The Glade 4.0

Well, I did have to register to vote.

/sigh

We should also have reasonable limits on privacy within your home. Many people use the privacy of their home to commit crimes.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Seems like it's operating within their current legal framework. I'm not sure I see anything shocking. Of course, these are not "19" items.

Yes, I am scared of people doing things in the privacy of their homes.

_________________

It has also just occurred to me that your rights end where mine begin. Since gun control is a concerted attempt to infringe upon the right to keep in bear arms, I think said proponents should lose their right to free speech. Really, it's only fair. I mean, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater after all.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

5. No speeches allowed by convicted criminals. We can't allow them to taint our public discourse.

I feel like we need special rules for contractions. They just feel "different" from other words.

_________________

We must also include some sort of language that allows for evolving positions. After all, verbally supporting Gay Marriage must be a greater affirmation of a position than devoting government resources to enforcing DOMA and lawyers from the SG's office to defend Prop 8 in court.

_________________

It may be that way in terms of the way it appears to moderates, but it is not fundamentally true. That's saying that the NRA has as much obligation to concede that some sort of restriction on guns is appropriate as the Brady/HGI groups to do to concede that ownership of arms (modern, useful ones, not merely the right to own obsolete or wildly inconvenient and ineffective weapons) is a fundamental right.

The problem with this is that it is not possible for the NRA or pro-gun people to agree to soften their position at all without concessions from the other side of the debate first. Otherwise, the NRA is giving up ground to people that are lying about their willingness to engage in compromise; in a short time the anti-gun crowd will demand a new 'compromise' and the NRA's new, softer position will all of a sudden become 'extreme'.

As for your position that the NRA somehow started the mess, no, they didn't. That idea is absolutely laughable. The NRA would have no reason to be the way it is without an anti-gun lobby. The anti-gun lobby would be the way it is even if there were no NRA; they just would be running roughshod over everyone's rights.

There's an underlying difference between the 2 sides here: gun owners and the NRA are not really opposed to all firearms laws; most are fundamentally happy with the states being allowed to have the permitting system they prefer, and with not having to put up with stupid magazine restrictions and things like bayonet lug bans, even if they can't own a belt-fed machine gun (or at least, not easily). Shall-issue permits are already a compromise, and one you, yourself even suggested in your OP.

The anti-gun side is not going to be happy with anything short of a complete and total ban. A compromise is not a compromise with them; it's a step on the road to a total, or near-total ban.

You keep trying to claim that both sides are equally at fault, and they aren't. The anti-gun side is vastly more at fault because they cannot be trusted to treat a compromise as a compromise. Frankly, it does not matter how extreme the NRA is or how absurd they get because their position is meaningless; no matter how "reasonable" they get the other side will take any compromise and treat that as the new extreme until the total ban is successful.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I seriously hate this state...there's nothing at all to recommend it outside of the job market.

Executive Orders to bypass Congress are a problem, even if they're considered "legal." Candidate Obama has said this. President Obama doesn't.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That's because Candidate Obama was trying to convince people to give him power. President Obama doesn't have to worry about that in the slightest.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

The asshat Markell and his boy Beau Biden are doing similar BS in Delaware. My favorite provision..... I can keep my prohibited magazines (10 rounds +) Ive just got to keep them more than 20 feet away from any firearm that can accept them. Yeah sorry Delaware my house shopping is now going across the border to PA. as well as my tax money.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

We got a bunch to talk about over steak tomorrow dude.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

If it goes into effect before you can escape I'll be happy to hold them someplace in Pa for ya.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Items such as "more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws" and sharing executive resources amongst executive agencies does not require Congress, so there's no bypass. Not 100% sure about the CDC thing.

_________________

I appreciate it. I already had picked up 10 Rounders just in case and since the. 45 is single stack the proposal doesn't affect my handguns.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

It is revealing of just how automatically some people assume that any gun control is good, especially magazine limits and limits on "assault weapons" are that Obama is proposing re-instituting those bans right after saying we need the CDC to do research.

Gee.. wouldn't the appropriate thing to do be to do the research first and then make a proposal? Probably not, because it might end up the same way as the Head Start Report. (Thread inc.)

No, of course not. Any ban is a good ban, and we need to make sure we institute one now while public passions are high so that when the next round of limitations are proposed, the NRA can look 'extreme' for advocating that 10-round magazines and scary-looking rifles that comply with the 'assault' weapons ban remain legal. Then we can hear yet again about how both sides are equally at fault and the NRA caused the problem by being intractable, and if only they were willing to compromise!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Saw the President's speech today because I am WFH. He is also proposing implementing the "crazy" NRA plan to have armed personnel in every school (that wants one) and to improve their emergency prep plans.

_________________

Aizle, I've been giving it a lot of thought too...

My position is that there's a significant speed bump that needs to be overcome before I can support any government intervention about a citizens rights to bear arms...I think that pretty much there needs to be a revocation of the 2nd amendment.

There is immutable language attached to that amendment, as Elmo pointed out earlier -


Now, some may argue that the constitution doesn't use language quite as immutable as I believe it to be. My position on the languages immutability has been developed, though, after thinking about other, similar, use of immutable language in the constitution.

Take, for example, this section -


These "shall not's" contain some pretty important rights within their sections of the constitution. It's my belief that letting the government dilute the meaning and importance of those passages is an incredibly naive move on the part of the citizenry.

It would be easy for me, for instance, to agree to an executive order allowing the reading of prayer in school, ban the KKK from having a web site or have meetings, or slap drug dealers or child molesters "caught in the act" in jail for the rest of their lives without the privilege of having a trial.

These are all perfectly reasonable things in my opinion, and I'd love to win enough public support so I could call for a national discussion on the issue of how we can make those changes and threaten those that disagree with me with calls for executive orders, such as those just signed by the president. Where's the compromise when unilateral decisions are pushed at us without our consent?

Thing is, even having that discussion weakens the citizens and strengthens the government. We are now a weaker nation because of these acts - the president has just diluted our rights, whether we personally believe in what he's done or not.

The only correct way to change the immutable language of the constitution is by the rules set up to change them - pass a bill through both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states... or hold a constitutional convention.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

So if I understand your position then Taskiss, you feel there should be no limits on what arms people can get access to?

What about felons?
What about the mentally ill?
Should they have access to grenade launchers?
What about mortars?
Land mines?
Explosives?

The fact is that every right in the constitution is regulated in some way.

Felons when released have no right to protect their rights?
The mentally ill so long as they con understand consequences of actions have no right to protect their rights?
Since the basis of bans seems to means crimes committed with X object - how many crimes have been committed with grenade launchers (which are legal 20 37 and 40).
As above.
As above.
As above.

Are you forgetting that the point of the 2nd amendment is to be able to fend off a national military of whatever is current at the time?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yes, every right is regulated in some way. In the case of the right to bear arms, that implies it means individual arms, being an individual right.

As for your list of weapons, the only one that applies to is grenade launchers. I don't even want to go into why people having grenade launchers is not a serious problem, but I'll give you a hint: Like most other 'military' weapons, it's designed to be used as part of a team. An infantry squad has only two launchers for a reason: They serve a specific purpose within the squad and really aren't effective at much of anything else. They really aren't more destructive in terms of killing power than a rifleman with an M16; grenades are bulky, fly slowly, and are inherently less accurate and require considerable (expensive) practice both to learn and to maintain the skill of firing them. If grenade launchers could replace firearms, we'd use nothing but grenade launchers for infantry.

The other things you listed can all be made at home anyhow, and if people decide they need to use them, the law is not something they are concerned with. Actually, a mortar or grenade launcher can be made at home too; it just won't be very accurate.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Again, the idea is not that the Constition gives you rights, and then regulates them. The idea is that the Constitution acknowledges pre-existing rights, and then curtails the ways in which they may be restricted.

The 22nd Amendment thread is a good example of this, it says that the right of an individual to be President is restricted. Meanwhile, the 2nd Amendment says that the right to bear arms cannot be restricted ("shall not be infringed").

What we do, then, as a society, is decide what level of restriction is necessary and agreeable to further the common good, within the limits of potential restrictions permitted by the Constitution and its Amendments.

This verges on semantics, but I think that it's important to keep in mind for philosophical discussions and background on these issues.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine