PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control, a slippery slope.


radioman
02-07-2012, 3:35 PM
The gun control act of 1968 made new laws, at that time. You can’t buy a gun out of State, why; we have back ground checks don’t we. Before 1968 a felon could own a gun, here is where the slope gets slippery, let’s say a guy, 20 years ago went to prison on drug stupidity, and in the 15 years he’s been out he has worked, paid his taxes, not so much as a speeding ticket, does he not have a God given right to protect his life, and the life of his loved ones? If not why?

The right of the people shall not be infringed. He was born here, he works here, he pays his taxes here, so, is he one of the people? Nowhere does it say law abiding people in the 2A.
If we allow a little infringement here and a little there, how can we stop it, how far do we slip down that slope before we go over the side of it.

By birth right I’m an American and I should have the same rights in all 50 States, but I don’t. I can carry in Arizona, no permit needed, but I can’t buy a gun there. I live here, I can buy a gun here, but I can’t carry here without a permit, where’s the 14A on this?

Prop 8 was over turned today by the 14A, but what over turned my 2A rights, the GCA of 1968. The slippery slope, what rights do we fight for and what rights we let go. Gay rights are not in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights has no right to sexuality, but it has a right to keep and bear, if the 14A can protect sexuality it can protect my right to keep and bear in all 50 States.

If you can’t buy a gun where you are, if you can’t carry a gun where you are, if you can’t own a gun over something you did 20 years ago, what rights do you have? None, your rights have been infringed and for what, a little safety? And how safe are you when someone is kicking down your door at 3 in the morning and you don’t have a gun to defend your home, yourself and your loved ones, The slippery slope.

duggan
02-07-2012, 4:07 PM
Gun owners aren't a protected class. Until gun owners start getting beat up for being gun owners nothing will change. And I doubt any gun owner is going to stand there and let himself/herself be physically harmed if they are armed, so it looks as though we will never be a protected class.

CHS
02-07-2012, 4:15 PM
Gay rights are not in the Contusion, the Bill of Rights has no right to sexuality

Sounds like you need to read your Constitution again. I suggest starting with the 9th amendment. The bill of rights is not all-inclusive.

CrazyPhuD
02-07-2012, 4:21 PM
Gun owners aren't a protected class. Until gun owners start getting beat up for being gun owners nothing will change. And I doubt any gun owner is going to stand there and let himself/herself be physically harmed if they are armed, so it looks as though we will never be a protected class.

Except that gun owners are being persecuted for their beliefs and political expression. While I may not be a big fan of the open carry movement, one cannot deny that the laws were put in place not for public safety but instead to oppress a non-majority opinion. I'm not sure how that isn't being a persecuted class....when laws are targeted at you primarily because they don't like you, without any regard to actual public harm, it's hard not to be considered a class.

Hell the original mulford act wasn't about public safety. It was about suppressing the protests of an unpopular class.

berto
02-07-2012, 4:52 PM
BoR is not a list of rights but a restriction on govt.

radioman
02-07-2012, 4:55 PM
Sounds like you need to read your Constitution again. I suggest starting with the 9th amendment. The bill of rights is not all-inclusive.

Powers reserved to the people, The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

the "people" of California passes prop 8 by way of the ballot box, not that I'm saying it was right, that's not what my post is about.

The slippery slope here is there no right to sexuality, if there was you could not be charged with a sex crime, you would have a right to your sexuality, what ever it was.

Here we have a right that is spelled out in 2A, and gun control does deny or disparage.

CHS
02-07-2012, 5:05 PM
The slippery slope here is there no right to sexuality, if there was you could not be charged with a sex crime, you would have a right to your sexuality, what ever it was.

Really? That logic makes no sense.

What you just said is that since I have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, then I can't be charged with a gun crime if I shoot someone in cold blood. It's my right, after all.

The Supreme Court has absolutely determined that you have a right to sexuality. How do you think all those sodomy laws got struck down?

And of course you can be charged with a sex crime, even with a fundamental right to sexuality. Just because you have the right, doesn't mean it's ok to screw children for example, or rape women. Even if that is what gets you off.

"The people" doesn't really mean much actually. We're not a democracy; we're a representative republic. They're very different.

radioman
02-07-2012, 5:12 PM
Really? That logic makes no sense.

What you just said is that since I have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, then I can't be charged with a gun crime if I shoot someone in cold blood. It's my right, after all.

The Supreme Court has absolutely determined that you have a right to sexuality. How do you think all those sodomy laws got struck down?

And of course you can be charged with a sex crime, even with a fundamental right to sexuality. Just because you have the right, doesn't mean it's ok to screw children for example, or rape women. Even if that is what gets you off.

"The people" doesn't really mean much actually. We're not a democracy; we're a representative republic. They're very different.

No what I said is if you had a right to sexuality, before the the 26A you would go to prison if you had sex with someone under 21, that was a crime. if you just shoot someone for the hell of it, then yes that's a crime, The 2A does not give you a right to kill, more it gives you a right to protect.

radioman
02-07-2012, 5:21 PM
The Supreme Court has absolutely determined that you have a right to sexuality. How do you think all those sodomy laws got struck down?

And of course you can be charged with a sex crime, even with a fundamental right to sexuality. Just because you have the right, doesn't mean it's ok to screw children for example, or rape women. Even if that is what gets you off.


do you remember when gay sex would land you in jail, and in California of all places. it was a mental illness until 1973 IIRC, now we see a move to remove pedophilia as a mental illness.

bohoki
02-07-2012, 5:24 PM
it does seem off that you have first amendment protections in every state but not the second

of course you have the right to keep and bear but not purchase?

mes227
02-07-2012, 5:24 PM
Gay rights are not in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights has no right to sexuality

Court after court disagrees with you. One of the the most important Constitutional rights is that of equal protection. Marriage provides some 1,100 legally-mandated protections (from protection against incriminating your spouse to preferential property rights and tax treatment). Thus, preventing classes of people from accessing those rights is absolutely unconstitutional. The equal protection clause, as found by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, also requires laws to have a rational basis. Homophobia is not legally rational and religious biases cannot be used (another Constitutional limitation of gov't).

But it's broader than that. The Constitution limits gov't, and it especially limits the gov'ts ability to look into our bedrooms. This comes under the Constitutional right to privacy ("due process" and the related prohibition against unreasonable search). Sodomy laws that do not apply to heterosexuals (i.e., Texas in 2003) have been consistently struck down by the Sup. Court because of both this and the equal protection clause.

radioman
02-07-2012, 5:29 PM
it does seem off that you have first amendment protections in every state but not the second

of course you have the right to keep and bear but not purchase?

before you could purchase out of your home state.
now you can go to Arizona and ccw without a permit, no matter what state you live in but what good is it if you can't buy there.

radioman
02-07-2012, 5:41 PM
Court after court disagrees with you. One of the the most important Constitutional rights is that of equal protection. Marriage provides some 1,100 legally-mandated protections (from protection against incriminating your spouse to preferential property rights and tax treatment). Thus, preventing classes of people from accessing those rights is absolutely unconstitutional. The equal protection clause, as found by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, also requires laws to have a rational basis. Homophobia is not legally rational and religious biases cannot be used (another Constitutional limitation of gov't).

But it's broader than that. The Constitution limits gov't, and it especially limits the gov'ts ability to look into our bedrooms. This comes under the Constitutional right to privacy ("due process" and the related prohibition against unreasonable search). Sodomy laws that do not apply to heterosexuals (i.e., Texas in 2003) have been consistently struck down by the Sup. Court because of both this and the equal protection clause.

This is a human right, or civil rights and not spelled out, this is why in 2012 there is still a fight over it. I myself think you have a right to live your live and to love who you want. what I am saying is that our spelled right to keep and bear is infringed, that this is a slippery slope and will lead to the loss of other rights that are spelled out.

CHS
02-07-2012, 6:20 PM
This is a human right, or civil rights and not spelled out, this is why in 2012 there is still a fight over it

What?

radioman
02-07-2012, 7:05 PM
CHS, It was once a crime to be gay, this in my life time. sex law are societal, 10 or 15 years ago it was illegal in the UK to have gay under 18, all others were 16. as laws come before the courts they are upheld or stuck down. We are a republic that's why we need courts, without them we would still have jim crow laws. civil rights were not rights until the courts said they were. I don't know how you and I got here, as my post was about the slippery slope.

vincewarde
02-07-2012, 7:06 PM
You have to understand that the left in this country flat out does not care what the constitution says. Only "rights" that they approve exist.

The 1st Amendment - the part about religious freedom - is unimportant and perhaps evil, as is the 2nd Amendment. These rights are to be attacked whenever possible.

But at the same time other rights that are "implied" but not specifically protected are of the first order of importance. These are to be protected at all costs.

IMHO it is the politics of division at its' worst. We should be protecting everyone's rights, not just the ones we like or that benefit ourselves.

radioman
02-07-2012, 7:19 PM
You have to understand that the left in this country flat out does not care what the constitution says. Only "rights" that they approve exist.

The 1st Amendment - the part about religious freedom - is unimportant and perhaps evil, as is the 2nd Amendment. These rights are to be attacked whenever possible.

But at the same time other rights that are "implied" but not specifically protected are of the first order of importance. These are to be protected at all costs.

IMHO it is the politics of division at its' worst. We should be protecting everyone's rights, not just the ones we like or that benefit ourselves.

I think to be far right or far left is insane, I try to stay to the center.