More evidence why gun ownership should always be legal

[Cancel 2018. 3]

then it's valid state power to restrict the exercise of rights to a select few methods?

can you find me a case or cite the constitution where it states that "operating" a motor vehicle or other such vehicle is a right....

your right to travel is not restricted, you can have someone else drive, take a bus etc....the state would win any argument as they undoubtedly would win as they have a compelling interest in the safety of its citizens....

let me ask you this: do you also think that airplane pilots should not be licensed, that requiring a license is a power that restricts the exercise of rights to a select few? iow....anyone can fly an airplane, regardless of experience or licensure...

 

[SmarterthanYou]

can you find me a case or cite the constitution where it states that "operating" a motor vehicle or other such vehicle is a right....

so we only have the rights that are specifically spelled out in our constitutions?

your right to travel is not restricted, you can have someone else drive, take a bus etc....the state would win any argument as they undoubtedly would win as they have a compelling interest in the safety of its citizens....

so your right to bear arms isn't restricted because you can hire an armed escort? public safety can be the trump for all rights then.

let me ask you this: do you also think that airplane pilots should not be licensed, that requiring a license is a power that restricts the exercise of rights to a select few? iow....anyone can fly an airplane, regardless of experience or licensure...

any sensible and rational thinking person would want to learn how to fly a plane before jumping in one and trying to take off, but if it's not a commercial airline, why shouldn't they be able to?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

OTE=SmarterThanYou;565260]so we only have the rights that are specifically spelled out in our constitutions?

iow, you can't....you sure seemed to fall back on the case when you had one....and no, i don't believe our rights our limited by that, neither do i believe my right to travel is diminished because i have to obey the laws of the road by getting a license, obeying speed limits, not drink and drive.....etc...

so your right to bear arms isn't restricted because you can hire an armed escort? public safety can be the trump for all rights then.

again, find me a case that says you have a right to "operate" a motor vehicle....you can use your own two feet to travel....no one is denying you that right....apples/oranges comparison

any sensible and rational thinking person would want to learn how to fly a plane before jumping in one and trying to take off, but if it's not a commercial airline, why shouldn't they be able to?

so the safety of others is not a concern of yours? anyone should be allowed to fly a jet....as long as its not commercial....

rational...huh....do we all have the right to own a nuclear missile with a 25 ton multiple warheads?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

iow, you can't....you sure seemed to fall back on the case when you had one....and no, i don't believe our rights our limited by that, neither do i believe my right to travel is diminished because i have to obey the laws of the road by getting a license, obeying speed limits, not drink and drive.....etc...

first, you either have rights or you don't. second, power to regulate the roads is limited to safety factors like speed limits, vehicle conditions, etc. rights cannot be reduced to privileges. so it's not that I can't point out where in a constitution you have a right to drive because we're all assumed to have rights.

so the safety of others is not a concern of yours? anyone should be allowed to fly a jet....as long as its not commercial....

as a rational thinking person, if I value my own safety in learning how to fly before I actually do, I would think others would do the same. You seem to be falling back on an old liberal mantra of not trusting others, so demanding government ensure your safety by issuing licenses for activities you yourself feel comfortable doing without them.

rational...huh....do we all have the right to own a nuclear missile with a 25 ton multiple warheads?

did I say you were a liberal??????? maybe I should have.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

OTE=SmarterThanYou;565269]first, you either have rights or you don't. second, power to regulate the roads is limited to safety factors like speed limits, vehicle conditions, etc. rights cannot be reduced to privileges. so it's not that I can't point out where in a constitution you have a right to drive because we're all assumed to have rights.

you're absolutely right, it is limited to safety factors, as i said, scotus stated in rather strong dicta (which has never been overturned or challenged), that a state has an interest in keeping its citizens safe, thus, it can require a license:

Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the state put into effect the above described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses

hence, if you are going to drive on state roads, you need a license. if you are on your own private road or some other private land, you don't. at least that is my understanding, maybe the code is different in different states, but i remember growing up and friends who grew up on farms said they started driving at 13 or 14 because the land is private.....

