Gun regulations and libertarianism - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14817581
Drlee wrote:So let's see. You reference a SCOTUS decision to define its own authority as the authority for why they do not have authority. :eek:

Congress has shown that it believes firmly that the right of people to keep and bear arms is not inviolable. For example, it prohibits the carrying of firearms on most federal installations, commercial aircraft, across international borders and much more.

Just this year the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a case that upheld a states rights to limit or ban concealed carry. Ultra conservative justice Scalia has written that a person's right to bear arms does not confer the right to carry on everywhere.


Yup, you pretty much got it.
#14817586
@47 Knucklehead

Just so you know, the moderators prefer posters to combine posts, rather than post two or more individually. If you look in the upper right side you'll see an icon that looks like a wheel and a downward pointing arrow. It will lead you to a menu that let's you edit your own posts.

Hope that helps for future posting
#14817599
Stormsmith wrote:@47 Knucklehead

Just so you know, the moderators prefer posters to combine posts, rather than post two or more individually. If you look in the upper right side you'll see an icon that looks like a wheel and a downward pointing arrow. It will lead you to a menu that let's you edit your own posts.

Hope that helps for future posting


Noted.

I generally try to do that, but when I'm getting questions/comments from multiple people in a relatively short period of time (well, for me, who doesn't log in but maybe a couple times a day and don't want to spend a ton of time here), sometimes I slip.

I do have a question about the board code though ... when I combine posts, and quote 2 seperate people, do both people still get the notification, or just the first/last one?
#14817607
47 Knucklehead wrote:I adressed his point.

What question from last night?

This one ...


"Either you dodged it, or you don't understand it. I am asking:

- Given that you believe that the state can hold someone indefinitely if they are deemed to much of a danger to society,
- and given that holding someone prisoner indefinitely is a suspension of almost all of their rights,
- why is it not permissible for the state to suspend only some rights, namely the right to purchase/own a gun?"

The state already has the right to hold someone indefinitely. That right was granted to them because there is really no mention of "crime and punishment" in the Constitution beyond certain crimes, like Treason, Piracy, etc. thus the 10th Amendment applies, which as you SURELY know reads ... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Thus, as you can clearly see, since there is nothing much about crime and punishment in the Constitution, it is up to the States or The People. States have and can elect to hold people indefinitely and thus CAN if they so desire, totally eliminate Parole.

The reason why it can't be done for the Second Amendment is because the Constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms via the Constitution, the the 10th Amendment doesn't apply. And since the Constitution trumps State law, one state can't say "you don't have a right to keep and bear arms" because of the 2nd Amendments. Just like one state can't say "Women and Blacks can't vote" because of the 15th and 19th Amendments.

Understand now?


47 Knucklehead, I still think you don't understand what I'm asking.

Your argument only demonstrates that federal and state governments cannot pass legislation that takes away the right to keep and bear arms. I agree with that. However, that's not the point of contention here. Where we disagree is whether or not regulations on the use of a right are indeed a violation of that right. Your argument says nothing about that issue.

Earlier, you said that indefinite imprisonment is:

1) A suspension of a person's rights

2) Morally and legally permissible if said person is deemed a threat to public safety

But this is totally inconsistent with your view that constitutional rights trump all laws, state or federal. According to your fundamentalist and literalist reading of the constitution, it is impossible to justify any kind of imprisonment whatsoever. And even if you can, it seems as though you are compelled to believe, by your own reasoning above, that prisoners must not be prevented from owning a gun!

You still haven't given any satisfactory answers as to why a private citizen should not be allowed to own nukes.
#14817633
The state already has the right to hold someone indefinitely. That right was granted to them because there is really no mention of "crime and punishment" in the Constitution beyond certain crimes, like Treason, Piracy, etc.


Really?

Did your dog eat the 8th amendment?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[


So your contention that the states have the right to hold someone forever for whatever reason they may construct is not true. In the very short statement (above) the constitution speaks volumes about crime and punishment. Indeed it is, some would say, after the first amendment the most important part of the bill of rights. It does far more to protect you than all of the firearms you may delude yourself into believing make you safer.
#14817645
47 Knucklehead wrote:I do have a question about the board code though ... when I combine posts, and quote 2 seperate people, do both people still get the notification, or just the first/last one?


I presume so, you could ask in the basement, or we could test this ourselves. I've quoted you above, I'll quote me below and let you know if I'm also notified.

Stormsmith wrote:Hope that helps for future posting
#14817651
47 Knucklehead wrote:Would you care to rephrase your question? Especially if you are talking to me.

Machinery by definition isn't "The People" as is another founding document that starts off with "We The People ...".

I never once said that journalists or "news media" (again, assuming you are talking about actual people, and not a $40k ENG camera or a $125,000 news van) should or shouldn't have the right to protect themselves.

I'm just trying to make sense of your analogy. "A well regulated militia" clearly refers to a group of people and isn't comparable to breakfast cereal.
#14817700
AFAIK wrote:I'm just trying to make sense of your analogy. "A well regulated militia" clearly refers to a group of people and isn't comparable to breakfast cereal.


Yes it is. It goes to the whole sentense structure and the proper use and focus of a coma in the English language.

I've seen similar examples using books, etc. Basically anything other than "arms" and more to the point talking about how the first group is the one to be the "well regulated" part and the second group mentioned (ie The People) are the ones NOT to be infringed.

Just basic English.


Drlee wrote:Really?

Did your dog eat the 8th amendment?

So your contention that the states have the right to hold someone forever for whatever reason they may construct is not true. In the very short statement (above) the constitution speaks volumes about crime and punishment. Indeed it is, some would say, after the first amendment the most important part of the bill of rights. It does far more to protect you than all of the firearms you may delude yourself into believing make you safer.


Nope.

There is no excessive bail. There is no excessive fines. There was a trial. There are appeals. I'm leaving the pardon system in place for Governors and the president. There is no cruel and unusual punishment (ie no hanging by your thumbs, etc.) It is the same jail regardless if you are serving 20 years or 90 years.



Saeko wrote:47 Knucklehead, I still think you don't understand what I'm asking.

Your argument only demonstrates that federal and state governments cannot pass legislation that takes away the right to keep and bear arms. I agree with that. However, that's not the point of contention here. Where we disagree is whether or not regulations on the use of a right are indeed a violation of that right. Your argument says nothing about that issue.

Earlier, you said that indefinite imprisonment is:

1) A suspension of a person's rights

2) Morally and legally permissible if said person is deemed a threat to public safety

But this is totally inconsistent with your view that constitutional rights trump all laws, state or federal. According to your fundamentalist and literalist reading of the constitution, it is impossible to justify any kind of imprisonment whatsoever. And even if you can, it seems as though you are compelled to believe, by your own reasoning above, that prisoners must not be prevented from owning a gun!

You still haven't given any satisfactory answers as to why a private citizen should not be allowed to own nukes.


You say government can't take away a persons right to own a gun, and yet they do, in clear violation the the 2nd Amendment. You seem to think that imposing conditions on buying a gun, like a 7 day to 6 month waiting period is acceptable, when CLEARLY the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" that IS an infringement.

Now, you want to talk about my stance on punishment for a crime. Fine. But let me get right to the MAJOR DIFFERENCE and where YOUR LOGIC is totally flawed.

I am talking about a person who has NOT BEEN CHARGED, MUCH LESS CONVICTED OF A CRIME, being inconvienced by rules and regulations that is costing them time and money (or flat out denying their Constitutional Right).

Compare THAT to a person who has been through the due process system of being arrested, charged, seen a judge, applied for bail, had a grand jury summoned, a trial, appeals, etc.

It SHOULD BE painfully obvious to everyone that the two aren't similar. One has comitted no crime and the other has.


