Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-03-2021, 12:10 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,666
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
NO I don't like Democrats "common sense"gun control when it comes to stopping people from getting damn near anything they want. BUT... I see NO problem with background checks, AND waiting periods for people who are getting their FIRST (and only first) gun.
Voting for Democrats is endorsing their policies - you're walking the walk.

As for background checks, it's universal registration that is being pushed, not background checks. Background checks are easy. We put it on the driver's license as an endorsement and we open firearm purchases across state lines because we now have a simple system to know who passed. There is no need to register anything because it's the same background check for any firearm. We don't register gays or JewsWhite people since there is no real need for such registration unless there are nefarious reasons for the government to want to have such lists.

Similarly, waiting periods for firearms are as valid as waiting periods for voting. Or waiting periods for mainstream propaganda to report on news: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have a developing story... Breaking news... Ten days ago there was a massive earthquake that wiped San Francisco off of the face of the Earth..." I mean, we don't want people to panic or overreact, right?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-03-2021, 12:19 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,961
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Fantastic! A dialog. I agree 100% it is all about drawing lines. BUT, as you can see just in this thread, we have a great many folks hereabouts who are not yet ready for an actual dialog. They continue to insist that things be as they imagine rather than how they are.
Liberal Gun Club come pick up your boy. He's dropping the mask too quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
NOW - on the line drawing. Well, back in 1934 the line was drawn at full auto and SBR and silencers etc. NO court has EVER even HINTED at striking that down. Sorry, but that is the LAW and has been for nearly 90 years. CA and other states say NO NFA's. I don't like it, but I don't think that will change, right? So... if states CAN say what types of guns we can have - we had better be in the discussion about it.
Conceded defeat before the first sword is even drawn, and admitting his schema will allow violations and degradation of the right. Wow. Much interest with you admitting your horse won't win before we've even bet. Definitely a strong horse to back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
NO I don't like Democrats "common sense"gun control when it comes to stopping people from getting damn near anything they want. BUT... I see NO problem with background checks, AND waiting periods for people who are getting their FIRST (and only first) gun.
Great, and for YOUR conception of what you'll give up, you get what exactly? Seriously, the very idea that being 'reasonable' is the key to keep the right from being swallowed is exactly what leads to so many uncorrectable errors later on. These were admitted to, allowed, and we see what California resulted in. I'm supposed to ignore that those concessions lead us here and where we currently are is intolerable? If A leads to B and B leads to C, then A leads to C, but I should ignore that in order for a dialogue. Right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
I agree that WE (gun owners) need to help stop the mentally infirm from getting and having firearms. Gun owners should be on the forefront of that because if we don't we see what will happen. Those lunatics WILL continue to shoot up schools and churches and malls etc. giving yet more ammo to the anti-gunners. With each shooting the noose tightens.

WE need to stop the mantra that the 2A is inviolate and therefore felons or the mentally unfit or people convicted of violent crimes should have access to guns because ďt''s a god given constitutional right"....

This ALL starts with a dialog. A dialog between the NRA and/or gun owners and Democrats. A dialog that cannot be had when one side says "not one step backwards"... or..... "ALL guns must be taken away".
Yes, that is how it works, and the other side clearly understands this, which is why they're continuing to free felons, give felons the right to vote, and to free the mentally ill, so as to weaken the existing right because they are changing the functional definition of "free" and "good moral character". The dialogue you want to engage in already has baked in failure points, much like Buckley's declaration that he was going to "stand athwart history yelling stop". What a loser. Only bigger losers are people who unironically followed a man who declared he would be Don Quixote, but KNOWINGLY so- even Don Quixote didn't KNOW he was tilting at windmills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Sadly I am just not hearing any dialog or opportunity to discuss this matter intelligently. We KNOW what we want. We want lunatics to stop shooting up schools and malls.(at least I HOPE that is the case)
Much appeal to emotion. Much "we" and "dialog" and "opportunity". Liberal Gun Club, come get your boy. The lefty verbal tics are screaming out for anyone who will listen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Now we can't get to or know all the lunatics before they act, but OFTEN there are signs. Parents, spouses, friends and family will often say "well, he was going through a lot" or "he had mental health issues"....
The FBI has repeatedly shown they will NOT stop people that parents called and warned, and they are fundamentally unwilling to stop this. Everyone from the Parkland guy to the Charleston Church shooter to Antifa Ohio spree shooter (try finding the FBI admitting political extremism on that guy), the King Sooper Colorado shooter and many others were specifically warned about but nothing was done. But instead of directing ire at the law enforcement agencies that refused to do anything...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
OK if THEY know about it, THEY can help stop it. Yes, Red Flag laws. That coupled with a LAW banning the publication of the shooter's name and identity will go a long way to slowing or stopping the mass shooting epidemic we are seeing.
Great, so to protect the 2nd amendment, destroying what's left of the 4th, 5th, and 1st are necessary. ALRIGHT, this dialogue is AWESOME. Say, you should be a hostage negotiator. Negotiating trading 50 people to replace the original 10 taken hostage is a GREAT trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
THAT is the only way to buy time for firearms ownership here in the US. And I say ""buy time" because I am convinced that population increases may eventually render most firearms ownership impractical and thus irrelevant. (but that is a different discussion)
And lastly, once more: you admit that your conception of the future is a dismal one with virtually no chance of success but we should concede things right now so we can slowly bleed out instead of fighting further and risking arterial injuries where we will be gone in 5 seconds.

