiding citizen. right?

It is people like you that allow countries with governments like the USSR, Cuba and Hitler's Germany to exist.

Not all rights are unalienable rights, and the right to bear assault weapons is not an unalienable right, nor was it written in the Constitution as one of the unalienable rights.

[carpedm9587]

So in other words you don't believe in rights at all. They are just some agreed upon privileges. So the right to own guns is just as much a right as freedom of speech then and you can't argue that it is not. You can't say the 2nd is "not real" because you don't like that it gives you the right to own a "thing" - that is not a reason, it is just your opinion. And if a majority of people decide that atheists should not have the right of free speech or allowed to run free on the street or own property, well then, you would just go right along with it because you are a law-abiding citizen. right?

It is people like you that allow countries with governments like the USSR, Cuba and Hitler's Germany to exist.

I do believe in rights. I believe freedom of speech is a fundamental right. I also believe that the power of the government derives from the people. So if the people elect to "burn away" one of their fundamental rights, they are going to do so, because they are where "government" derives its power. When/if that happens, this will cease to be the country I want to live in - and I will move elsewhere. I will not take arms against the people when they are putting in place the government they apparently want.

You guys certainly do like your mocking emojis...

[carpedm9587]

They can't deprive you of property without due process. but that implies that you have a right to own property in the first place.

Yes - I have the right to "own things." I do not have an inherent right to own a specific thing. I just have the right to "personal property."

Owning property is a fundamental right that we recognize.

Correct

Many countries don't allow that right.

Also correct

They need no due process because you don't own anything. They do.

Also correct

Your argument that there is no right to own "things" is invalid.

Incorrect. My point was that we do not have an inherent right to own "Thing X." For example, because I have a right to "own things," does not incur on me the right to own a nuclear bomb. It does not incur on me the right to own a strain of the ebola virus. I also do not, as you have said yourself several times, have an inherent right to own a car. Indeed, almost any time the parallel is made between gun ownership and car ownership, the response almost invariably comes back "you don't have a constitutional right to own a car."

You are confusing the right of private property with the right to own "that specific thing."

So if the people determine that gun ownership is a danger and the laws change accordingly, they do not have the right to simply seize your guns (you do, after all own them) without just compensation and without due process of law. THAT is what the 5th says.

[carpedm9587]

The right to own property is a globally recognized right.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-decla...-human-rights/

All correct - and none of what I have said refutes this. You are, again, confusing the right to "have personal property" with the right to "own this specific object." Nothing in the constitution gives me the right to own anything I want. There are things civilians are prohibited from owning, for just cause. The constitution simple say, what we DO own cannot be taken without due process and/or just compensation. I come back, again, to the oft repeated "you don't have a constitutional right to own a car." That is correct. But if I DO own a car, I have the constitutional right to keep my car...excepting due process and just compensation.