As far as your argument, which is the same stupid one that most anti-gun people bring up Reductio ad absurdum, I'll say that same thing I say to all the others who go with that absurd example. I think under the currnt 2nd Amendment, we should be able to buy nukes. I can go out right now and by a fully function TANK, pretty much without a license. That includes the main gun (but not the coaxial machine guns, those fall under the Title II law, which I disagree with, and require the $200 tax stamp). Now, under existing law, the AMMO for that main gun is considered a "destructive device" and can still be gotten, but EACH ROUND has to be bought, have the tax stamp, and background check etc. I think that nukes should be the same thing. If you can buy one, go for it. Don't like that? Get 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the states to CHANGE the existing 2nd Amendment. You are welcome for your weapons for your lack of education on current law and arms.


Also, I'm not saying that there should be indefinite improsonment and that we should deny all rights. I said that when you go through the lengthy legal system and are finally put in jail, certain rights OBVIOUSLY have to be lost (ie you can't own a gun in prison and more importantly, you aren't free to come and go as you please), but WHEN you are let out, you get ALL YOUR RIGHTS BACK. IF you are too dangerous to re-enter society (and that will be done by multiple people making that choice), then you stay in prison. To say otherwise, is basically admitting that we intentionally let people out of jail, who aren't reformed and let them out to murder, rape, rob, and basically prey upon the weak. WOW! You have such a wonderful system there. /sarcasm

But, as I said before, there are STILL systems in place to prevent abuse ... see the pardon system by the Governor and President.

And let's get right to the heart of the matter with YOU (a self described Facist ... not to mention all the other self described Communists) and your logic ... IF you are so damn afraid of "government abusing their authority and taking away the rights of convicted criminals), why are you a Facist or Communist and support a form of government that controls its people? I'd think you'd be an Anarchist.
Last edited by 47 Knucklehead on 23 Jun 2017 15:28, edited 3 times in total.
#14817701
Stormsmith wrote:I presume so, you could ask in the basement, or we could test this ourselves. I've quoted you above, I'll quote me below and let you know if I'm also notified.


I got it.
#14817800
There is no cruel and unusual punishment (ie no hanging by your thumbs, etc.) It is the same jail regardless if you are serving 20 years or 90 years.


So let me see. You believe that putting someone in jail for 90 years for a parking ticket is not cruel. Is it not unusual?

Deeper dude. Think deeper.
#14817970
47 Knucklehead wrote:You say government can't take away a persons right to own a gun, and yet they do, in clear violation the the 2nd Amendment. You seem to think that imposing conditions on buying a gun, like a 7 day to 6 month waiting period is acceptable, when CLEARLY the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" that IS an infringement.


No, just because you keep saying something over and over again does not make it so. You need to provide reasons for why it is an infringement if you want to convince anyone of your position.

Now, you want to talk about my stance on punishment for a crime. Fine. But let me get right to the MAJOR DIFFERENCE and where YOUR LOGIC is totally flawed.

I am talking about a person who has NOT BEEN CHARGED, MUCH LESS CONVICTED OF A CRIME, being inconvienced by rules and regulations that is costing them time and money (or flat out denying their Constitutional Right).

Compare THAT to a person who has been through the due process system of being arrested, charged, seen a judge, applied for bail, had a grand jury summoned, a trial, appeals, etc.

It SHOULD BE painfully obvious to everyone that the two aren't similar. One has comitted no crime and the other has.


Well that's great, but you are exhibiting a pattern of consistently misunderstanding what conclusion an argument actually does or does not support.

My crime argument does not conclude that the two cases you refer to are equivalent, but that there exists at least one set of circumstances under which a person's right to own a gun can be taken away, and you seem to agree with this. So I'm just trying to figure out where and how you are drawing your lines for what constitutes an infringement and what doesn't.

