Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

Discussion in 'United States' started by kungfuliberal, Aug 3, 2019.

  1. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Such is ultimately how the real world is, as the real world is filled with confrontation and conflict, particularly where the human species is involved. The human species is a violent species that is obsessed with confrontation and conflict, as well as carrying on in a manner that suggests it is ultimately obsessed with wiping itself out of existence through whatever means possible. All of its technological developments have, in one way or another, originated from its goal of finding greater and more efficient ways of killing one another.

    So it becomes a question of who should be given greater consideration on the subject. Those who have not experienced the hardships that come from reality when it is ugly, or those who have indeed seen the ugliness of the real world and does not believe a life of peace is actually possible?
     
  2. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The reason the second amendment holds so much importance is due to what it represents by its existence. If, for whatever reason, the second amendment were repealed, or otherwise subjected to countless restrictions until it is ultimately rendered meaningless, there would ultimately be nothing to prevent the exact same approach from eventually being applied to other constitutional rights that are deemed problematic to society. If one constitutional right can be wiped out of existence, then all constitutional rights can be wiped out of existence.
     
    DixNickson likes this.
  3. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Following such a course of action, ultimately what would actually serve as a distinction between the system that is currently in place, and what is being proposed as a change? If no effort is going to be made to actually remove firearms from the equation until after a crime has been committed with them, how does such differ from the current system where private individuals are allowed to purchase, possess, and ultimately use whatever firearms they may wish, in whatever manner they wish, so long as they do not attempt to commit an act of harm to others?
     
  4. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ultimately what can be done to empower this hypothetical minority of the human species that is not driven by the goal of self-destruction and species extinction? How is power removed from the majority that currently holds power, and provided to the minority that does not have such?
     
  5. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you referring to the attempts of the GOP to limit the number of people who vote in primarily Democratic and liberal districts? If so, here's clarification: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-gop-gutted-voting-rights

    if not, then what the hell are you going on about? and how does this detour change the validity of the OP?
     
  6. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And for clarification: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-better-answer.559709/page-35#post-1070961127

    See, for generations all people needed was proof of residency when they showed up at the poles or a registered card that was usually sent in the mail. Some people showed up with non drivers ID and a piece of mail that was sent to their residence. In any event, the GOP wanted to limit voters by passing new requirements, basing the move on a bogus "need" to curtail rampant voter fraud.

    And when all is said and done, the validity of the OP does NOT infringe on your right to a weapon and is a preventative measure that could have stopped the recent Texas shooting.
     
  7. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please explain how license and registration of a weapon is "punishing" the buyer? Is it a punishment when such is required for your car, new or used? And WTF does demographics have to do with it? Just apply the same "demographics" as you would a car in all 50 states. See, it's like this, cars are for transportation, guns are for killing. Whether for recreation or practice or designated use, the license and registration of both is essential.
     
  8. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,700
    Likes Received:
    21,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you saying you agree or disaree with the ACLU that voter ID laws are discriminatory and restrict voting rights?
     
  9. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because the united state supreme court has held criminals are exempt from such firearm-related restrictions.
     
    DixNickson likes this.
  10. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you incapable of understanding what I wrote in conjunction with the links to support it for my conclusion? If not, get someone to explain it to you or take a refresher course in reading comprehension.....or let me dumb it down for you.....GOP Gerrymandering is wrong, invoking NEW, UNNECESSARY voter ID laws based on LIES about voter fraud by the GOP is wrong...as both prevent many people who have voted before from making the new deadlines for upcoming votes.

    Got it?
     
  11. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,700
    Likes Received:
    21,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thats not what the ACLU was talking about in the link I provided from the ACLU. Thats only an argument for preventing voter ID laws from being implemented just prior to an election.
    The ACLU made no such qualifier. Their poisition as stated is that voter ID laws suppress voting rights with no mention of timespan from election.

    It seems like you're still trying to avoid discussing how voter ID laws can suppress voting rights but can't similarly suppress gun rights.
     
  12. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    either you have deplorable reading comprehension or are poor liar......the ACLU gave the reasons as to why they stated as such …. that you ignore such is your problem. I can copy and paste from your link to back up what I say. Want to go there?
     
  13. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll pick this up tomorrow.
     
  14. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,700
    Likes Received:
    21,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Good idea. I'll start.

    "Voter identification laws are a part of an ongoing strategy to roll back decades of progress on voting rights."

    How can this be true if voter ID laws only suppress voting rights when implimented just prior to election? Wouldn't the associated problems only effect that election, then voters would have an entire cycle to get their affairs in order? How is the progress 'rolled back'? It seems they're suggesting the ID requirements themselves are the 'roll back', not the timeframe in which they're implimented.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019
  15. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You assume the "buyer (heretofore innocent of a crime)" is to be guilty of a future act. That is the basis for your desire to empower the government to bring its weight to bear on innocent people (again, who haven't committed a crime), who are simply exercising the enumerated right to "keep (acquire/possess) and bear (carry) arms." You are about requiring a specific licensing act to be done to exercise a right. Never a part of the 2A.

    Target criminals not innocent American Citizens.

    We have current democratic (socialist/communist leanings) presidential hopefuls who want bans and confiscations of semi-automatic rifles from millions and millions of innocent American citizens. A dangerous road on the way to further diminishing the Founders intent for the 2A.

    As to the motor vehicle. Please point to the enumerated or penumbra right you have to ownership of a motor vehicle, a driver's license or to operate that vehicle on a public way.

    It is best not to confuse a right with a privilege. There is a distinction. A right is something you have, inherent in your being/humanity/citizenship while a privilege is a limited gift granted you by the authority having jurisdiction over you and your conduct while enjoying that privilege.

    I believe a Founder (Adams?), said (not a quote) of our Constitution, that it is intended for a moral and religious people and would fail any other. Moral and religious people, in general, exercise/act with responsibility while an immoral or non-religious person may not be constrained by the restrictions of a religious faith and/or moral code.
     
  16. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Deconstruction of your first sentence spares the reader from the rest of your libertarian/federalist inspired clap trap. License and registration does not presume the buyer is a criminal...it presumes the buyer wants assurance from culpability in case of theft or future usage of a future sales recipient, that the buyer is competent to own the item and not use it recklessly ( you don't want a driver on the road without passing his road test, now do you?). You know that gun collectors have insurance, right? Licenses and registration makes a criminal or a mentally unhinged person think twice about signing onto a paper trail of any kind. Understand now.

    You don't have a right to a car, yet you have no problem registering against any and all problems you or someone else with a car might cause. So why all the hysterics over license and registration of a weapon, as it is NOT keeping you from owning a gun or rifle? You have a right to a weapon, not just any one you want....that's been a fact for a century or so.
     
  17. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For your education: the title is:

    Oppose Voter ID Legislation - Fact Sheet

    the summation:
    The ACLU has led the charge against Voter ID in several states, challenging voter ID laws in in states such as Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina.


    Not "federal law", but reference to the state laws (red state types, don't cha know) that put forth such debilitating voter registration requirements in lieu of losing to Obama, as my previous linked referred to.

    Your simplistic generalization and subsequent question using this information is based on purposely false or honestly erred interpretation.

    Once again, the WHOLE truth is your undoing. Now, stubbornly repeat yourself as if I posted nothing so the objective reader can see your folly.

    The OP stands valid.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2019
  18. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,700
    Likes Received:
    21,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The objective reader can see that you again did not answer my question. And the astute reader will understand why.
     
  19. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I doubt that. Perhaps we're more aware of the killings today because there are more Americans today, & we have instant news coverage thru electronic technology. In 1791, many killings happened that were so isolated they were never reported.
     
  20. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have the right to feel that way, just as I have the same right to feel the way I do. That's what our Constitution is supposed to be protecting.
     
  21. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump is now calling the reporting of his own public statements regarding talking with Iranian leaders, anytime & with no pre-conditions, as "fake news." But the media is showing Trump himself repeatedly making public statements that he WAS open to meeting with Iranian leaders anytime & without pre-conditions. I've watched them myself repeatedly. Plus, Trump's Sec of Defense & other members of his cabinet have gone on record saying Trump would meet with Iranian leaders with no pre-conditions. It's all on tape on numerous occasions. It's easy to see that when Trump denies ever making that claim about meeting with Iranians, he's lying. By calling it "fake news," he's lying. Those who swallow Trump's continual lies without question seem to me, as unqualified as voters as Trump is as President.
     
  22. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We should create a society to live in where those rights are never challenged, & never need defending.
     
  23. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,284
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Constitution doesn't protect feelings.
     
  24. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know if the new Trump supporters value any of the same things conservatives before Trump valued or not. Conservatives before Trump believed the U.S. Constitution was a sacred document. Trump has clearly never read it, doesn't understand it or what it does, & frequently takes actions that are in direct conflict with it. And, his supporters blindly support him anyway--which supports the idea that they don't value the Constitution either. I'm a liberal Democrat. I support the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. There are sections in that Constitution I'd like changed, but until it is changed legally, I will continue supporting it as it exists. In that regard, I am in agreement with true conservatives. Trump & his supporters aren't with me or true conservatives here, & that implies they aren't with many of us on anything else either.
     
  25. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is rare that a motor vehicle is intentionally used as a murder weapon. The event in Charlottesville, VA in 2017, & the terrorist attack in Paris, France were the only examples I know of. To equate them as equivalent to guns as a continuing threat, makes no sense to me.
     

Share This Page