Common sense question regarding gun control

[USFREEDOM911]

I can't threaten to kill you. I cannot randomly shoot you. That is the limitation, and the equal standard.

You most certainly can, in both instances.

 

[Rune]

Driving is a Constitutional right? Wow, who knew?

I'm not taking your word for it though. Please point to the passage in the Constitution that specifies the right to drive

Actually it is. You have a right to travel.
I guess you missed that in your libertarian handbook.

 

[Rune]

In general, no. But when we ceded the power to government to create roads, regulating them went with that. Are you seriously suggesting government can't make it illegal to drive on the left side of the road or let blind people drive? You can't half give government a right. They have the right to regulate the roads they are authorized to create.

You realize that's fundamentally different too when we are talking about power ceded to government (roads) and power withheld from government (regulating guns), no?

BTW, if we are referring to driving on private property, then I'm with you 100%

Did he say that ?
No.
You have a right to travel dumbass.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Actually it is. You have a right to travel.
I guess you missed that in your libertarian handbook.

But the right to travel has nothing to do with cars.

 

[Rune]

Here's what I don't get about all the rabid rhetoric by "gunners" (folk who are against ANY type of Federal regulations regarding weapons in the USA).....whether it be local police, federal marshalls, secret service, FBI, etc., ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS GO THROUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS BEFORE BEING GIVEN LICENSE TO CARRY A WEAPON. These people have the power of life & death in given situations, and ALL USA citizens convey that power to them.

So if America is okay with that, then why on God's green Earth is it so abhorrent to have the same or similar background check for the average citizen to own/carry a weapon?

Just asking.

There is a waiting period/background check already.
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

 

[Rune]

But the right to travel has nothing to do with cars.

Says you dumbass

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Says you dumbass

Prove me incorrect or always be Darla's slave.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Is it OK to require people to go through government training to have freedom of speech?

You're dodging the question and the FACTS put forth in the OP but putting forth this absurd and ignorant question. Please give an answer to the question and spare us all the smoke screen.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Driving isn't a right

But driving without a license is a crime. Now that we've settled that, care to answer the OP question?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Agents of the State do not have rights first of all. Citizens do.

Secondly, you said it yourself. They are vested with POWER. No citizen has power, therefore we as the rightful masters of the state wish to ensure that said agents are properly vetted so as not to abuse their powers.

Agents of the state are citizens, you know. And since the GUN is an inanimate object subject to use by it's holder, the STATE (that's you and I) requires that it's law enforcement folk go through background checks before given license to enforce the law with it.

Now you claim no citizen has "power".....that is patently WRONG, as we have the power to elect and guide our gov't. Also, as you gunners so ardently point out, since having a gun is a "right" as is the "right" to self defense, then it should behoove our fellow citizens that have these weapons to pass a background check....helps to lower criminal and abhorrent behavior, as our law enforcement people figured out LONG time ago...and subsequently YOU agree with (directly or indirectly).

 

[Taichiliberal]

There is a waiting period/background check already.
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Where the hell have you been for the last few years? Here, for your education: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ction-on-guns-really-works-its-fairly-modest/

 

[Taichiliberal]

Billy has it right. The agent of the state exercises government power, not their rights.

The people have and exercise a right, the state does not, it is a limited power exercised as an agent of the state.

My response to Hulagu Khan:

Agents of the state are citizens, you know. And since the GUN is an inanimate object subject to use by it's holder, the STATE (that's you and I) requires that it's law enforcement folk go through background checks before given license to enforce the law with it.

Now you claim no citizen has "power".....that is patently WRONG, as we have the power to elect and guide our gov't. Also, as you gunners so ardently point out, since having a gun is a "right" as is the "right" to self defense, then it should behoove our fellow citizens that have these weapons to pass a background check....helps to lower criminal and abhorrent behavior, as our law enforcement people figured out LONG time ago...and subsequently YOU agree with (directly or indirectly).

 

[Taichiliberal]

Unless we need to go through government training to exercise our right to express our religion. :/

An absurd comparison, as you cannot kill a person directly with words. Guns are the primary way to enforce laws.....and since we require tax paid officers to go background checks, why should citizens be exempt, as the gun is just as deadly in anyone's hands?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Driving is a Constitutional right? Wow, who knew?

I'm not taking your word for it though. Please point to the passage in the Constitution that specifies the right to drive

Off topic.....you accept a rule for your law enforcement, yet you give a pass for your average citizen? How does that jibe? You trust Joe Schmoe more than Officer Joe Bolton?

 

[Taichiliberal]

are you not familiar with the power caste in this country? what 'free' means? and vesting authority in a certain group of people to enforce laws yet actually certifying that they know what the fuck they are doing? it's why we have state certifications for law enforcement, why we mandate certain training for any agent of the state we ALLOW to carry a gun. we the people are better qualified and more deserving than ANY agent of the state.

Catch what you just said.....the people you want to enforce the law are LESS QUALIFIED than some schmoe off the corner! So a background check and training is necessary to enforce the law with a gun and to make sure that the officer isn't mentally unhinged or has a criminal background/associates....but any joker off the streets with NO training or vetting is MORE trusted to carry a gun.... a gun that they may want to use in some vigilante style...by YOU?

Man, your convoluted logic knows no bounds!

 

[Taichiliberal]

The 2nd Amend. does not GIVE anyone the right to bear arms....what it does do is recognize that that right is inalienable.....and more importantly, it FORBIDS the gov. from

trying to take or infringe upon that inalienable right.......

Ahhh, but the QUESTION of the OP still remains for you to answer.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Actually, the background check is not to carry the firearm, but to be a member of whatever government organization they seek. For example, FBI, police, etc., the background check is to join, not to carry the firearm.

Please educate yourself.

Hey genius, a background check to join any of the aforementioned organization ALSO DETERMINES WHETHER THAT PERSON SHOULD BE ENTRUSTED TO ENFORCE THE LAW WITH THAT WEAPON. That's an integral part of the gig, don't cha know, unless you're becoming part of clerical, research, etc. Law ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THE FIELD ARE VETTED TO CARRY WEAPONS. Know the topic before you condescend to others...makes you look less stupid.

Now, answers the OP question or don't waste everyone's time.

 

[Taichiliberal]

When you begin from an erroneous premise, of what prohibitive value does your question have? Is you proclaiming your closed-mindedness, your bias and prejudice, demonstrative of your ability to recognize (let alone discuss) "common sense" based questions?

If you're claiming that there are NOT people like I described who are at the top of the anti-gun regulation pyramid, then you are either willfully ignorant or have been living under a rock these last six years.

Yeah, right.

If you were "just asking" the derogatory comment and hyperbolic claims as to what gun rights people believe, would not have been any part of this OP or thread.

You are among the brainless leftist mob who "feel" their gun control support on an emotional level so the out of the box demonization and pigeon-holing any opponent into an indefensible position --before they even speak-- is needed by your shallow ego to prop-up your anti-intellectual positions.

So sad, and that you so profoundly delude yourself, that you are a deep thinker, is just hilarious.

Spare me the smoke blowing and answer the question, if you have the intellectual honesty and courage to do so.

 

[NOVA]

You need to go back and read the Constitution. What Billy said is non-sense. The Government has specific rights enumerated by the U.S. Constitution. One of the big arguments during the Constitutional convention is that if the government was to have enumerated rights than Citizens should also have enumerated rights protected by the U.S. Constitution and thus the Bill of Rights was proposed and adopted to protect the rights of Citizens.

The Government has specific rights enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. They are;

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

These are not rights....they are powers given to the gov. by we the people....they are the duties given to the gov. by we the people.....they are jobs, expected to be done
by the gov. for we the people....

 

[NOVA]

it has been litigated. I've posted in a few different threads the numerous court cases across the country that have found driving on public roadways to be a right. the problem is that there have lately been some states that have turned that around and decided that it's not a right any longer.

Driving in you back yard is your right....driving on public roadways is a courtesy allowed to the people that have a valid drivers license, insurance, and that obey all traffic laws....if they don't and lose that valid drivers license, you can still in your back yard without it....