 |
|
09-20-2019, 11:00 AM
|
#61
|
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
Any "constitutional right" that you might have cannot infringe upon anyone ELSE'S 'constitutional rights'. And possessing a gun without proper training is exactly such an infringement...IMO.
|
We already have laws that say you can't shoot people.
How're they working out for ya?
You think some more laws with lesser punishment will do better?
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 11:02 AM
|
#62
|
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
Driving motor vehicles is not a "right", but a privilege. It is a privilege granted to you by the generosity of the State. As a privilege it can be regulated and/or denied.
|
As long as you drive on public roads.
But on your own property, you are free to drive however you want to.
That is why it is a privilege to use the public roads.
It is a lot like postingher at PA.....it is a privilege.
You have the right to free speech but here, you have to agree to TOS to post. Because PA owns the place.
A fact many here fail to grasp.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Last edited by Tom; 09-20-2019 at 11:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 11:15 AM
|
#63
|
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP
same dude essentially said tax meat like its cigarettes to force societal change.
we all just need to assimilate, the quicker the better, will solve everything.
|
Andrew Yang....
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 02:15 PM
|
#64
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,569
|
__________________
"Theory is knowledge that doesn't work. Practice is when everything works and you don't know why."
-- Hermann Hesse
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 02:28 PM
|
#65
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Duh, freedom of speech is a right. But it too as well as the second amendment has limitations. Yelling fire in a movie theater is the abuse of that right when it endangers others.
Murdering someone with a ak47 or any other firearm is an abuse of owning a weapon. Preventing the slaughter citizens is the point of any discussion of the 2nd amendment.
Btw, Trump is fighting a lawsuit by claiming his Crimes Can't Be Investigated While President. So therefore if he does really shoot and kills someone on 5th avenue in broad daylight using say an AK-47, you are correct.
Now according to Trump the 2nd amendment has no limitations for him.  |
Yelling fire in a theater is not protected free speech. Remember, you said "rights" are not absolute and there can be limitations. Yelling fire is one of those limitations and does not qualify as the "right" of freedom of speech.
Hitting someone with a baseball bat is abuse of owning the baseball bat. Hitting someone with a tire iron is abuse of owning a tire iron. Isn't in the best interest to keep people from hitting other people with bats and tire irons that inflict grave, serious injuries and also death?
Of course that is why we have laws prohibiting such behavior and we have laws which prohibit shooting people.
Your President Trump example is ridiculous. The issue of charging of sitting president with a crime has been discussed ad nauseum. The short answer is a sitting President can be charged with a crime. Also, your example would support formal impeachment.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
Last edited by Show Me the Wire; 09-20-2019 at 02:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 02:30 PM
|
#66
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
|
The polls asked two different questions.
There's nothing wrong per se with stricter gun control laws as long as they don't infringe on law-abiding citizens' inalienable right to self-defense. However, I am wary of more laws, most especially on the federal level because laws have no inherent power to regulate morality. Plus federal laws would usurp sovereign states' rights. Unless, of course, the states could opt to do what sanctuary states do with federal laws on immigration and choose to ignore them.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 02:32 PM
|
#67
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
As long as you drive on public roads.
But on your own property, you are free to drive however you want to.
That is why it is a privilege to use the public roads.
It is a lot like postingher at PA.....it is a privilege.
You have the right to free speech but here, you have to agree to TOS to post. Because PA owns the place.
A fact many here fail to grasp.
|
The State can regulate even on private property. People are routinely charged and convicted for operating a motor vehicle, even lawn mowers, on private property under the under the influence statutes e.g. DUI, DWI etc.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 02:34 PM
|
#68
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
|
Let's see how much support actually exists for a Constitutional Amendment. I have a feeling not much.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 02:42 PM
|
#69
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
The polls asked two different questions.
There's nothing wrong per se with stricter gun control laws as long as they don't infringe on law-abiding citizens' inalienable right to self-defense. However, I am wary of more laws, most especially on the federal level because laws have no inherent power to regulate morality. Plus federal laws would usurp sovereign states' rights. Unless, of course, the states could opt to do what sanctuary states do with federal laws on immigration and choose to ignore them.
|
Compliments on your insight about legislating morality. The left consistently of the position you cannot regulate morality, but that is what the left actually wants.
Yes, both thask and hcap are arguing to regulate ownership through the moral use of private property.
As you rightly pointed out the State has already passed laws regulating behavior and no new laws are needed. The problem with laws is for them to work they need voluntary compliance. You only have compliance if people have a moral compass and laws do not install moral compasses. Just ask the left, morals can't be legislated.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 02:56 PM
|
#70
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
Let's see how much support actually exists for a Constitutional Amendment. I have a feeling not much.
|
That wouldn't make it to first base and the left knows it. An amendment to the Constitution is a non-starter, as far as the left is concerned. This is why Beto, for example, is talking statutory rules for gun confiscation. He doesn't give a rat's patut for the Constitution. He's just another moral relativist who thinks his moral superiority to the masses justifies any means to his end.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 03:13 PM
|
#71
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
To all who would give up essential Liberty for safety.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
And don't give me that b.s. the quote is out of context. The quote demonstrates the tensions between government powers and individual liberties.
When it comes to "rights" we should err on the side of liberty.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 04:15 PM
|
#72
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,569
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
Compliments on your insight about legislating morality. The left consistently of the position you cannot regulate morality, but that is what the left actually wants.
Yes, both thask and hcap are arguing to regulate ownership through the moral use of private property.
As you rightly pointed out the State has already passed laws regulating behavior and no new laws are needed. The problem with laws is for them to work they need voluntary compliance. You only have compliance if people have a moral compass and laws do not install moral compasses. Just ask the left, morals can't be legislated.
|
The only argument that I am making is that there should be background checks and proper training for first-time gun buyers. The reasons for such precautionary measures should be obvious. As a gun owner myself...I have no problem with people "arming" themselves. But I'd like the added comfort of knowing that the gun-toting person seated next to me knows how to use the darned thing.
__________________
"Theory is knowledge that doesn't work. Practice is when everything works and you don't know why."
-- Hermann Hesse
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 04:19 PM
|
#73
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,569
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
To all who would give up essential Liberty for safety.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
And don't give me that b.s. the quote is out of context. The quote demonstrates the tensions between government powers and individual liberties.
When it comes to "rights" we should err on the side of liberty.
|
Why didn't you supply the same quote when GW Bush enacted the Patriot Act?
__________________
"Theory is knowledge that doesn't work. Practice is when everything works and you don't know why."
-- Hermann Hesse
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 04:33 PM
|
#74
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
The only argument that I am making is that there should be background checks and proper training for first-time gun buyers. The reasons for such precautionary measures should be obvious. As a gun owner myself...I have no problem with people "arming" themselves. But I'd like the added comfort of knowing that the gun-toting person seated next to me knows how to use the darned thing.
|
You want to regulate the moral use of a fire arm for the safety for others. The only reason for a background checks is to determine the moral character of the proposed owner for the safety of others and you want to treat a "right" as a regulated privilege for the safety of others.
We have precautionary measures for privileges, i.e driver's license exams, car safety emissions tests, etc, not for "rights"
I can explain to you the concept of a "right" an essential Liberty. If you don't understand the difference between a "right", which is not subject to government regulations for safety reasons and a privilege, which is subject to government regulations for safety reasons and why people defend against the erosion of right, I am sorry.
You may want to voluntary erode your "rights", but other people do not. And other people wanting to protect their "rights", protect the "rights" of others.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
09-20-2019, 04:39 PM
|
#75
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
Why didn't you supply the same quote when GW Bush enacted the Patriot Act?
|
Do you know I didn't? If you have been paying attention, I consistently support the protection of Constitutional "rights".
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
Last edited by Show Me the Wire; 09-20-2019 at 04:40 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