As far as your argument, which is the same stupid one that most anti-gun people bring up Reductio ad absurdum, I'll say that same thing I say to all the others who go with that absurd example. I think under the currnt 2nd Amendment, we should be able to buy nukes. I can go out right now and by a fully function TANK, pretty much without a license. That includes the main gun (but not the coaxial machine guns, those fall under the Title II law, which I disagree with, and require the $200 tax stamp). Now, under existing law, the AMMO for that main gun is considered a "destructive device" and can still be gotten, but EACH ROUND has to be bought, have the tax stamp, and background check etc. I think that nukes should be the same thing. If you can buy one, go for it. Don't like that? Get 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the states to CHANGE the existing 2nd Amendment. You are welcome for your weapons for your lack of education on current law and arms.


Well, ok then. Why was it so hard to just say that? Now I know that you don't care how dangerous a weapon is when it comes to deciding whether or not it is protected by the 2nd amendment.

Let me ask you this. Would you allow an Islamic extremist to purchase and own a nuke in the US? How about someone with a history of mental illness?

Also, I'm not saying that there should be indefinite improsonment and that we should deny all rights. I said that when you go through the lengthy legal system and are finally put in jail, certain rights OBVIOUSLY have to be lost (ie you can't own a gun in prison and more importantly, you aren't free to come and go as you please), but WHEN you are let out, you get ALL YOUR RIGHTS BACK. IF you are too dangerous to re-enter society (and that will be done by multiple people making that choice), then you stay in prison. To say otherwise, is basically admitting that we intentionally let people out of jail, who aren't reformed and let them out to murder, rape, rob, and basically prey upon the weak. WOW! You have such a wonderful system there. /sarcasm


On what basis do you claim that the state has the authority to hold someone prisoner for crimes that they MIGHT commit?

To say otherwise, is basically admitting that we intentionally let people out of jail, who aren't reformed and let them out to murder, rape, rob, and basically prey upon the weak. WOW! You have such a wonderful system there. /sarcasm


What exactly is the problem with that, in your opinion? A thousand murderers would be nowhere near as dangerous as one lunatic with one nuke, yet you would allow a lunatic to own a nuke.

And let's get right to the heart of the matter with YOU (a self described Facist ... not to mention all the other self described Communists) and your logic ... IF you are so damn afraid of "government abusing their authority and taking away the rights of convicted criminals), why are you a Facist or Communist and support a form of government that controls its people? I'd think you'd be an Anarchist.


That question is too broad to really answer here.
#14817994
Logically, libertarians should believe that there should be no regulation at all on guns. In fact, the people should, to protect against government tyranny, have their own weapons of mass destruction.
#14818002
Logically, libertarians should believe that there should be no regulation at all on guns. In fact, the people should, to protect against government tyranny, have their own weapons of mass destruction


Well ahem.

One argument I have never heard is this:

A well ordered militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.......

The words "the people" are used in the same way as they are in "we the people". And ....reserved to the states and to the people....

So " the people as a group have the right to keep and bear arms as a member of their militia. A militia commissioned by "the people".

Discussing changing the constitution, Jefferson said it best, "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -

We live in a different world now. Even compared to my youth in the last vestiges of the wild west the day when the private toting of a firearm has come and gone. Only a complete idiot would believe that someone ought to be allowed to carry a firearm without proper training in how to use it, and extensive background check and a good reason to do it.

But I am used to stupidity. I an surrounded by it.

Note to liberals. Stop fucking with the cops. The problem with police shootings is not bad cops...It is that they run into so many fuck heads with guns that they are naturally hyper defensive.

Time to get the guns off of the street. The average IQ is the US is 98. I doubt there are many avid gun toters who are much higher than this.
#14827194
DrLee wrote: One argument I have never heard is this:

A well ordered militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.......

The words "the people" are used in the same way as they are in "we the people". And ....reserved to the states and to the people....

So " the people as a group have the right to keep and bear arms as a member of their militia. A militia commissioned by "the people".


I see the chain of your logic, but then we look at the rest of the BoR which address individual rights, not "group rights" (which don't exist). When the Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering soldiers in private homes without the owner's permission, are they talking about a group of homeowners or an individual? When the First Amendment says Congress can't infringe on speech, is that the speech of a group of people or an individual? What is a group but a collection of individuals? You can't have the former without the latter. To say that government is prohibited from infringing on your rights as long as you're a member of an approved group seems to completely undermine the entire exercise.

I cannot see the logic that claims that the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals, but the rest of them do.

Note to liberals. Stop fucking with the cops. The problem with police shootings is not bad cops...It is that they run into so many fuck heads with guns that they are naturally hyper defensive.


I'm not a liberal, but the problem is, in large part, bad cops. Or if you prefer, improperly-trained cops. Or cops who are ex-military and thus see anybody not wearing a uniform as The Enemy. The job attracts authoritarians and bullies, it's the nature of the beast.
#14827197
When the First Amendment says Congress can't infringe on speech, is that the speech of a group of people or an individual?


Both. In the same amendment it mentions both.

What is a group but a collection of individuals? You can't have the former without the latter. To say that government is prohibited from infringing on your rights as long as you're a member of an approved group seems to completely undermine the entire exercise.


:eh: Ahh. No.

That is not what anyone is saying. You are assuming that arms are an individual right in the first place. The argument is that it is not. In that case we are not talking about a right but rather a power.

Clearly there are groups that have powers that individuals do not have. Judges for example. Congresspeople. There are many.

I cannot see the logic that claims that the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals, but the rest of them do.


Who made that argument? Clearly the first amendment applies to both individuals and groups.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


Applies to individuals and groups.

or abridging the freedom of speech,


Applies to individuals or groups.

or of the press;


Normally groups

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble


Obviously both. Spoken to protect groups of people.

and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Individual. (Often expressed by groups)

I am not certain what you are trying to say?
#14878974
Another sterile and worthless ''Conservative/Libertarian'' versus ''Liberal'' debate on guns, as with other issues. People have a right to self-defense sure, but the main reason for the Second Amendment is for the People to constitute a revolutionary check on the government, period. The People should have the means of overthrowing a tyrannical elite at any time. Therefore as a true Socialist and Leftist, I fully support the NRA and other gun lobbies and reasonably regulated private ownership of bearing arms, and the ability to form People's Militias to safeguard freedom in America.
#14880199
annatar1914 wrote:Therefore as a true Socialist and Leftist, I fully support the NRA and other gun lobbies and reasonably regulated private ownership of bearing arms, and the ability to form People's Militias to safeguard freedom in America.


Fascinating and Oddly consistent.

I am curious though, would you support a violent revolution? Or would you prefer a non-violent resistance sort of approach.

What is your view of Just-War theory? I have heard that many Eastern theologians oppose St. Augustine's formulation, but it seems hard for Christians to justify violent revolution without it as theological construct.

Thanks.
#14880203
annatar1914 wrote:Another sterile and worthless ''Conservative/Libertarian'' versus ''Liberal'' debate on guns, as with other issues. People have a right to self-defense sure, but the main reason for the Second Amendment is for the People to constitute a revolutionary check on the government, period. The People should have the means of overthrowing a tyrannical elite at any time. Therefore as a true Socialist and Leftist, I fully support the NRA and other gun lobbies and reasonably regulated private ownership of bearing arms, and the ability to form People's Militias to safeguard freedom in America.


I would go farther and say that the working class should have all the same weapons that the government has, including tanks, artillery, and weapons of mass destruction. And the reason for this is, as you say, to constitute a revolutionary check on the government.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Also, why is everything based upon death and rebir[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyZC4Dpe1CY

Syrian war thread

Suspected 9/11 recruiter Mohammed Haydar Zammar c[…]

Nice example is Chechnya. After independence de-f[…]