[47 Knucklehead]

Correct. I don't believe in parole. In very special cases, I would be willing to entertain probation (before judgement). To me, prison is about punishment.

'What part of "well regulated" don't you understand?' None of it, I understand it fully. Both from a founding fathers perspective (ie The Federalist Papers), from the Supreme Court point of view, as well as from an English language structure point of view ... which clearly states that the "well regulated" part applies to "The Militia", not "The People" part.

Or put another way ...

[Drlee]

My gun license isn't a "luxury item", it's an infringement to a right. A gun is a THING, just like a Bible or a book. A thing that is Constitutionally protected to have.

Here is a perfect example of why the right finds it so easy to manipulate its followers using essentially non-issues like reasonable gun control laws. This statement is extremely shallow. It represents what passes for "logic" on the far right. Of course the author fails to see that the founders did not protect books because they are things. They protected them because they are speech. Speech is not a thing. It is the free exchange of ideas.

The founders did not protect weapons because they are "things". Like most who take a very superficial view of our constitution this gun owner completely ignores "a well organized militia..." and what that means. It would never occur to them to consider this.

They go on further with this kind of nonsense:

I think that's part of the problem whats next? You know "they" will not stop or be satisfied with "reasonable" gun laws.

YOU are "they". If you embraced the the notion of representational democracy you would have no fear of yourself and respect for the views of others. That is OK though. I don't trust you either.

Then there is this shallow nonsense:

There shouldn't BE any "administrative fees" that is an infringement, which we have already covered a million times over.

Nonsense. There is a sales tax on guns. Is that an infringement? Does the fact that you pay income and property tax constitute infringement because they prevent you from buying more guns.

The fact is that I do not trust you to own guns. Your posts show a disdain for the rule of law and a lack of judgment. I am not in the minority here.

I own guns and have been comprehensively trained in their use. But then I belonged to the best "well ordered militia" in the world for many years.

Much stricter gun control is coming. It may be a few years. When it happens just remember to blame yourself. "The people" are getting fed up with the violence.

[Hong Wu]

I think that without American gun culture, there wouldn't be a strong American military. The two are pretty much intertwined.

Without the American military, Russians, Muslims and possibly even people like the Japanese would overrun the west and that would be the end of western liberalism.

So basically the guns these people hate are fairly obviously responsible for them having the freedom to act like they do.

Certainly, there are countries that don't allow gun ownership and still have some military presence but these countries don't have western culture. If America had the European attitude towards weaponry, we could expect America to have a European level of a military presence.

[Saeko]

I didn't dodge the question. I clearly said what I meant in my initial statement. If you are put in prison for a crime, when you are let out, ALL your rights are fully restored. IF you are too much of a danger to society to get all your rights out, then maybe you shouldn't be let out. How is there any ambiguity there?

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?

I maintain that gun ownership is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT and without due process can not be denied or as the wording of the Constitution says "shall not be infringed". Again, I think it is you who are having issue with reading comprehension. The whole side discussion about baseball bats was just my attempt to draw a parallel. Maybe I shouldn't confuse the issue here and just say "Owning a gun is a Constitutional RIGHT, don't like it? Change the Constitution!"

A right whose use is regulated is not one which is being denied.

The whole side discussion about baseball bats was just my attempt to draw a parallel.

Yeah, and the whole point of the nuke thing is that your parallel is fallacious. Otherwise, explain why people shouldn't be allowed to own nukes but should be allowed to own guns.

So you want to regulate a right that "shall not be infringed" ... how nice for you. What other RIGHTS to you want to mess with? Shall I mess with a womans right to vote or a black persons right to vote? Or maybe make it so that you have to pass a test and have a background check if you want to be a Muslim and worship your God the way you want? Getting my point now?

Those rights are not "being messed with". All of them can be suspended and/or regulated under certain circumstances.

There shouldn't BE any "administrative fees" that is an infringement, which we have already covered a million times over. Also, as I've said many times, in every single state where a photo ID is required to vote, if you don't already have one, then a voter ID card is issued to you FREE ... and people STILL whine and complain that is a violation of their right to vote and disenfranchises people. Running an election costs money ... all those people working there, the places have to be open, electricity, paper ballors, machines, etc. Why can't we have a "Poll tax" to try to pay for those "Administrative fees" you talk about? Oh yeah, the Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional. Why can't liberals see that the same thing happens with gun ownership.

Yeah, and blow jobs should grow on trees, and flying pigs should bring pies to your window sill.

[47 Knucklehead]

I think that since people are failing to understand the basic concept of a Constitutional Right, which right in the wording "shall not be infringed", maybe I should make it hit a little more close to home for them ... I think that if you are a woman or black, we should ignore their right to vote and not allow then to. After all, you guys want to ignore the Second Amendment, let's ignore the 15th and 19th Amendments. While we are at it, let's make voting subject to a background check, having to show ID that you have to pay for yourself, charge a $200 "tax" to get the permit, pay upwards of another $175 to get photographed, finger printed, and postage for all the various forms that have to be mailed back to multiple agencies, and basically wait 6+ months to get your Voter ID card ... just like I have to when I buy certain guns. Guns that many cities and some states don't even allow. Let's do that, and I bet that some peoples tune changes real fucking quick when someone wants to impost "reasonal regulations" on a right they care about.


The really interesting thing here I have to wonder why a self described Ideology: Fascist and Ideology: Communist and a few others are even bothering to come to the Libertarian side of things and go on a rant about gun control. Shouldn't they be doing that in their own respective sandboxes?

[mikema63]

These subforum are meant to discuss ideologies not provide an echo chamber for them.

You seem perfectly capable of defending your own beliefs. And you are welcome to discuss things in the other sub forums and provide criticisms of those ideologies.

[47 Knucklehead]

These subforum are meant to discuss ideologies not provide an echo chamber for them.

You seem perfectly capable of defending your own beliefs. And you are welcome to discuss things in the other sub forums and provide criticisms of those ideologies.

I never said it was wrong, or that I wasn't more than capable of defending my beliefs. I just simply said that I found that interesting ... and maybe they should start up a thread on their respective subforms and see how that works out.

[Hong Wu]

The disconnect here is that liberals don't like the constitution when it disagrees with them, while conservatives by nature treat it as a tradition that makes up a fundamental and simple part of their identity... to be an American is to give everyone, not just the elites, a right to be armed.

[AFAIK]

So do you interpret the first amendment to protect the right of machinery and not journalists or news media?

[47 Knucklehead]

So do you interpret the first amendment to protect the right of machinery and not journalists or news media?

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.

[Drlee]

I'm a geolibertarian and I am pretty much in line with the principles espoused by the Democratic Freedom Caucus (a geolibertarian faction of the Democratic Party) and I am in agreement with most of what they promote, but I'd like to know the range of possibilities that a libertarian can stand on gun control.

Here is something to consider. The gun argument requires that you argue from the general to the specific. If a "libertarian" believes that generally the government should not unnecessarily restrain the people then regulating guns at all is an unnecessary restraint of the people. You can see the obvious problem with this argument.

You are encountering an American belief (gun ownership) that is actually unrelated to libertarian-ism. The concept of "harm" would apply for a libertarian, would it not? Mill Said:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

That is the very definition of the purpose of gun laws. Taking Mill as an authority (and he is a very good one) you can see that it is perfectly acceptable for a libertarian to accept gun laws in service to this ideal... That they are designed to "prevent harm to others".

The American Libertarian Party said this:

Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.

So I will use the absurd arguments of others. I could argue that storing rockets in your home could involuntarily place others at significant risk of harm. A fire at your house for example could blow up the neighborhood. Therefor there is no problem with a libertarian supporting a government ban on the private ownership of explosive rockets.

But that is begging the question a little. What about the public's right to carry a pistol concealed in a crowd? I, and many others would maintain that absent very considerable training on when and how to use a firearm this action puts others at significant risk of harm. I could maintain that allowing violent criminals access to firearms DOES put others at significant risk of harm. Therefor as a libertarian I would favor limitations on who might possess a gun and where and how they might carry it.

You can see the harm principle at work in the issue of free speech as well. It is not held as absolute. Though pains are taken to not limit political and artistic speech, there ARE limits to what one might say or print. Likewise with religion. There are limits to the practice of religion. Libertarians rarely, if ever, wail as loudly about those as they do about guns.

Finally there is this. Any person's political positions ought to be viewed first through the lens of what one believes to be right and wrong. It is far less important for my beliefs to adhere to conservative talking points than it is for them to simply make logical sense. If a position makes sense then one may choose a label for ease of reference. But you are a smart person. Your intelligence is not to be used to try and fit an ideology but rather to be used for you to formulate your own. There should never be a dilemma like this:

"I do not think it is wise for untrained people to carry guns in public but I have to favor it because libertarians (and I am a libertarian) think it is a right." It is not only acceptable but also a sign of wisdom and intelligence to depart from party orthodoxy and embrace the "right" position.

[Saeko]

I think that since people are failing to understand the basic concept of a Constitutional Right, which right in the wording "shall not be infringed", maybe I should make it hit a little more close to home for them ... I think that if you are a woman or black, we should ignore their right to vote and not allow then to. After all, you guys want to ignore the Second Amendment, let's ignore the 15th and 19th Amendments. While we are at it, let's make voting subject to a background check, having to show ID that you have to pay for yourself, charge a $200 "tax" to get the permit, pay upwards of another $175 to get photographed, finger printed, and postage for all the various forms that have to be mailed back to multiple agencies, and basically wait 6+ months to get your Voter ID card ... just like I have to when I buy certain guns. Guns that many cities and some states don't even allow. Let's do that, and I bet that some peoples tune changes real fucking quick when someone wants to impost "reasonal regulations" on a right they care about.


The really interesting thing here I have to wonder why a self described Ideology: Fascist and Ideology: Communist and a few others are even bothering to come to the Libertarian side of things and go on a rant about gun control. Shouldn't they be doing that in their own respective sandboxes?

Nice rhetorical tricks, but that's all you've got in lieu of actual arguments isn't it? That won't fly around here. People on PoFo are generally a step above the rest of the internet (just one step, but hey).

As per your point, we already impose "reasonable regulations" on voting rights. For example, WOMEN and BLACKS can permanently lose the right to vote if they are convicted of some felonies, even though voting is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. So I don't know what the fuck you're on about.

[47 Knucklehead]

Nice rhetorical tricks, but that's all you've got in lieu of actual arguments isn't it? That won't fly around here. People on PoFo are generally a step above the rest of the internet (just one step, but hey).

As per your point, we already impose "reasonable regulations" on voting rights. For example, WOMEN and BLACKS can permanently lose the right to vote if they are convicted of some felonies, even though voting is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. So I don't know what the fuck you're on about.

It's not a trick, it really boils down to reality. There IS a Second Amendment, it was designed to be for The People. It is in effect.

Now if you and your ilk want to remove it, be my guest. There is a process in place to change the Constitution. But until such time as you do, it is the law of the land, just like women and blacks having the right to vote. If you want to ignore MY RIGHT to keep and bear arms, don't be suprised or angry when someone else comes to take away a right you care about. I mean if you do, then you will just be some internet hypocrite.

As far as losing voting rights (or gun rights for that matter), I have already said multiple times, when you are no longer in prison, all your rights should be restored. But let's be serious for a moment, what "reasonable regulations" are put upon people voting? Liberals have a vein burst when you have to do something that every legal gun owners has do to ... show ID. What other "reasonable regulations" are there on voting?

How about "reasonable regulations" on having a baby? How about "resonable regulations" on going to church? Should there be a "reasonable regulation" before you tell the government that they can't garrison troops in your house? The list goes on.

Why do you hate freedom so much? Or is it that you just hate freedom when it isn't an interest of yours?

[Drlee]

You do know Knucklehead, that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the federal government, states and localities can limit your possession of firearms, don't you?

[Saeko]

It's not a trick, it really boils down to reality. There IS a Second Amendment, it was designed to be for The People. It is in effect.

Now if you and your ilk want to remove it, be my guest. There is a process in place to change the Constitution. But until such time as you do, it is the law of the land, just like women and blacks having the right to vote. If you want to ignore MY RIGHT to keep and bear arms, don't be suprised or angry when someone else comes to take away a right you care about. I mean if you do, then you will just be some internet hypocrite.

As far as losing voting rights (or gun rights for that matter), I have already said multiple times, when you are no longer in prison, all your rights should be restored. But let's be serious for a moment, what "reasonable regulations" are put upon people voting? Liberals have a vein burst when you have to do something that every legal gun owners has do to ... show ID. What other "reasonable regulations" are there on voting?

No one cares whether or not you think that. The constitution does not require that all your rights be restored upon release from prison. Restrictions on voting and gun rights ARE constitutional, as Dr. Lee points out.

Why do you hate freedom so much? Or is it that you just hate freedom when it isn't an interest of yours?

Why do you hate answering questions so much? You still have not addressed any of the questions in my post from last night.

[47 Knucklehead]

You do know Knucklehead, that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the federal government, states and localities can limit your possession of firearms, don't you?

Yup, and I do not recognize their authority under the Constitution. They usurped a power not granted to them in Marbury v. Madison.

If Congress wants to give them that power, then there is a process ... the same one that there is to remove the Second Amendment ... it just takes a 2/3rds majority in both houses and ratification by 3/4ths the states. Until such time, like limitations on the Second Amendment (or any other Amendment for that matter), what SCotUS says "the Constitution means" is worthless in my opinion.

[47 Knucklehead]

No one cares whether or not you think that. The constitution does not require that all your rights be restored upon release from prison. Restrictions on voting and gun rights ARE constitutional, as Dr. Lee points out.

Why do you hate answering questions so much? You still have not addressed any of the questions in my post from last night.

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?

[Stormsmith]

Yup, and I do not recognize their authority under the Constitution. They usurped a power not granted to them in Marbury v. Madison.

If it's that cut and dried for you, why are you arguing?

[Drlee]

47 Knucklehead wrote:
Yup, and I do not recognize their authority under the Constitution. They usurped a power not granted to them in Marbury v. Madison.

So let's see. You reference a SCOTUS decision to define its own authority as the authority for why they do not have authority.

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.

[47 Knucklehead]

If it's that cut and dried for you, why are you arguing?

Why am I arguing about MvM? Because politicians lack a spine and so do many people. They don't stand up for what is right because it is hard.