RE: Calls for Anti-II Amendment Legislation, Guns & Ammo, and Internet Bans

[WesSeid]

As to ensuring adequate gun training for individuals seeking CCW and open carry, simply equate it to passing both driver’s education and DMV requirements in order to obtain whatever class of driver’s license. In whatever case there are many other aspects to proper gun handling than simply loading a magazine or bullets into a handgun.

Self-defense and bearing arms is a right, not a privilege.

Various states have no required training or permits needed for either open carrying or concealed carrying, and the sky hasn't fallen.

 

[XNavyNuke]

Self-defense and bearing arms is a right, not a privilege.

Various states have no required training or permits needed for either open carrying or concealed carrying, and the sky hasn't fallen.

+1 rep for you!

 

[Weston White]

Self-defense and bearing arms is a right, not a privilege.

You could argue the same thing about traveling, but that does not mean you have a right to drive an automobile wherever your heart desires to go (or for that matter work in occupations involving education, public service, law, medicine, health care, etc.) Society has a right to establish that an individual has met certain qualifications or certifications, that they maintain a degree of public trust with respect to their exercising their inherent rights, while in the presence of the public's eye. Mind you, this is in clear distinction to what you do, or how you do it, while on your own or another's private property (that is of course with their permission).

Various states have no required training or permits needed for either open carrying or concealed carrying, and the sky hasn't fallen.

A non sequitur argument.

 

[pcosmar]

Society has a right to establish that an individual has met certain qualifications or certifications, that they maintain a degree of public trust with respect to their exercising their inherent rights, while in the presence of the public's eye.

Like Voting, Speaking/publishing, Religious belief etc.?

Same slippery slope to the same end.

 

[WesSeid]

You could argue the same thing about traveling, but that does not mean you have a right to drive an automobile wherever your heart desires to go

Except for that whole one is a right and one is a privilege thing.

And, really, it wouldn't be too hard to argue for not needing a driver's license. It's not like the average driver gets any serious training when they get their license.

A non sequitur argument.

Not at all. If you think there's such a big problem requiring a government solution, show me evidence of the problem. Crime is down, carry is up, and I don't have the stats on me, but I wouldn't be surprised if regular citizens who carry have fewer "gun accidents" than cops do.

Society has a right to establish that an individual has met certain qualifications or certifications, that they maintain a degree of public trust with respect to their exercising their inherent rights,

“The rights of citizens are not contingent on the reasonable exercise of those rights by all citizens.” – Fresno County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Kevin FitzGerald

 

[Weston White]

Like Voting, Speaking/publishing, Religious belief etc.?

Same slippery slope to the same end.

As there are already legal requirements to be met for voting, operating churches, missions, shelters, charities, protesting, publishing, copyrights, trademarks, media and public communication networks, etc. However, the above hardly compare to a manufactured object that is capable of sending multiple projectiles hundreds-to-thousands of feet per second.

 

[James Madison]

As there are already legal requirements to be met for voting, operating churches, missions, shelters, charities, protesting, publishing, copyrights, trademarks, media and public communication networks, etc. However, the above hardly compare to a manufactured object that is capable of sending multiple projectiles hundreds-to-thousands of feet per second.

This argument assumes those requirements are just.

 

[pcosmar]

This argument assumes those requirements are just.

The usual Authoritarian and Elitist position.
Exactly the same as those that advocated sterilizing the "unfit".
Or who advocate giving up rights or wealth for "the Greater Good".
Denying rights to certain "Undesirables".

I have heard and seen this before.

 

[pcosmar]

That would be one of the purposes, so as to ensure that weapons offense related felons are not granted authority to prance around with a CCW or sidearm strapped to their side; and for that matter nutters, gang-bangers, Zetas, Mafiosos, etc.

"and for that matter nutters, gang-bangers, Zetas, Mafiosos,"

Define "nutters", Hell define any of these..
You do realize the the Los Zetas were a creation of the US Government don't you? It is a fact..

"Mafiosos",,is there some identifying feature ,, or particular way to identify and prevent them.

Same with "gang-banger",, or is that just any black kid that likes Hip-Hop.

You seem to want to deny rights based on nothing more than your own prejudices.

Oh, Yeah,,by the way,,
I am a Prohibited Person,, one of those non humans that you want to deny rights to.
It was the 2nd Amendment issues that led me to Ron Paul. It is rather personal to me.

 

[Weston White]

Except for that whole one is a right and one is a privilege thing.

Traveling is also a right and if not cannot the government as well regulate your means of travel, routes of travel, and the items permissible while traveling?

