and first, let me apologize for singling you out. I've found you to be quite reasonable and so I hate that you're the target here, but I THINK this might make some sense to you....
The YouTube shooter apparently had expressed anger about YouTube such that when her father found her missing (this was an adult, not a child) he didn't just report her missing, but told the police 'she might do something to YouTube'. They located her, questioned her and let her go... hours later, she shoots up YouTube.
So once again (as has happened a lot) there were advanced warnings... the police even visited her just hours before... and she was sleeping in her car hours away from home, meaning she likely had the murder weapons on her as they were questioning her....
but her rights to privacy and due process and many other things that we value in the BOR (like the 2nd) prevented the police from detaining her... despite what now 'in hind sight' seems pretty obvious.
So would you be willing to repeal the right to due process or privacy (especially say healthcare privacy) for all citizens because of this (and many other shooters)?
Lets say this person was in therapy and had a diagnosed condition like bipolar disorder... would you support companies like youtube being able to use such a diagnosis to discriminate against her in employment (or in this case I think, website traffic)?
The point I'm making is that The Constitution protects EVERYONE from actions restricting their liberty without due process. SOME people SHOULD have their rights restricted, but that needs to be done through due process. This is truly fundamental to our country.... that rights aren't taken away by the government and then given back to those the government deems worthy, but that such rights are COLLECTIVELY endowed within us and can only be infringed IF we as individuals are tried and convicted. Before someone brings out 'substantive vs specific due process', it is clear that gun owners as a whole do not in any way represent a greater threat to society such that they warrant such actions. THAT part isn't even really debatable.
So I don't have an answer... other than to somehow improve our speed and thoroughness (without being overly restrictive) when it comes to 'specific due process' when someone is remotely credibly accused of being a threat
I think lots of domestic violence victims would appreciate that as well.
Well done.........and this is the dilemma that far, far too many on the left never even consider - only interested in those freedoms they favor, take the others away.
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2018 08:32 PM by Crebman.)
(03-30-2018 09:17 PM)gdunn Wrote: There is no new second amendment. There is only one. You begin infringing on such things dickholes like you won't be allowed to speak freely cause you're not of sound mind. Or qualified. Pretty sure you're a kid trapped in a middle aged man's body.
these little weenie arse poos-balls.....
little poly-needs-a-quacker needs to listen to this before opening his yammer....
Sounds like me in my teens and early twenties. Yeah I had long hair and would fight anyone who didn't like it and wanted to make something of it. I'm too old to fight anymore - but there's truth in that song " I aint as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was" - but I'll still tell someone to go eff themselves if they don't like something about me. #notmyproblem
You do know, of course, that the entire edict of "sound mind" was used as a way to deprive black people of their right to own a gun and that the NRA is actually a civil rights group ?
You didn't think this one through too well now, did you ?
(03-31-2018 09:31 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote: WOW! 45 people have signed the petition since 2013! Quite a groundswell!
Should tell you how baseless fears are of losing their gun rights.
If it's a losing effort on your end, why cause all the fuss and push for it?
It would be, if it were real. No one is seriously trying to do away with the 2nd. That's a fiction created by the NRA to drum up contributions and increase gun sales. Unfortunately, the atmosphere could change over time if
the right doesn't agree to some reasonable concessions. They may create a self fulfilling prophecy, somewhere down the road.
The gun violence will continue, the school massacres will continue and if the right doesn't budge an inch, popular opinion will eventually shift sufficiently that greater and greater restrictions will be put in place. Without ever having to repeal the 2nd.
(03-31-2018 02:06 PM)Old Dominion Wrote: It would be, if it were real. No one is seriously trying to do away with the 2nd. That's a fiction created by the NRA to drum up contributions and increase gun sales. Unfortunately, the atmosphere could change over time if
the right doesn't agree to some reasonable concessions. They may create a self fulfilling prophecy, somewhere down the road.
The gun violence will continue, the school massacres will continue and if the right doesn't budge an inch, popular opinion will eventually shift sufficiently that greater and greater restrictions will be put in place. Without ever having to repeal the 2nd.
Fine, for the sake of argument I’ll grant your “reasonable concessions”, if they’ll actually make these changes we’d all like to prevent these mass shootings and don’t punish legal owners and the law abiding.
So what are your reasonable concessions?
Sorry, not playing. We've played this game before and I know how it ends. No matter what I or anyone else suggests, you and your buddies will find something wrong with it.
There won't be any counter proposals, just out right rejection, or the famous come back "what good would that do?"
That's kind of his point.
I get what you're saying, but reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes reasonable. The whole thing is supposed to be a negotiation, done with proposals and counter proposals. I certainly don't expect the right to just go along with a proposal without making some counter offer. That's the way it's supposed to work, not just dismiss out of hand and not make any offers of their own.
(03-31-2018 06:34 PM)Old Dominion Wrote: I get what you're saying, but reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes reasonable. The whole thing is supposed to be a negotiation, done with proposals and counter proposals. I certainly don't expect the right to just go along with a proposal without making some counter offer. That's the way it's supposed to work, not just dismiss out of hand and not make any offers of their own.
Here's the problem ODU, you have these parkland kids "literally saying" first the bumpstocks and then everything else. If you give us an inch we will take a mile.
That's not negotiating in good faith, but that's what the left is doing.
#banfingersandbeltloopsnow! #banstickstoo
banning bumpstocks is a feel good measure that will do nothing to address crazy people using guns but will start other incremental backdoor efforts.
It's clearly in the spirit of preserving the original 2A as much as possible while closing the major gaps. But yes, it's still too vague.
Which major gaps are those?
Agreed on the question....
Ohio, I appreciate your passion, but the fact is that people who are not qualified or of sound mind are already prohibited from enjoying all of the freedoms of our constitution. Through substantive due process, we have collectively decided that only after 21 for some rights and 16 for others are you 'qualified'... which is why you can regulate ages for guns and cigarettes and abortions and marriage and things like that... and people determined by the courts specifically to be not of sound mind are similarly prohibited.
in other words, your proposal is moot.
UNLESS you're trying to do what others do and reverse the long held 'presumption of innocence' such that people have to prove they are qualified and of sound mind, which in addition to the presumption of innocence is a violation of many other rights to things like privacy and due process... which we also hold dear