The Core Problem to Murder by Firearms

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Tom

Well, killing them sure is not going to help them.
Maybe we take them away and throw the failed moms in prison and make them WORK there to earn the money to take care of THEIR children.

Or just abort them.

Between the moms and the kids, kids don't deserve it - they might turn out alright. The moms are already losers and of no value to society. Probably save us all money to just dispose of them.

Would certainly stop continuing irresponsible behavior. Non-existence is the best deterrent as that person will never commit the same act again.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by JerryBoyle

Man, what do you hope to acheive with posts like this? 1 sentence in and you're flaming an entire group of people. It can't be to try and effect change or reason with another side. What happened to you that you're so bitter? Is it to gain rep points from everyone on the site who thinks like you? Don't worry, they're very firmly in your camp. The off topic section here is unhinged on all ends - I won't say both, because it's not a simple left/right thing.

You give me too much credit. I didn't write the article.

But what don't like about the article, specifically? Perhaps everything...because the author makes too much sense?

[JerryBoyle]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You give me too much credit. I didn't write the article.

But what don't like about the article, specifically? Perhaps everything...because the author makes too much sense?

Didn't read the article. Was referring to your commentary before the article

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

What about the mother who doesn't want the child after it is born? Maybe we do have too many child abuse cases, because immature and irresponsible people lack a moral compass?

Who insured children were getting proper care at home, before social workers? As you said since the advent of social workers there are too many abuse cases and they can't keep up. Why? Social workers enable irresponsible behavior. Is it because without irresponsible behavior there is no need for social work?

Do you recommend continuing to let irresponsible people continue in their ways and force the product of their irresponsibility upon others?

I am just a horseplayer...so, I don't recommend anything other than what pertains to handicapping horses. But when I hear simplistic answers being given to complicated questions...I can't help but chime in with an occasional opinion, now and then. And my opinion here is that abortion is a very complicated issue...and it cannot be addressed by having emotionally-charged arguments dictating policy. Yes...it's a lamentable act to terminate a pregnancy. But if we start pondering the "illegality" of abortion...then we must also give some thought to the problems associated with the upbringing of a huge number of unwanted children.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am just a horseplayer...so, I don't recommend anything other than what pertains to handicapping horses. But when I hear simplistic answers being given to complicated questions...I can't help but chime in with an occasional opinion, now and then. And my opinion here is that abortion is a very complicated issue...and it cannot be addressed by having emotionally-charged arguments dictating policy. Yes...it's a lamentable act to terminate a pregnancy. But if we start pondering the "illegality" of abortion...then we must also give some thought to the problems associated with the upbringing of a huge number of unwanted children.

Maybe we should consider the cause of the problem? The cause of irresponsible behavior leading to problems associated with the upbringing of unwanted children.

Maybe people have to learn about cause and effect and consequences of actions and that a society through social workers and programs are going to make it all better no matter how many times the same mistake is made?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am just a horseplayer...so, I don't recommend anything other than what pertains to handicapping horses. But when I hear simplistic answers being given to complicated questions...I can't help but chime in with an occasional opinion, now and then. And my opinion here is that abortion is a very complicated issue...and it cannot be addressed by having emotionally-charged arguments dictating policy. Yes...it's a lamentable act to terminate a pregnancy. But if we start pondering the "illegality" of abortion...then we must also give some thought to the problems associated with the upbringing of a huge number of unwanted children.

I have never pondered the "illegality" of abortion. It's simply immoral, therefore, bad law on the face of it.

But I'm glad that you can be such cool,calm, collected and an all-together cucumber when considering the cruel slaughter of that "huge number of unwanted" innocent children who are the most weakest and vulnerable to the depravity of men. It must be nice to have ice flowing through your veins.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have never pondered the "illegality" of abortion. It's simply immoral, therefore, bad law on the face of it.

But I'm glad that you can be such cool,calm, collected and an all-together cucumber when considering the cruel slaughter of that "huge number of unwanted" innocent children who are the most weakest and vulnerable to the depravity of men. It must be nice to have ice flowing through your veins.

If you really knew me...then you would realize how far from being "as cool as a cucumber" I am. But I know my limitations...and consider it folly to obsess about things that are out of my control. My heart bleeds due to the injustices of the world...and I do what I can on a personal level to help things along. But great social change is beyond my means at the present time...and I applaud those with more time and influence at their disposal than I currently have.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If you really knew me...then you would realize how far from being "as cool as a cucumber" I am. But I know my limitations...and consider it folly to obsess about things that are out of my control. My heart bleeds due to the injustices of the world...and I do what I can on a personal level to help things along. But great social change is beyond my means at the present time...and I applaud those with more time and influence at their disposal than I currently have.

Thankfully, Christ's Church pushes back against the murder of the innocents, and I'm thankful to God for his grace that makes me want to be part of that noble, just and righteous effort -- an effort that is real social justice -- justice for those who have no voice, who cannot speak up for themselves.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Really hcap. I really don't want to discuss abortion. I want to discuss your inconsistent position on "rights".

In all seriousness, is it not inconsistent on your part to support limiting "rights" you do not support, while expecting "rights" you support to be unlimited?

Why not discuss "The Core Problem to Murder by Firearms"?

As I pointed out ALL OF THIS was already discussed here in detail, and on the WALMART thread in detail. Particularly Justice Scalia in his decision specifically ...

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

So Heller did not limit military style weapons, but drew reasonable boundaries around all weapons. Therefore it is not I who is being inconsistent at all as far as the 2nd amendment goes. It is you 2nd amendment literalists who are, and worse, refuse to discuss the crucial MURDER part of this thread. So cut the artificial distinctions between "rights" and "privileges" and stop diverting off point of the severe damage weapons do. Yeah, I prefer using weapons instead of firearms. Let's not pussyfoot around what they really are and do.

BTW, you never answered my question about differences between rights and privileges as applied practically. Do states draw up gun control rights, privileges, or what?

Clarify, Do State laws pertain to gun privileges, or rights?

You said:

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

"Rights" are only lost through Due Process, not government legislation treating "rights" the same as State granted privileges.

I should add Constitutional "rights" can be changed via Constitutional Amendments.

Can states perform Due Process or is it only a federal process? In other words do states have the "right" to enact gun legislation. Or grant privileges?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Why not discuss "The Core Problem to Murder by Firearms"?

As I pointed out ALL OF THIS was already discussed here in detail, and on the WALMART thread in detail. Particularly Justice Scalia in his decision specifically ...
So Heller did not limit military style weapons, but drew reasonable boundaries around all weapons. Therefore it is not I who is being inconsistent at all as far as the 2nd amendment goes. It is you 2nd amendment literalists who are, and worse, refuse to discuss the crucial MURDER part of this thread. So cut the artificial distinctions between "rights" and "privileges" and stop diverting off point of the severe damage weapons do. Yeah, I prefer using weapons instead of firearms. Let's not pussyfoot around what they really are and do.

BTW, you never answered my question about differences between rights and privileges as applied practically. Do states draw up gun control rights, privileges, or what?

Clarify, Do State laws pertain to gun privileges, or rights?

You said:
Can states perform Due Process or is it only a federal process? In other words do states have the "right" to enact gun legislation. Or grant privileges?

You should be the last one to complain about someone not answering your questions.

Is self-protection/self-defense an inalienable right?

What is your definition of "privilege" and "right?

You've stated early on that all societies need rules, and I asked you why that would be since most liberals believe that man is basically good?

Ducking tough questions is your trademark, Mr. Empty Suit.

P.S. I forgot one other question: Let's say the Feds usurp states' rights and federalize gun ownership, would you be okay with the states ignoring federal rule and becoming gun sanctuary states and relying on their own laws instead?

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap:


The error. It is not most "rights" that are unlimited, it is all "rights", including "rights" found under privacy "rights"

Of course States have to follow Due Process, but I don't think it you are using the term correctly.

Simply, put, Due Process means your "rights" cannot be taken away without a fair Constitutional process.

Have to leave.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

hcap:


The error. It is not most "rights" that are unlimited, it is all "rights", including "rights" found under privacy "rights"

Of course States have to follow Due Process, but I don't think it you are using the term correctly.

Simply, put, Due Process means your "rights" cannot be taken away without a fair Constitutional process.

Have to leave.

I maintain it is of no consequence practically whether a state legislates gun control laws, as to whether those laws are a right or privilege. The states have erected rational, and in many cases workable fences around gun ownership and use. As per Heller.

If Heller had totally transformed the 2nd amendment, as you constitutional literalness claim, we wouldn't see actual examples in the real world and be able to evaluate and decide on choices for those fences.

Practically it makes no difference when one must stay within those fences, whether we label them inalienable, or a granted privilege.

You may be correct in the letter of the law, but the mutual agreement of citizens recognizing their commonwealth, is the spirit of the law.

I mentioned it is unusual for me to champion state rights, but considering our current "Abraham Trump", a million light years from the original Abraham, has tried to blow up the federal norms of government, the states may be a legal and correct way to set things straight.

Hopefully for the Trumpites, there is no modern day version of the play.."Our American Cousin" and a modern day actor John Wilkes Booth

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You should be the last one to complain about someone not answering your questions.

I have not ducked anything. I have tried to bring the conversation back to the "murder", in the title of this thread.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What person in his/her right mind would oppose a background check on a gun purchase?

The reason is simple. All of the information you must provide — on a so-called 4473 form — is not used to properly check the purchaser. Instead of using a person’s exact name, the government looks for phonetically similar names. Using roughly phonetically-similar names and birthdates does not make a reliable system.

Over the years, these “false positives” have added up to several million people. That is several million people who were denied their basic human right of self-defense.

Here’s Why A Universal Background Check Law Would Be Bad

I have a friend who flies frequently and who is regularly stopped and thoroughly searched at airports before being allowed to proceed through to the boarding area. His last name is Gray; he is an American citizen; he is a retired NYC language teacher (Spanish - 30 yrs.); he has mild autism and some physical challenges. Mr. Gray asked why he is stopped/delayed so often. He was told his name is on the "list" as a potential security "threat."

So, how did HIS "false positive" happen?? Mr. Gray hasn't legally fought the issue, yet; he just arrives at the airport several hours earlier than he would normally have to.

Presently, background checks are conducted on those who purchase firearms through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Of those who are rejected, the vast majority are “false positives,” meaning they are mistaken for prohibited people and wrongly denied a purchase.

If you’re being stalked or if your life has been threatened and you need to obtain a gun quickly to protect yourself or your loved ones, that problem can be very dangerous, and potentially lethal.

Here’s Why A Universal Background Check Law Would Be Bad

It is probably best if one fully understands the current gun background-check laws before ignorantly demanding more.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

I maintain it is of no consequence practically whether a state legislates gun control laws, as to whether those laws are a right or privilege. The states have erected rational, and in many cases workable fences around gun ownership and use. As per Heller.

If Heller had totally transformed the 2nd amendment, as you constitutional literalness claim, we wouldn't see actual examples in the real world and be able to evaluate and decide on choices for those fences.

Practically it makes no difference when one must stay within those fences, whether we label them inalienable, or a granted privilege.

You may be correct in the letter of the law, but the mutual agreement of citizens recognizing their commonwealth, is the spirit of the law.

I mentioned it is unusual for me to champion state rights, but considering our current "Abraham Trump", a million light years from the original Abraham, has tried to blow up the federal norms of government, the states may be a legal and correct way to set things straight.

Hopefully for the Trumpites, there is no modern day version of the play.."Our American Cousin" and a modern day actor John Wilkes Booth

I believe there is a miscommunication. It is a fact the Court ruled, as it was understood prior to the ruling, that the 2nd amendment is a right for individuals to bear arms. You do see real examples State laws have been struck down as unconstitutional.

The other miscommunication is about standards. Standards should be applied evenly. If it is an objective standard that "rights" can be limited or the need for peer-review. Standards cannot shift due to subjective feelings, if they do they are not standards. If you want to apply standards to others, you have to accept the application of the same standard to you. The "rights" you champion are subject to limitation too and many States are putting limitations on a certain privacy "right". so prepare yourself for the Court to uphold these limitations as the legal standard is "rights" are not limited.