Here We Go Again! Shooting at Oregon Community College. (minutemen, illegal, drugs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The conservative logic prevalent on this forum is that because this would be hard, or not a 100% perfect and fail-safe solution, that it's not worth even trying to come to grips with gun violence in our country.
We beat fascism and put a man on the moon in this last century, but for the conservatives, making Americans at least somewhat safer from gun violence is just a bridge too far. Not exactly a very patriotic line of thinking, is it?
Being hard has nothing to do with it. You don't take a single freedom from those who have done nothing wrong and give it to the government to control. This holds true even if it was easy.
Also.......not putting more restrictions on the people is not simply a "conservative" argument, it is really a liberal argument. The problem is liberals are no longer really liberal. Those who claim to be a liberal today are largely authoritarians.
But apparently, there are "loop holes" that make these buy/sell transactions less "safe," less effective in terms of the law's intent. I don't know exactly what those loop holes might be, but I have heard much about them from politicians and public forums to suspect that perhaps more can be done in terms of better enforcement and/or oversight. IOWs, more/better can be done, and so it should be done.
Will people break the law? Yes, of course just the same as they will break any new laws. All new laws will do is put restrictions on those who wouldn't break the law.
Being hard has nothing to do with it. You don't take a single freedom from those who have done nothing wrong and give it to the government to control. This holds true even if it was easy.
Also.......not putting more restrictions on the people is not simply a "conservative" argument, it is really a liberal argument. The problem is liberals are no longer really liberal. Those who claim to be a liberal today are largely authoritarians.
Will people break the law? Yes, of course just the same as they will break any new laws. All new laws will do is put restrictions on those who wouldn't break the law.
I don't know how that makes any sense.
This continued argument about the existence of people who break the law is what surely makes no sense...
Again and again, of course there are people who will try to get around the law, but this in no way is good argument to keep from making our laws better enforced, more effective, or we would be going backwards rather than forward. I am so tempted to list the many examples of this simple truth, but I know people tend to tune out when facing what contradicts their beliefs. Still, look at the laws passed since the Constitution was crafted to better enforce equality -- just for starters. For blacks, women...
We are forever called upon to improve our laws and enforcement of them as appropriate, however reasonably possible.
Though there are "exceptions to every rule," the exceptions do NOT make the rules!
This continued argument about the existence of people who break the law is what surely makes no sense...
Again and again, of course there are people who will try to get around the law, but this in no way is good argument to keep from making our laws better enforced, more effective, or we would be going backwards rather than forward. I am so tempted to list the many examples of this simple truth, but I know people tend to tune out when facing what contradicts their beliefs. Still, look at the laws passed since the Constitution was crafted to better enforce equality -- just for starters. For blacks, women...
Equality is a protected right.....just as owning a gun is. Few will complain when the government stops itself from trampling on one of the rights noted in the Constitution.
Quote:
We are forever called upon to improve our laws and enforcement of them as appropriate, however reasonably possible.
Though there are "exceptions to every rule," the exceptions do NOT make the rules!
You can't make laws that restrict our rights better.
Being hard has nothing to do with it. You don't take a single freedom from those who have done nothing wrong and give it to the government to control. This holds true even if it was easy.
Also.......not putting more restrictions on the people is not simply a "conservative" argument, it is really a liberal argument. The problem is liberals are no longer really liberal. Those who claim to be a liberal today are largely authoritarians.
True, the making and enforcing of laws should be guided by the value of the results, not about whether easy or not, though of course we should enact good laws that are easy to enforce, like so many already on the books.
This notion, however, "that we take freedoms from those who do nothing wrong and give it to government" is really getting old and tired, especially as somehow particularly belabored in the context of this debate over gun control. Lots written about why this is, but ultimately the argument is no better in this context than it is in the context of any laws we abide by in order to have an orderly society.
Good apples have paid for the bad ones for how long now? Whether it be gun restrictions, what more we pay for goods and services due to theft and fraud. Higher insurance premiums as a result of all manner of abuses, the railing that obstructs our view at the cliffs on the beach, because of morons that can't keep from falling off them...
Don't like these sorts of impositions? Not sure anyone does, but to argue against laws because they "restrict our freedoms?" Come on now! Best I can suggest for you who think this way is to live out where there are not other people.
As for what is liberal these days and what is not, there is certainly enough confusion without conservatives always pretending they know, misrepresenting positions not their own, but whether we be liberal or conservative, the issue is always one of balance. We need to protect our freedoms, yes of course. We also need to give up some of those freedoms, also of course.
Can't be free to smoke in a restaurant anymore, for example, as I once enjoyed. A freedom you might argue we should fight to get back?
Equality is a protected right.....just as owning a gun is. Few will complain when the government stops itself from trampling on one of the rights noted in the Constitution.
You can't make laws that restrict our rights better.
I don't really know where to go with this, but for starters I question whether "equality is a protected right." I think I understand, that might be the goal, okay. Let's assume for the moment the statement is true. Then surely we have yet another host of laws that are sorely ineffective, because many fully recognize inequality in America today is about as prevalent as ever.
The next statement as well, I don't understand. We complain when the government or anyone steps beyond the boundaries of the Constitution that protect our freedoms, but again, we should be careful to pretend we are Constitutional scholars (like Tea Party types like to do), because more often than not, they don't know much beyond the handy little pocket guide they keep in their shirt for guidance. Always seems to them we don't even need a SCTUS...
Last statement is curious as well. Maybe you "can't make laws that restrict our rights better" (whatever that means).
You can, however, improve laws, make them more effective in terms of intent, enforcement. Not only can we, but we are doing it all the time! At least trying anyway...
True, the making and enforcing of laws should be guided by the value of the results, not about whether easy or not, though of course we should enact good laws that are easy to enforce, like so many already on the books.
This notion, however, "that we take freedoms from those who do nothing wrong and give it to government" is really getting old and tired, especially as somehow particularly belabored in the context of this debate over gun control. Lots written about why this is, but ultimately the argument is no better in this context than it is in the context of any laws we abide by in order to have an orderly society.
These laws do not restrict Constitutionally protected rights. That's the part you cant just get over. Making it illegal to own a gun is far different than making it illegal to run a stop sign.
Quote:
Good apples have paid for the bad ones for how long now? Whether it be gun restrictions, what more we pay for goods and services due to theft and fraud. Higher insurance premiums as a result of all manner of abuses, the railing that obstructs our view at the cliffs on the beach, because of morons that can't keep from falling off them...
We have paid a lot for theft and fraud out of Wall Street not because of a lack of laws but rather because of an administration that refused to prosecute them. You can make all the laws in the world but if they are not enforced they are worthless.
Quote:
Don't like these sorts of impositions? Not sure anyone does, but to argue against laws because they "restrict our freedoms?" Come on now! Best I can suggest for you who think this way is to live out where there are not other people.
I think you know that my complaints are specifically addressed.
Quote:
As for what is liberal these days and what is not, there is certainly enough confusion without conservatives always pretending they know, misrepresenting positions not their own, but whether we be liberal or conservative, the issue is always one of balance. We need to protect our freedoms, yes of course. We also need to give up some of those freedoms, also of course.
No. No, with a capital N. No. As I noted, an authoritarian. Liberals are for freedoms. Authoritarians are the absolute worse of the lot.
Quote:
Can't be free to smoke in a restaurant anymore, for example, as I once enjoyed. A freedom you might argue we should fight to get back?
Of course not...
I don't believe it's any of the governments business whether I allow people to smoke in my restaurant. It's also my choice to eat there or not.
I don't really know where to go with this, but for starters I question whether "equality is a protected right." I think I understand, that might be the goal, okay. Let's assume for the moment the statement is true. Then surely we have yet another host of laws that are sorely ineffective, because many fully recognize inequality in America today is about as prevalent as ever.
Equal protection clause, 14th Amendment. Your problem is you want to place the same restrictions on individuals as the Constitution places on the government and you want the government to enforce those restrictions.
Quote:
The next statement as well, I don't understand. We complain when the government or anyone steps beyond the boundaries of the Constitution that protect our freedoms, but again, we should be careful to pretend we are Constitutional scholars (like Tea Party types like to do), because more often than not, they don't know much beyond the handy little pocket guide they keep in their shirt for guidance. Always seems to them we don't even need a SCTUS...
This stuff has all been ruled on. The set up is stuff you learn in elementary school.
Quote:
Last statement is curious as well. Maybe you "can't make laws that restrict our rights better" (whatever that means. You can, however, improve laws, make them more effective in terms of intent, enforcement. Not only can we, but we are doing it all the time! At least trying anyway...
You can't improve unconstitutional laws. Unconstitutional laws are what you want but you don't want to go to the hassle of changing the Constitution to make that possible. You want the courts to forget there is such a document. ie: an authoritarian.
"Making it illegal to own a gun is far different than making it illegal to run a stop sign."
You do know there are laws that make it illegal for certain people to drive a car, right? How different is this from laws intended to prevent some people from owning a gun?
As I have said before, when the first part of an argument is so bad, there is little incentive to continue with the rest.
Maybe later when I have more time to waste...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True enough!