as a rational thinking person, if I value my own safety in learning how to fly before I actually do, I would think others would do the same. You seem to be falling back on an old liberal mantra of not trusting others, so demanding government ensure your safety by issuing licenses for activities you yourself feel comfortable doing without them.

i don't think it is a liberal mantra only. and i highly doubt all libertarians hold your views on this matter, just as i doubt all libertarians would exercise caution for others and learn how to fly first. i really don't have a problem with government stepping in and saying look....we need a license to fly and a license to drive because when you operate a motor vehicle on PUBLIC roadways and of course airways (i don't think airways above a certain height are private), then you need a public or government license. IMO, it is minimal intrusion and is offset by the state's compelling interest to better protect the public at large.

further, as a libertarian, surely you recognize a state's police interest under the 10th amendment.....it is an easy argument to say that the state requires license in order that one does not impinge upon the others right to also safely drive on the road or in the case of planes, to fly and live on the ground should one crash.....

did I say you were a liberal??????? maybe I should have.

your labels mean nothing to me....you can join the ranks of PMP and label away....i will continue to argue my beliefs, as do you....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The PATRIOT Act, stripping our 4th Amendment rights, strengthened by this administration rather than changed is enough to begin to at least pay attention. Of course, Desh, being a hack, ignores the abuse by this administration in strengthening warrantless wiretapping and only mentions Bush.

thank you

that was my point....i figured she would mention that as she harped on it for years under bush, yet is overall, much more silent under obama

 

[SmarterthanYou]

you're absolutely right, it is limited to safety factors, as i said, scotus stated in rather strong dicta (which has never been overturned or challenged), that a state has an interest in keeping its citizens safe, thus, it can require a license:



hence, if you are going to drive on state roads, you need a license. if you are on your own private road or some other private land, you don't. at least that is my understanding, maybe the code is different in different states, but i remember growing up and friends who grew up on farms said they started driving at 13 or 14 because the land is private.....



i don't think it is a liberal mantra only. and i highly doubt all libertarians hold your views on this matter, just as i doubt all libertarians would exercise caution for others and learn how to fly first. i really don't have a problem with government stepping in and saying look....we need a license to fly and a license to drive because when you operate a motor vehicle on PUBLIC roadways and of course airways (i don't think airways above a certain height are private), then you need a public or government license. IMO, it is minimal intrusion and is offset by the state's compelling interest to better protect the public at large.

further, as a libertarian, surely you recognize a state's police interest under the 10th amendment.....it is an easy argument to say that the state requires license in order that one does not impinge upon the others right to also safely drive on the road or in the case of planes, to fly and live on the ground should one crash.....



your labels mean nothing to me....you can join the ranks of PMP and label away....i will continue to argue my beliefs, as do you....

then in the interests of public safety, do you approve of licenses to own and carry guns? practice free speech? what other rights do you feel should eventually be whittled away to privileges? for what i'm seeing in your replies is that YOU (and a majority of others) feel that public safety should take precedence over individual rights. Is it your belief then that the constitution be a living document, one that can be re-interpreted from time to time to fit the needs of the public?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Do we license drivers?

I've been waiting for someone to say this. Yes, we license drivers, if they intend to drive on public roads. Just like we license people (except for Vermont) to carry arms in public, concealed. But if you want to regulate guns like cars, lets do it.

No age limit to buy
No background check
Financing available
No limitations mechanically (only applies to cars that are not intended for public roads)
No special taxes
Tax write offs (if used for work)

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

then in the interests of public safety, do you approve of licenses to own and carry guns? practice free speech? what other rights do you feel should eventually be whittled away to privileges? for what i'm seeing in your replies is that YOU (and a majority of others) feel that public safety should take precedence over individual rights. Is it your belief then that the constitution be a living document, one that can be re-interpreted from time to time to fit the needs of the public?

you're missing the point....you're talking about a gun and free speech. vs. an motor vehicle.....

as to living document....you're the one who can't find anything in the constitution that forbids drivers licenses.....scotus exists under the constitution, and scotus says, the states have a right, not you, but the states, have a right to require licenses......

with you, i can tell this is going to get deep into what are rights, states vs. you etc.....i respect that in that you, always have.

you agree that one should "rationally" train themselves before flying and presumbly driving....

what if i don't agree? who determines rational? you? if, in your opinion, an irrational neighbor was going to get into his aeroplane.....you wouldn't stop him?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

you're missing the point....you're talking about a gun and free speech. vs. an motor vehicle.....

and we're also talking about rights to property, plus rights to travel on roads that I already am taxed for plus the difference between using the roads for personal use vs. commerce

as to living document....you're the one who can't find anything in the constitution that forbids drivers licenses.....scotus exists under the constitution, and scotus says, the states have a right, not you, but the states, have a right to require licenses......

nor can I find anything in there that gives states the power to mandate licenses to drive. I see all kinds of power to regulate the roadways, but not the people or means of travel on them.

with you, i can tell this is going to get deep into what are rights, states vs. you etc.....i respect that in that you, always have.

thank you, sorry bout the liberal remark.

you agree that one should "rationally" train themselves before flying and presumbly driving....

not exactly. I agree that rational people should learn to do something before mixing it up in public. like having parents teach you how to drive, having someone who already knows how to fly teach you, etc.

what if i don't agree? who determines rational? you? if, in your opinion, an irrational neighbor was going to get into his aeroplane.....you wouldn't stop him?

i'd first have to wonder why he's not rational. is he drunk? yeah, i'd stop him. is he angry at his exwife? yeah, i'd stop him, then get him drunk, then take the keys to his plane til he cools down.

the problem we run in to about not agreeing is then we get to divide against each other and have greater numbers win out. Lots of people in our history, from the framers of the constitution to as late as martin luther king jr agreed that for all rights to be held inviolate, we must also defend those rights for people that we disagree with. So it's a simple matter of watching the sheeple listen to a 'benevolent' government tell us they can mandate licenses to make sure people drive safely. Are we accident free on the road? Do people still die on the road? Do people still drink and drive? Every single day, yet those 'licenses' were supposed to stop those incidents from happening. So all we did was turn a right in to a paid for privilege that only lined the pockets of our government.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

UOTE=SmarterThanYou;565356]and we're also talking about rights to property, plus rights to travel on roads that I already am taxed for plus the difference between using the roads for personal use vs. commerce

there is no property in automobiles, they are chattel. have you tried to walk on roads lately? you can still take side roads or "god's green earth" nearly anywhere you want in the US. taking a state/federal roadway, now that is different. under the constitution, they have power to regulate those roadways.

nor can I find anything in there that gives states the power to mandate licenses to drive. I see all kinds of power to regulate the roadways, but not the people or means of travel on them.

fair enough on the constitution. do you deny court decisions, especially, scotus decisions?

thank you, sorry bout the liberal remark.

no worries

not exactly. I agree that rational people should learn to do something before mixing it up in public. like having parents teach you how to drive, having someone who already knows how to fly teach you, etc.
i'd first have to wonder why he's not rational. is he drunk? yeah, i'd stop him. is he angry at his exwife? yeah, i'd stop him, then get him drunk, then take the keys to his plane til he cools down.

you're already forcing your will on people....by thinking they "should learn"....not very libertarian of you

the problem we run in to about not agreeing is then we get to divide against each other and have greater numbers win out. Lots of people in our history, from the framers of the constitution to as late as martin luther king jr agreed that for all rights to be held inviolate, we must also defend those rights for people that we disagree with. So it's a simple matter of watching the sheeple listen to a 'benevolent' government tell us they can mandate licenses to make sure people drive safely. Are we accident free on the road? Do people still die on the road? Do people still drink and drive? Every single day, yet those 'licenses' were supposed to stop those incidents from happening. So all we did was turn a right in to a paid for privilege that only lined the pockets of our government

ok.....who then should make sure the last part of your paragraph doesn't happen? you? your neighbor?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

there is no property in automobiles, they are chattel. have you tried to walk on roads lately? you can still take side roads or "god's green earth" nearly anywhere you want in the US. taking a state/federal roadway, now that is different. under the constitution, they have power to regulate those roadways.

fair enough on the constitution. do you deny court decisions, especially, scotus decisions?

Automobiles are indeed property. That is why the registration fees are classified as property taxes. As to court decisions/scotus, why yes indeed I do deny them when they run contrary to the constitution. marbury v. madison.

you're already forcing your will on people....by thinking they "should learn"....not very libertarian of you

Thinking that they should learn and saying that they shall learn are two different things. If they should, but they don't, then the onus is all on them if they screw it up. I'm not punishing anyone for not learning something that I feel they should.

ok.....who then should make sure the last part of your paragraph doesn't happen? you? your neighbor?

both of us. I look out for my neighbors as they look out for me, or at least our properties and kids. This is how communities should be. We're at the point we are now because people didn't want to expend the energy in caring about their neighbors, just make the gov do it. in return for doing what we demand of them, they conveniently deny us our rights.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Amazing that she was able to repel an intruder without using an assault weapon.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Amazing that she was able to repel an intruder without using an assault weapon.

While 'assault weapons' don't exist, who's to say the shotgun wasn't one of these?

 

[ib1yysguy]

While 'assault weapons' don't exist, who's to say the shotgun wasn't one of these?

Only in the world of the right wing idiots can one say with confidence that God exists and assault weapons do not.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Only in the world of the right wing idiots can one say with confidence that God exists and assault weapons do not.

Speaking from a vast knowledge of guns and their history, the term Assault Weapon, has had no meaning and in fact no existence prior to the gun control debates of the 1960s. The closest was the German term Sturmgewehr which loosely translated into assault rifle. However the term, according to several German historians, is meant to infer an ability to repel an assault or storm.

So yeah, they don't exist.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Speaking from a vast knowledge of guns and their history, the term Assault Weapon, has had no meaning and in fact no existence prior to the gun control debates of the 1960s. The closest was the German term Sturmgewehr which loosely translated into assault rifle. However the term, according to several German historians, is meant to infer an ability to repel an assault or storm.

So yeah, they don't exist.

The term didn't exist before 1960, therefore the weapons don't exist.

Retard.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

E=SmarterThanYou;565378]Automobiles are indeed property. That is why the registration fees are classified as property taxes. As to court decisions/scotus, why yes indeed I do deny them when they run contrary to the constitution. marbury v. madison.

no....property is land...unique....autos are chattel....i'm not going to look up all the case law etc on this....but come on....autos are personal property STY....look it up, trust me....only real property is true property...all else is chattel, which is personal property, intellectual property etc.....

Thinking that they should learn and saying that they shall learn are two different things. If they should, but they don't, then the onus is all on them if they screw it up. I'm not punishing anyone for not learning something that I feel they should.

so you are willing to allow anyone...to hop on a plane....a boeing 7E7...so long as their flight is not "commerical"......that is their liberty....to fly any plane they want, a 7E7.....they don't need a license or YOU to tell them they are forbidden......and i mean anyone.....

correct?

both of us. I look out for my neighbors as they look out for me, or at least our properties and kids. This is how communities should be. We're at the point we are now because people didn't want to expend the energy in caring about their neighbors, just make the gov do it. in return for doing what we demand of them, they conveniently deny us our rights.

i understand what point you believe we are "now".....but without any government, what point do you think we would be at?

so far....anyone can fly any plane anytime they want.....
so far....anyone can drive any car anytime they want.....
so far....anyone can own a 25 ton nuclear missile with 10 warheads....

is this right?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

The term didn't exist before 1960, therefore the weapons don't exist.

Retard.

So describe one for me then.

 

[ib1yysguy]

So describe one for me then.

I can't define pornography either, and neither could SCOTUS. Does pornography not exist?