And, really, it wouldn't be too hard to argue for not needing a driver's license. It's not like the average driver gets any serious training when they get their license.

The point is that if you go to the DMV without first being familiar with the rules of the road, unless you cheat you will fail your book test, and then when you go back take your physical driving test without being familiar with the proper operation of your vehicle and with consideration to the rules of the road, still you will fail. Now applying that same logic to guns is perfectly reasonable.

And most people have gone through an entire driver’s education course as it is a requirement for graduation to pass in most all high schools for several decades now.

Not at all. If you think there's such a big problem requiring a government solution, show me evidence of the problem. Crime is down, carry is up, and I don't have the stats on me, but I wouldn't be surprised if regular citizens who carry have fewer "gun accidents" than cops do.

Crime is down? No, just as anything else, crimes merely fluctuate from one year to the next. The fact remains that there are tens-of-thousands of mentally ill individuals, career criminals, substance abusers, and violent offenders in most all major counties and cities throughout the United States of America, permitting such individuals free access to firearms (at least while in public), will only result in placing the public in a perpetual state of fear and nobody neither desires nor deserves to live like that. Moreover, such is contrary to the core governmental duty to establish an acceptable medium for the protection of life, liberty, and property.

“The rights of citizens are not contingent on the reasonable exercise of those rights by all citizens.” – Fresno County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Kevin FitzGerald

He is simply stating that just because one elects not to engage a right, does not preclude their later access to that right. But in reality, nobody really cares what some random deputy had stated.

 

[Weston White]

This argument assumes those requirements are just.

Sure, many are, while most are not; such being largely contingent on present necessity and opposing perspectives. But as well, many of those requirements are well within the power of the government to establish, at least until opposition is noticed through common law as by redress or due process, for example.

 

[pcosmar]

Crime is down? No, just as anything else, crimes merely fluctuate from one year to the next. The fact remains that there are tens-of-thousands of mentally ill individuals, career criminals, substance abusers, and violent offenders in most all major counties and cities throughout the United States of America, permitting such individuals free access to firearms (at least while in public), will only result in placing the public in a perpetual state of fear and nobody neither desires nor deserves to live like that. Moreover, such is contrary to the core governmental duty to establish an acceptable medium for the protection of life, liberty, and property.

.

Fear.. Yeah, Fear is being pushed. The Media does a good job of spreading fear.

I don't fear any of those folks near as much as I fear the Government.

And this..
permitting such individuals free access to firearms
What makes you think more laws would do anything at all to them?
They can get guns any time they wish.. and they do,, routinely.

 

[Weston White]

The usual Authoritarian and Elitist position.
Exactly the same as those that advocated sterilizing the "unfit".
Or who advocate giving up rights or wealth for "the Greater Good".
Denying rights to certain "Undesirables".

I have heard and seen this before.

No, this is purely emotional, it bears nothing to the present debate.

 

[Weston White]

Fear.. Yeah, Fear is being pushed. The Media does a good job of spreading fear.

I don't fear any of those folks near as much as I fear the Government.

And this..
permitting such individuals free access to firearms
What makes you think more laws would do anything at all to them?
They can get guns any time they wish.. and they do,, routinely.

I don't fear the presence of armed peace/police/sheriff, but I do fear (as a few examples) an armed person in my presence that is under the influence of some narcotic and hallucinating, or that is shouting out nonsense and flailing their arms about as they pass me by, or an overly aggressive pack of armed youth gang members walking past me. Personally, I nor anybody deserves to have to deal with any of that.

And then when the police confront such an individual and asks for their CCWID, or to disclose if they are a violent offender or gang affiliated, or to otherwise inspect their firearm and they say they do not have one or that the gun does not belong to them, guess where that criminal is going to be taking a trip to (A: jail) and guess where that firearm is going to end up (A: back with its proper owner or to otherwise be taken off the street)?

 

[pcosmar]

No, this is purely emotional, it bears nothing to the present debate.

Wrong, It is the very basis of your Gun Grabbing argument.
And has been since socialist started this shit in the 1920s. (or earlier)

Gun laws were first started as social controls.. That is Documented.

Your FEAR, is an emotional argument.

 

[James Madison]

Sure, many are, while most are not; such being largely contingent on present necessity and opposing perspectives. But as well, many of those requirements are well within the power of the government to establish, at least until opposition is noticed through common law as by redress or due process, for example.

So might makes right then? Government claims it has authority, which it uses to enforce its right to make a claim, just or no.

I don't fear the presence of armed peace/police/sheriff, but I do fear (as a few examples) an armed person in my presence that is under the influence of some narcotic and hallucinating, or that is shouting out nonsense and flailing their arms about as they pass me by, or an overly aggressive pack of armed youth gang members walking past me. Personally, I nor anybody deserves to have to deal with any of that.

And then when the police confront such an individual and asks for their CCWID, or to disclose if they are a violent offender or gang affiliated, or to otherwise inspect their firearm and they say they do not have one or that the gun does not belong to them, guess where that criminal is going to be taking a trip to (A: jail) and guess where that firearm is going to end up (A: back with its proper owner or to otherwise be taken off the street)?

Where have you been for the past 10,000 years? The police/military/government are always murdering innocents. A lone madman can maybe kill a few dozen before his bloodlust is sated, but a tyrant isn't satisfied until all opposition is destroyed. The madman may kill out of pleasure, but the tyrant kills to further his own kingdom. The madman is hated as a murderer, but the tyrant is praised when he kills to the decree of kings and to the sound of trumpets.

 

[James Madison]

//

 

[Weston White]

"and for that matter nutters, gang-bangers, Zetas, Mafiosos,"

Define "nutters", Hell define any of these..
You do realize the the Los Zetas were a creation of the US Government don't you? It is a fact..

"Mafiosos",,is there some identifying feature ,, or particular way to identify and prevent them.

Same with "gang-banger",, or is that just any black kid that likes Hip-Hop.

You seem to want to deny rights based on nothing more than your own prejudices.

Oh, Yeah,,by the way,,
I am a Prohibited Person,, one of those non humans that you want to deny rights to.
It was the 2nd Amendment issues that led me to Ron Paul. It is rather personal to me.

A “nutter”, as a catchall term, refers to an insane or crazy individual, a fruitcake, 5150, etc., and may additionally reference those mentally underdeveloped or otherwise incompetent. For example, remember when Junior, who was beginning to go senile, shot Tony in the Sopranos?

And yes, most all law enforcement agencies are obligated to follow state mandates to database all law enforcement and public safety relevant information with every contact they make (e.g., field interrogate), while during an officers investigation if you are determined to be affiliated with a gang, cult, etc., etc., that information is forever recorded with that agency, as well there are many state and national databases that all law enforcement agencies have access to for acquiring additional information, such as parole, probation, warrants, associations with federal agencies, etc.

Prejudices? Sure, I suppose it is fair to lay that claim. Although I would tend to think that most of society would express those very same prejudices as well.

And no, I don’t want to deny any of your rights, but if you happen to fall into that sorted group or criminal element don’t shift the error of your own ways onto me. We must all face the consequences of our own actions and misdeeds.

 

[Weston White]

Wrong, It is the very basis of your Gun Grabbing argument.
And has been since socialist started this shit in the 1920s. (or earlier)

Gun laws were first started as social controls.. That is Documented.

Your FEAR, is an emotional argument.

Not exactly, it is the very real threat posed by certain types of non-responsible or irresponsible individuals throughout our society that establishes the causation, which affects that feeling of fear while in public. And hence, such fear is perfectly justified.

 

[James Madison]

A “nutter”, as a catchall term, refers to an insane or crazy individual, a fruitcake, 5150, etc., and may additionally reference those mentally underdeveloped or otherwise incompetent. For example, remember when Junior, who was beginning to go senile, shot Tony in the Sopranos?

Sorry, I don't watch crappy TV shows.

And yes, most all law enforcement agencies are obligated to follow state mandates to database all law enforcement and public safety relevant information with every contact they make (e.g., field interrogate), while during an officers investigation if you are determined to be affiliated with a gang, cult, etc., etc., that information is forever recorded with that agency, as well there are many state and national databases that all law enforcement agencies have access to for acquiring additional information, such as parole, probation, warrants, associations with federal agencies, etc.

Again, might makes right. Government has a monopoly on legal force so it can somehow be trusted to abide by its own laws? Yet those same enforces when not in service to state are too dangerous to grant such priviledge?

And no, I don’t want to deny any of your rights, but if you happen to fall into that sorted group or criminal element don’t shift the error of your own ways onto me. We must all face the consequences of our own actions and misdeeds.

What?! A guy gets drafted against his will to fight a no-win war under impossible-to-imagine conditions, and he's now a criminal? How about we stop sending young Americans off to die. Seems like an easier fix to me.

If you want to punish someone keep them in prison. Once out, they have paid their debt to society.