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.
Background Checks Would Not Have Stopped Even A Single Recent Mass Shooting
How do you know how many shootings have been prevented by background checks? There is no way of knowing how many people planned one, but gave up on it because they were denied a gun.
I have to ask for clarification. I'll make it easy for a yes or no answer.
Are "criminals" and or the "mental ill", classified as people?
If you answer no, please clarify for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Yes, they are. And they have rights. But virtually no human rights are ever considered to be absolute.
We the People, are telling you the government.
The right of the people, to keep & bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Guess who it is trying to disarm the people, by limiting their rights?
The only way they are not absolute, is when anyone can deny you your rights with threats of violence.
That is the whole reason we have a right to defend our liberty, by any means possible.
It does not matter if you agree or not. My freedom is not yours to take without a fight.
We the People, are telling you the government.
The right of the people, to keep & bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Guess who it is trying to disarm the people, by limiting their rights?
The only way they are not absolute, is when anyone can deny you your rights with threats of violence.
That is the whole reason we have a right to defend our liberty, by any means possible.
It does not matter if you agree or not. My freedom is not yours to take without a fight.
I can well understand how gun enthusiasts hang on so tightly to this "absolute" version of what the 2A provides, but again..., I am a person and I can bear arms in this country, therefore my right is being honored and provided for. This is the actual absolute truth that cannot be denied.
That the 2A provides I can buy ANY gun made by man as opposed to providing me the right to bear arms in general can be argued forever "until the cows come home," as it has been argued and decided upon by our SCOTUS more than once. This too is "absolute" truth.
Clearly, one man's "absolute" truth or understanding is not necessarily the same as the next or even the same as most or the same as the SCOTUS, so argue away as you will, but let us not confuse "absolute" truth with what is not, or let us at least try...
So, we should consider what romney did 30+ years ago (from his presidential run) as the gospel and he has not changed, not a single bit, he is still he same person from 30+ years....
Yet, when obama is quoted, you provide this little tid bit tat is was years ago....?
I don't know how all the rest of you sift through the noise to distill truth, but when we consider just how "wrong" can be about what was just said yesterday, I suspect we all need be very careful about what we might be to quick to accept as the truth -- no matter who you are, no matter which way you lean...
CRUZ: If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That's why George Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to run for president, even though he was born in Mexico.
TRUMP: But I was born here.
CRUZ: Well, listen, I've spent my entire life defending the Constitution before the U.S. Supreme Court. And I'll tell you, I'm not going to be taking legal advice from Donald Trump.
TRUMP: You don't have to. Take it from Lawrence Tribe.
CRUZ: ... on Larry Tribe. Let me tell you who Larry Tribe is. He's a left-wing judicial activist, Harvard Law professor who was Al Gore's lawyer in Bush versus Gore. He's a major Hillary Clinton supporter. And there's a reason why Hillary's supporters are echoing Donald's attacks on me, because Hillary...
CAVUTO: Marco Rubio. I'm sorry, it's the time constraints. You and Governor Christie have been exchanging some fairly nasty words of late, and I will allow the governor to respond as well.
The governor went so far to say, you won't be able to slime your way to the White House. He's referring to a series of ads done by a PAC, speaking on your behalf, that say quote,"One high tax, Common Core, liberal, energy-loving, Obamacare, Medicaid-expanding president is enough. You think you went too far on that and do you want to apologize to the governor?
RUBIO: You know, as I said already twice in this debate, we have a very serious problem in this country.
You bet we have a serious problem in this country, and that GOP debate last night demonstrates how serious a problem it is as even the GOP candidates stomp around in their own muck of falsehoods, misrepresentations and accusations about themselves before they somehow want to pretend they are any more united or truthful about Obama.
PS: I noticed the gun rhetoric was no less pronounced as it is obvious not one candidate wants any of the GOP special interest groups to abandon them...
I can well understand how gun enthusiasts hang on so tightly to this "absolute" version of what the 2A provides, but again..., I am a person and I can bear arms in this country, therefore my right is being honored and provided for. This is the actual absolute truth that cannot be denied.
That the 2A provides I can buy ANY gun made by man as opposed to providing me the right to bear arms in general can be argued forever "until the cows come home," as it has been argued and decided upon by our SCOTUS more than once. This too is "absolute" truth.
Clearly, one man's "absolute" truth or understanding is not necessarily the same as the next or even the same as most or the same as the SCOTUS, so argue away as you will, but let us not confuse "absolute" truth with what is not, or let us at least try...
You are operating under the pretense that if we can own a 16th century musketeer, our right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed upon. You really need to shove that somewhere else as it's not helpful to our discussion.
On the other hand, we, lawfully gun owners, are asking to stop making laws only targeting us and making law abiding citizens into criminals just because we own certain objects. Let's focus on the criminals and true criminal behaviors like murder, robbery, gang etc. please.
Still waiting. And yeah, that basically is what you said. You think that people should jump through whatever hoops, pay whatever money, and only own what the government said is "appropriate", yet your feelings on these types of restrictions and regulations are SOLELY for firearms.
I promised myself to go back and have a closer look to this question I have not answered, and again I will admit and apologize for not paying as much attention to this comment for more than a few reasons...
For starters, am I supposed to consider this comment seriously? "So you don't know, therefore it never happens. I have never met an astronaut therefore no one has gone into space. Fallacious arguments at there best."
As I have explained before, if in the early going of a comment, the statements are of this nature, I tune out and move on! This comment is a very far leap from my preceding statement, and again, rather than twist, paraphrase and interpret, just quote me verbatim, and we're more likely to stay on track.
I made the point that I don't know anyone among the gun owners who have these special needs and wants, but I also immediately recognized this does NOT mean I don't know they are out there! Either way, that was not my point! Yes, I am in the Bay Area where guns are not as much part of the country, but I've also shot guns in Utah where they are.
Again, either way, I don't think you need to be a fanatic about anything to understand the fundamental issues or to consider other perspectives. Do we need to be Holy men, for example, to consider the worthiness of religious doctrine? Religious teachings? I sure hope not!
I just can't spend the time fighting with straw man arguments like this when there is too little time and so many other REAL points of contention for more worthy of all our attention. Like say the GOP debates last night? Those are the folks vying for the right to decide the future of our country, our future, including our right to bear arms.
Watching that debate reminded me much of these threads as they just seem to go from bad to worse.
PS: There were more than a few questions in comment #238. After sifting through the many condescending swipes and sweeping statements to promote yourself as the one who knows all there is to know, I found this question with some others...
Is this THEE question you repeatedly complain I did not answer?
Q: "There is no battle for constitutional rights. You cannot say that I can restrict anyone but whatever elite I choose from reading certain books, or practicing certain religions. DiFi was made to actually admit this in testimony to Congress. Why do we then accept it for the 2A?"
My answer: you are right. You actually CAN say that, but you would be wrong to do so. I never said such a thing, so why the great interest in having me answer such a question?
Or was it one of the other straw man questions you wanted me to answer? Again, if you can have a little mercy, and just pose your question simply and straight-forwardly, preferably about something I actually did write -- verbatim -- I will be happy to answer.
You are operating under the pretense that if we can own a 16th century musketeer, our right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed upon. You really need to shove that somewhere else as it's not helpful to our discussion.
On the other hand, we, lawfully gun owners, are asking to stop making laws only targeting us and making law abiding citizens into criminals just because we own certain objects. Let's focus on the criminals and true criminal behaviors like murder, robbery, gang etc. please.
Can we at least agree to that?
Can we at least agree to stop with statements like your first, before we go on to agree to anything else?
I ask, because I can't say enough times, it is not in any way proper to misrepresent what someone else says, their position, for the sake of promoting an agenda to the contrary.
I will add your intro to all the rest, "the pretense that if we can..."
Like, "so what you REALLY mean is..."
"What you are essentially saying..."
What I AM saying is there in black and white, and frankly, I think I have written enough such that I am just repeating myself anymore. I spend more time defending against what others want to SUGGEST I am writing rather than what I actually write. Y'all know who you are and y'all know why you do that, just as I do...
Guess who it is trying to disarm the people, by limiting their rights?
I don't see any good reason to think that Obama is trying to disarm "the people". I don't see any good evidence that advocates of gun laws, in general, are try to disarm "the people." The goal is to disarm criminals to whatever extent we reasonably can (even though we all know full well that we can't disarm all of them, or even most of them).
I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be saying is this: Convicted felons who have been released from prison are citizens, and thus they have a right to own guns because the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right.
But I'm saying that none of the rights listed in the US Constitution are absolute - all rights are limited insofar as they conflict with other rights, or, in some cases, conflict with overwhelmingly obvious common sense. If the right to have guns is an absolute right, then children and felons in prison should have the right to have guns. Thus, the question is not can or should the government put limits on the right to have guns, but rather: what are the reasonable limits? Ultimately the courts have to decide this - just as they have to determine the limits of other rights.
Just curious: As you see it, should the government allow children (say, age 6, for example) to carry loaded guns on public streets? If not, why not? On what basis, as you see it, can the government prohibit this?
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.
The absolute...