Why in the world would anyone take any "negotiator" like this seriously?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 05-03-2021 at 12:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-03-2021, 12:31 PM
fixitquick79 fixitquick79 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 183
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

CAL.BAR

You mention you want a dialog. But you don't. You want everyone who disagrees with you on the details of your arguments to be painted with the brush of an anarchist wackadoo. No one I have seen has said they think a 9 year old with an automatic weapon in the street is ok or constitutional. It just isn't so. We all understand that there can be restrictions on the use of a firearm. In the vein of laws saying you can't unjustly point a weapon at someone. That is different than a law abiding citizen being able to purchase any firearm they desire. A 9 year does not have the same rights a legal aged adult has. We all understand that.

The reason many don't approve of universal background checks is the understanding that if the government turns authoritative or dictatorial it WILL be used in confiscation and/or incarceration. Maybe if there was a hard set part of the law dictating that if ANY govt person uses or retains that data beyond the minute it was approved it would constitute a jailable offense. And technical mechanisms (automatic and no eyes on deletion). Maybe people would be more open to that.

But that will never happen because those demanding it know it is a path to registration and seizure.

I don't think the majority are against controls on the mentally ill and violent getting weapons. The sticking point is due process. Without due process, clear notice, and appeal it is a VERY dangerous infringement. If it is like they wanted the law here in Cali originally anyone, even a stranger could have your rights stripped because they FEEL like you are dangerous. Even if that feeling is simply knowledge you own a gun in thier neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-03-2021, 12:37 PM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,373
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
"Absolutist" is not inconsistent with amendments not being "absolute."

In vacuum, civil rights are expansive and unlimited. In a society, civil rights are limited by other peoples' civil rights. An "absolutist" accepts that the *only* limit on the 2A comes from affecting other peoples' rights, not from government whims or alleged "collective good."
That was beautifully stated
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-03-2021, 4:51 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,366
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fixitquick79 View Post
CAL.BAR

You mention you want a dialog. But you don't. You want everyone who disagrees with you on the details of your arguments to be painted with the brush of an anarchist wackadoo. No one I have seen has said they think a 9 year old with an automatic weapon in the street is ok or constitutional. It just isn't so. We all understand that there can be restrictions on the use of a firearm. In the vein of laws saying you can't unjustly point a weapon at someone. That is different than a law abiding citizen being able to purchase any firearm they desire. A 9 year does not have the same rights a legal aged adult has. We all understand that.

The reason many don't approve of universal background checks is the understanding that if the government turns authoritative or dictatorial it WILL be used in confiscation and/or incarceration. Maybe if there was a hard set part of the law dictating that if ANY govt person uses or retains that data beyond the minute it was approved it would constitute a jailable offense. And technical mechanisms (automatic and no eyes on deletion). Maybe people would be more open to that.

But that will never happen because those demanding it know it is a path to registration and seizure.

I don't think the majority are against controls on the mentally ill and violent getting weapons. The sticking point is due process. Without due process, clear notice, and appeal it is a VERY dangerous infringement. If it is like they wanted the law here in Cali originally anyone, even a stranger could have your rights stripped because they FEEL like you are dangerous. Even if that feeling is simply knowledge you own a gun in thier neighborhood.
Fixit - I DO want a dialog. But you CANNOT have a dialog with anyone who says nothing more than "shall not be infringed" right? Not much to discuss.

Next if you try and support the "shall not be infringed" crowd, then how would the state outlaw 9 year olds getting a machine gun? SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is it, right. And if you now agree that a 9y/o should not get a gun - then how about a 16y/o? A 16y/o can drive? A car is a deadly weapon. How about 18? How about a felon? How about a crazy person? You see it's all about laws and drawing lines. But if you stop at "shall not be infringed" as many hereabout have said (over and over) then you CAN'T get to a dialog about when, where, who and how with firearms. Right?

Next you try to explain that it is due process that is holding up many people's acceptance of gun registration, a laws to keep lunatics from getting guns. I think you misunderstand most of the people here. They WILL NOT accept ANY laws restricting guns for ANYONE. Why? SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! nothing more to talk about. See the problem?

And even IF you get past the "shall not infringe" crowd the rest are so mistrusting of the government that there is NO way they will go for ANY law stopping ANYONE from getting guns because they are so scared that the law(s) can be abused. Never mind that fact that ANY law can be abused.

The fact is that we have to err on the side of safety. You can't expect friends, family or LE to make a report of someone who may be on the verge of shooitng up his work place for example and then expect notice, a hearing and decision BEFORE taking the guns, right? That all can take days or weeks. What do you THINK the lunatic or angy disalusioned loner will do after he lears that the state is (slowly) coming for his guns? Do you THINK it might just cause him to HIDE those guns? Or carry out his plans SOONER?

So... again, it's NOT a due process issue. Red Flag laws HAVE due process hearings etc. but... for obvious reasons, those hearing have to come AFTER securing the guns. Perhaps you can look more into the red flag laws here in CA. They have due process, require a close connection with the person involved and require a fair amount of effort on the part of the reporting party including testifying in court. No to mention incurring the rath of the person they reported. For all of these reasons red flag laws are not used very often and a far from being widely abused.

But again, we are nowhere near being able to have a discussion about this until more people move from "shall not infringe" because it simply leaves no room for discussion. I hope you can see that.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-03-2021, 4:57 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,366
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Liberal Gun Club come pick up your boy. He's dropping the mask too quickly.


Conceded defeat before the first sword is even drawn, and admitting his schema will allow violations and degradation of the right. Wow. Much interest with you admitting your horse won't win before we've even bet. Definitely a strong horse to back.

Great, and for YOUR conception of what you'll give up, you get what exactly? Seriously, the very idea that being 'reasonable' is the key to keep the right from being swallowed is exactly what leads to so many uncorrectable errors later on. These were admitted to, allowed, and we see what California resulted in. I'm supposed to ignore that those concessions lead us here and where we currently are is intolerable? If A leads to B and B leads to C, then A leads to C, but I should ignore that in order for a dialogue. Right.

Yes, that is how it works, and the other side clearly understands this, which is why they're continuing to free felons, give felons the right to vote, and to free the mentally ill, so as to weaken the existing right because they are changing the functional definition of "free" and "good moral character". The dialogue you want to engage in already has baked in failure points, much like Buckley's declaration that he was going to "stand athwart history yelling stop". What a loser. Only bigger losers are people who unironically followed a man who declared he would be Don Quixote, but KNOWINGLY so- even Don Quixote didn't KNOW he was tilting at windmills.


Much appeal to emotion. Much "we" and "dialog" and "opportunity". Liberal Gun Club, come get your boy. The lefty verbal tics are screaming out for anyone who will listen.
The FBI has repeatedly shown they will NOT stop people that parents called and warned, and they are fundamentally unwilling to stop this. Everyone from the Parkland guy to the Charleston Church shooter to Antifa Ohio spree shooter (try finding the FBI admitting political extremism on that guy), the King Sooper Colorado shooter and many others were specifically warned about but nothing was done. But instead of directing ire at the law enforcement agencies that refused to do anything...


Great, so to protect the 2nd amendment, destroying what's left of the 4th, 5th, and 1st are necessary. ALRIGHT, this dialogue is AWESOME. Say, you should be a hostage negotiator. Negotiating trading 50 people to replace the original 10 taken hostage is a GREAT trade.


And lastly, once more: you admit that your conception of the future is a dismal one with virtually no chance of success but we should concede things right now so we can slowly bleed out instead of fighting further and risking arterial injuries where we will be gone in 5 seconds.

Why in the world would anyone take any "negotiator" like this seriously?
Your points are angry and all over the place. But the one inexorable conclusion is... why talk with the other side? BECAUSE WE ARE SLOWLY BUT SURLY LOSING!!!! Every year we lose more and more. AW laws, and other outright BANS. CA, NY, CT, HI, IL, more and more states are seeing demographic changes and more and more anti-gun bills. In states like FL, VA and others where we never thought we'd see such anti-gun bills. THAT'S WHY. And... day after day, shooting after shooting WE ARE LOSING. The NRA is corrupt and bankrupt. They are bleeding influence in Congress.

How much more do you want to lose before we say hey, let's try something else. "shall not infringe" has not worked and will never work.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-03-2021, 4:58 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,965
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Quite right and well said. NOW just talk to the REST of Cal.Guns folk who insist on claiming 2A is inviolate and no conversations can be held period. We can't have an intelligent dialog with people with their hands over their ears yelling "la,la la - I want things MY way no matter what".
In what context is this "the 2nd is inviolate" being presented by CA gunowners? Have gunowners demanded repeal of 1934 or GCA1968? Full auto through the mail for everyone? Do away with background checks? That's not what I see. What I see is "can I buy a newly made 1911 or Sig or S&W pistol that is available in every other state?" Or can I buy a deadly Ruger Charger in CA. Or when I die, how about my family gets to inherit my AR or FAL or AK, etc? The ability to buy ammo without a background check. This is not indicative of "shall not be infringed" but rather "treat us fairly".

CA Gunowners are not the moving force in this issue, gun control advocates and the Democratic Party play that role. Has there been in recent memory any CA gun legislation that consisted of "we get this, gunowners get that" or has it been all "this is what you surrender"? CA gunowners have done, it seems to me, as you suggest - tried to play ball, and we have the results today.

Unsurprisingly, things are going pretty well in the rest of the country. I would suggest it's in part because of the approach and organization(s) with whom you disagree.

In CA, gun control advocates and the Democratic Party behave like the Klan - I don't think I need to write what that makes us, in their eyes.
__________________
GOA Member & SAF Life Member

Last edited by dfletcher; 05-03-2021 at 5:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-03-2021, 5:02 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,366
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Voting for Democrats is endorsing their policies - you're walking the walk.

As for background checks, it's universal registration that is being pushed, not background checks. Background checks are easy. We put it on the driver's license as an endorsement and we open firearm purchases across state lines because we now have a simple system to know who passed. There is no need to register anything because it's the same background check for any firearm. We don't register gays or JewsWhite people since there is no real need for such registration unless there are nefarious reasons for the government to want to have such lists.

Similarly, waiting periods for firearms are as valid as waiting periods for voting. Or waiting periods for mainstream propaganda to report on news: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have a developing story... Breaking news... Ten days ago there was a massive earthquake that wiped San Francisco off of the face of the Earth..." I mean, we don't want people to panic or overreact, right?
OK, so .... again... NO waiting periods, NO background checks (because you're terrified the government might someday try to round up all the guns in the country, so.... anyone, anywhere at anytime can get any gun they want, right? How's that argument been working for us?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-03-2021, 5:13 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,965
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
OK, so .... again... NO waiting periods, NO background checks (because you're terrified the government might someday try to round up all the guns in the country, so.... anyone, anywhere at anytime can get any gun they want, right? How's that argument been working for us?
I'll play -

Let's suppose we go with UBC. The problem of an 18 to 20 year old being unable to purchase a handgun from a dealer must be resolved. I'm sure you agree that a fellow who has or is serving in the military ought not be prohibited from availing themselves of "Heller" - yes? So let's do the following ….

An 18 to 20 year old, who in most states can now purchase or receive a handgun private party but would be prohibited under UBC, would be allowed to do so. Further, since all purchases are done with a background check, guns can be bought across state lines, so long as done via a gun store.

Sound OK?

Lots of luck getting gun control folks to accept it.

BTW, I didn't do "the government will take our guns" routine. That you assign it as a motivation is rather dismissive of the POV.
__________________
GOA Member & SAF Life Member

Last edited by dfletcher; 05-03-2021 at 5:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-03-2021, 5:36 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,728
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Fantastic! A dialog. I agree 100% it is all about drawing lines. BUT, as you can see just in this thread, we have a great many folks hereabouts who are not yet ready for an actual dialog. They continue to insist that things be as they imagine rather than how they are.

NOW - on the line drawing. Well, back in 1934 the line was drawn at full auto and SBR and silencers etc. NO court has EVER even HINTED at striking that down. Sorry, but that is the LAW and has been for nearly 90 years. CA and other states say NO NFA's. I don't like it, but I don't think that will change, right? So... if states CAN say what types of guns we can have - we had better be in the discussion about it.

NO I don't like Democrats "common sense"gun control when it comes to stopping people from getting damn near anything they want. BUT... I see NO problem with background checks, AND waiting periods for people who are getting their FIRST (and only first) gun.

I agree that WE (gun owners) need to help stop the mentally infirm from getting and having firearms. Gun owners should be on the forefront of that because if we don't we see what will happen. Those lunatics WILL continue to shoot up schools and churches and malls etc. giving yet more ammo to the anti-gunners. With each shooting the noose tightens.

WE need to stop the mantra that the 2A is inviolate and therefore felons or the mentally unfit or people convicted of violent crimes should have access to guns because ďt''s a god given constitutional right"....

This ALL starts with a dialog. A dialog between the NRA and/or gun owners and Democrats. A dialog that cannot be had when one side says "not one step backwards"... or..... "ALL guns must be taken away".

Sadly I am just not hearing any dialog or opportunity to discuss this matter intelligently. We KNOW what we want. We want lunatics to stop shooting up schools and malls.(at least I HOPE that is the case) Now we can't get to or know all the lunatics before they act, but OFTEN there are signs. Parents, spouses, friends and family will often say "well, he was going through a lot" or "he had mental health issues".... OK if THEY know about it, THEY can help stop it. Yes, Red Flag laws. That coupled with a LAW banning the publication of the shooter's name and identity will go a long way to slowing or stopping the mass shooting epidemic we are seeing. THAT is the only way to buy time for firearms ownership here in the US. And I say ""buy time" because I am convinced that population increases may eventually render most firearms ownership impractical and thus irrelevant. (but that is a different discussion)
That's a poor argument. Courts have consistently ruled just about every gun control law doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. We have allowed courts to dictate our rights, depending on their political leaning.

Dred Scott found that black people are not citizens. By your own standards, and the belief that amendments are not absolute, you must believe that some level of slavery and discrimination against black people but be constitutional.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-03-2021, 6:36 PM
SharedShots SharedShots is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 222
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There is a big difference between no absolute right and absolutely no right. A dialogue works when at least two open minds have people speaking and both are listening. When one side has the goal of absolutely no right expecting a dialogue to function is pretty much dreaming.

Gun control has never been about no right being absolute it has always been absolutely no right and it's pretty naďve to not see that.

When two opposing sides start at the same point, a right and only one side can win anything the other will always have something to lose. There is no losing with gun control, each and every law is a win, every single one since no matter what there can be no reversion to a state greater than the right.

Making arguments about the scope or design of limitations works only in theory where the side opposing the right establishes a limit on the restrictions or infringements they will seek and the side trying to protect the right will accept. Anything other than that is dialogue for dialogue sake, it is the same with those who relish in the process of diplomacy seeking peace, peace is out of reach so long as the process remains, it's both a means and an end.

The right is defined and can't be greater than that. There is no greater freedom than the right provides. The restrictions on that right aren't defined and have no limit. Its unreasonable to enter into dialogue to start from a position of how much of a loss is acceptable when the limit of the loss is limitless.

Approaching some dialogue in the hope that there will come a mutual understanding of how much loss one side will have when the loss can't be defined as anything other than 100% is also unreasonable yet that is the equation. In simple terms, there is no agreement on the side of gun control there is only a pause until the next milestone is reached after which that becomes the new starting line.
__________________
Happiness is a warm barrel.

]A SILENT MAJORITY will become a silent minority when those who have something to lose fear those who have something to gain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.

You don't get beaten by the opposition you get beaten by those who run away.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-03-2021, 6:53 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,961
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Your points are angry and all over the place. But the one inexorable conclusion is... why talk with the other side? BECAUSE WE ARE SLOWLY BUT SURLY LOSING!!!! Every year we lose more and more. AW laws, and other outright BANS. CA, NY, CT, HI, IL, more and more states are seeing demographic changes and more and more anti-gun bills. In states like FL, VA and others where we never thought we'd see such anti-gun bills. THAT'S WHY. And... day after day, shooting after shooting WE ARE LOSING. The NRA is corrupt and bankrupt. They are bleeding influence in Congress.

How much more do you want to lose before we say hey, let's try something else. "shall not infringe" has not worked and will never work.
Your demoralization is showing. Constitutional carry is on the march and taking vast swaths of the country. We have NYSPRA case that will be heard by the court soon enough. Your perspective is skewed because you only think of blue hellholes.

And what is there to do about the blue hellholes? Well given your previous hand-wringing, any effective but tough love action would lead you to lose your mind, so it's not worth talking about.

And yes, demographics matter. They matter a lot. You somehow think you're gonna win new demographics over to any of these laws... the US constitution has been adopted and abandoned by many countries. Mexico *technically* gives all citizens a right to keep and bear arms. Demographics is even more important than you state, yet you somehow think that by conceding the moral ground you're going to win, or at least slow the loss.

Slowing the loss is the worst possible outcome. Far better for a gun ban overnight than 75 years of it. The very fact you normalize infringements and that you have no idea how we can ever have an unburdened right means you see no way to succeed and yet you think I'm angry? I'm more amused that a CGSSA guy is the one saying what you are. Calguns has come a long way baby. And with an attitude like that, I certainly will do my best to make sure you're unwelcome anywhere outside California.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-03-2021, 8:32 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,666
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
OK, so .... again... NO waiting periods, NO background checks (because you're terrified the government might someday try to round up all the guns in the country, so.... anyone, anywhere at anytime can get any gun they want, right? How's that argument been working for us?
You are AGAIN conflating "background check" and "registration."

Do you support universal registration of all firearms? That's what is being pushed under the euphemism of "universal background checks." Remove registration from the communication and antis don't want to hear it, so let's call it what it is: a universal registration. Why would we register all the guns if the goal is to perform a background check?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-03-2021, 9:25 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,079
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Much as I hate agreeing with Biden, he is correct, no amendment is "absolute", even though I frequently tell people I am a second amendment absolutist.

The government DOES restrict speech, it simply does. It DOES search people's homes, etc.

Where to draw that line is the bugaboo. Shall not be infringed tells me that strict scrutiny of any government restriction is in order.
Scrutiny is bull****.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-03-2021, 9:27 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,079
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Your points are angry and all over the place. But the one inexorable conclusion is... why talk with the other side? BECAUSE WE ARE SLOWLY BUT SURLY LOSING!!!! Every year we lose more and more. AW laws, and other outright BANS. CA, NY, CT, HI, IL, more and more states are seeing demographic changes and more and more anti-gun bills. In states like FL, VA and others where we never thought we'd see such anti-gun bills. THAT'S WHY. And... day after day, shooting after shooting WE ARE LOSING. The NRA is corrupt and bankrupt. They are bleeding influence in Congress.

How much more do you want to lose before we say hey, let's try something else. "shall not infringe" has not worked and will never work.
Your ad hominem is just a projection.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-04-2021, 7:59 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,666
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
OK, so .... again... NO waiting periods, ...
You clearly support waiting periods and believe they are NOT an infringement. So, you wouldn't object to a little test, right?

1) What compelling government interest does the waiting period serve? You need to prove it, not merely allege it. We have numbers from large states such as CA and we have most of the country without waiting periods. It should be easy to prove.

2) Are waiting periods narrowly tailored? You are getting there by supporting it only for the first purchase, but that's not all. Are they affecting people who have legitimate safety concerns that are immediate? How do you handle that?

3) Are waiting periods the least restrictive way of achieving your goal you proved in (1)? Is there a way that achieves the same goal or statistics that is less restrictive?

You can't just call waiting periods "common sense" and stop there. You have to do some analysis. The "shall not be infringed" requires quite a bit of checkboxes to be checked before a regulation is not considered an infringement.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-04-2021, 10:06 AM
atxgun atxgun is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 82
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpookyWatcher View Post
I'm tired of this Bullchit argument of "there's limits on the 1A so limits of course are ok on 2A. You can't yell fire in a theatre... Blah blah blah "

The limits on 1A are directly related to whether the speech wtc directly harm or violate another's rights.

You can't yell fire when there isn't because of the ham to another. Or slander etc.

Carrying outside the home does NOT harm or violate anyone else's rights. There is no equivalency.

The equivocation of limits on free speech is a specious argument and I'm fooking tired of hearing it.

An appropriate equivalent is saying you can't just walk out into the street and start pulling "desk pops". Because that would harm someone else and therefore that CAN be regulated.
you actually can yell fire in a crowded theater, you just can be liable for any injuries or damages. If no damages are caused, then there is no liability and no criminal act. However you cant lie about a product in an advertisement. You cant have pornography over the airwaves, there are certain products that cant be advertised etc.

The challenge is people are really killing others in mass shootings. Bombs would be even worse.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-04-2021, 10:13 AM
ckprax's Avatar
ckprax ckprax is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 1,495
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
There is a big difference between no absolute right and absolutely no right. A dialogue works when at least two open minds have people speaking and both are listening. When one side has the goal of absolutely no right expecting a dialogue to function is pretty much dreaming.

Gun control has never been about no right being absolute it has always been absolutely no right and it's pretty naďve to not see that.

When two opposing sides start at the same point, a right and only one side can win anything the other will always have something to lose. There is no losing with gun control, each and every law is a win, every single one since no matter what there can be no reversion to a state greater than the right.

Making arguments about the scope or design of limitations works only in theory where the side opposing the right establishes a limit on the restrictions or infringements they will seek and the side trying to protect the right will accept. Anything other than that is dialogue for dialogue sake, it is the same with those who relish in the process of diplomacy seeking peace, peace is out of reach so long as the process remains, it's both a means and an end.

The right is defined and can't be greater than that. There is no greater freedom than the right provides. The restrictions on that right aren't defined and have no limit. Its unreasonable to enter into dialogue to start from a position of how much of a loss is acceptable when the limit of the loss is limitless.

Approaching some dialogue in the hope that there will come a mutual understanding of how much loss one side will have when the loss can't be defined as anything other than 100% is also unreasonable yet that is the equation. In simple terms, there is no agreement on the side of gun control there is only a pause until the next milestone is reached after which that becomes the new starting line.
Quoting because this should be read more than once. Great, yet sobering post.
__________________
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

― Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-04-2021, 10:55 AM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,965
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atxgun View Post
you actually can yell fire in a crowded theater, you just can be liable for any injuries or damages. If no damages are caused, then there is no liability and no criminal act. However you cant lie about a product in an advertisement. You cant have pornography over the airwaves, there are certain products that cant be advertised etc.

The challenge is people are really killing others in mass shootings. Bombs would be even worse.
The actual quote from Justice Holmes is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" and is far different than suggested by folks regurgitating via misquote. The omission of "falsely" and addition of "crowded" rather clearly broadcast a skewing of the facts to achieve a goal. That goal is a diminution of properly exercised and protected rights.

Quoting the Shenk decision on free speech is much like quoting Justice Taney on civil rights. It's a horrible and mostly repudiated decision.

Advertisements and other forms of paid speech are treated differently than free speech.

With respect to "mass shootings" like it or not that is beside the point. Far more people shoot one another daily with 22 pistols and revolvers than semi-auto rifle. Rights entail risks - I'm sure we'd be collectively safer if bad guys didn't get to hide behind the 4th Amendment or the government didn't have to follow due process. A little "cruel and unusual punishment" would probably keep people in line. That's not the way rights work.
__________________
GOA Member & SAF Life Member

Last edited by dfletcher; 05-04-2021 at 10:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-05-2021, 8:03 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 182
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
I have always read the 2nd Amendment was the only one to be absolute. All the others have some form of interpretation. 2A is the only amendment right that plainly states Shall Not be Infringed.. So long as I am not hurting anyone, I do have the absolute right to own whatever I can afford.
It can be both absolute and yet limited at the same time.

The problem is that people focus to much on “shall not be infringed” and not enough on what exactly “the right” is.

The 2A was intended to protect rights as they were understood to exist at the time. Those rights were not unlimited. They could take guns from criminals or the mentally ill. You couldn’t carry in certain sensitive places.

Let’s say, for example, after concern that PETA might push for laws banning pets, they pass a constitutional amendment reading “the right to own and walk a pet shall not be infringed” to protect your existing rights on pet ownership.

Does “shall not be infringed” suddenly mean you can own a polar bear and bring it to the movie theater with you? No, because that isn’t generally understood to be part of what we understand that “right” to consist of. Could authorities still take pets from abusive owners? Yes. Can your barking dog keep your neighbors up all night? No.
Can a family with no history of pet abuse own a dalmnation
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 05-05-2021, 8:29 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 182
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fixitquick79 View Post
I'm sorry but that is a false equivalency. Right in the 4th amendment it says both the words "unreasonable" searches, (leaving wiggle room), and then describes the nature and method of obtaining a warrant to allow said search.

The 2nd is worded in no unceartain terms. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

Here is the text of the two in case you are not recalling correctly.

4th.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

2nd.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

See the difference?
You have to put yourself back in 1776 to appreciate what the founders intended

2nd Amendment - We like the gun laws as they exist today, including all of the rights and limitations, so let’s lock those in place so they can’t be “infringed”.

4th Amendment- We don’t think privacy right go far enough. There are too many unreasonable searches and seizures and courts may issue “general warrants” allowing police and tax collectors to search pretty much anywhere for anything not based on an specific suspicion. So, let’s strengthen those rights.

In other words, it wasn’t about creating unlimited rights through the 2A and somehow a more limited right in the 4thA
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-05-2021, 8:58 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 222
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
It can be both absolute and yet limited at the same time.

That is completely false and how anyone could even put forth such a statement is amazing. What is shows is that in an effort to make a point you'll create fantasies in the imagination and then use them. It is so obvious of an effort to reduce and diminish the meaning of absolute so that you can continue on with then define those limits you support. Apply that "both absolute yet limited at the same time" to anything else and you'll see just how transparent the idea is.

All you are doing is dividing a right into smaller components and then trying to justify which of those components will be limited, according to you and then saying the right was not infringed because you redefined what the word absolute means.

The problem is that people focus to much on “shall not be infringed” and not enough on what exactly “the right” is.

There is no "the problem" there is however, your problem. The right is not clear if you don't believe the right exists or should exist. Once you think the infringement of a right is acceptable you have already decided to support infringement. Can you say "exactly what common sense gun control is? No person to date has been able to define it. It seems that the only thing you see as absolute are the infringements and that is supported by the first sentence you wrote.

The 2A was intended to protect rights as they were understood to exist at the time. Those rights were not unlimited. They could take guns from criminals or the mentally ill. You couldn’t carry in certain sensitive places.

That defies logic and human nature. You are saying clearly that the authors of that right did not possess intelligence, knowledge of history and imagination and had no capacity to think past that moment in time, in other words their intelligence had not evolved to be greater than that of a dog. Every law is written with a look to the future but people are to believe that the Founders were unique in that they couldn't anticipate improvements in technology?

In the space of time between the founding of this country and today people evolved to be able to consider that technology would improve and that people who had flintlocks and other firearms of the period didn't understand that those rather crude firearms ( by today's standard) weren't the product of lesser capable firearms and other weapons?

The very reason the country was founded was because people realized and understood that all things change and knowing that they wrote the 2nd Amendment in that light. Your entire premise says that humans of a few hundred years ago thought nothing would ever change and that technology would stand still. The 2nd Amendment as were all the others, written because they knew things would change not because they lack the capacity to understand they would.

Only the Founders lacked imagination and the capacity to envision the advancement of technological achievements and had not witnessed the advancements which happened during their lifetimes so as to be ignorant of them? If the Founders lacked the capacity to envision technological advancement then can you explain how those people could envision a better form of government than the tyranny they opposed or was the lack of intellectual capacity limited only to improvement in firearms?


Let’s say, for example, after concern that PETA might push for laws banning pets, they pass a constitutional amendment reading “the right to own and walk a pet shall not be infringed” to protect your existing rights on pet ownership.

Lets not say because that displays an argument of silliness and the justification of the absurd to support a position that is indefensible. You can put forth such a gross example of inconsistency yet claim the founders could only think in the moment?

Does “shall not be infringed” suddenly mean you can own a polar bear and bring it to the movie theater with you? No, because that isn’t generally understood to be part of what we understand that “right” to consist of. Could authorities still take pets from abusive owners? Yes. Can your barking dog keep your neighbors up all night? No.
Can a family with no history of pet abuse own a dalmnation
"...shall not be infringed" doesn't suddenly mean anything, the meaning has been clear since the right was set forth in writing.

Generally understood is not specific, hence the use of the word "generally". The right does not include the word generally and was not to be applied in general terms, it was very specific and if you had read the US Constitution and BOR you'd know and understand that the Amendments were only general in their title but specific in their application.

The Founders had far greater expertise in using the English language than you or I. They could have used a very different phrase than "shall not" yet they did not. To think they didn't know what "shall not" means displays contempt for the founders and founding of this country, there is no polite way to put it.

Again, maybe if you actually read the Constitution and the BOR you'd appreciate just how much they appreciated the English language. That you can twist words like absolute to mean it can be limited at the same time isn't intellectually honest.
__________________
Happiness is a warm barrel.

]A SILENT MAJORITY will become a silent minority when those who have something to lose fear those who have something to gain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.

You don't get beaten by the opposition you get beaten by those who run away.

Last edited by SharedShots; 05-05-2021 at 9:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:33 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical