Is there room for compromise in gun rights vs gun control?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by modernpaladin, May 10, 2017.

  1. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    20,756
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The compromise was made years ago--it started in 1968, and was refined in 1994. I can live with the changes. I do believe that people can lose rights due to their actions. If they couldn't, then there is no way that criminals could ever be punished--any punishment of a criminal results in a loss of their rights--from their right to life, to right to freedom to a right to property. As long as individual due process is involved, I have no problem with taking away rights. It's esconced in the 5th and 14th amendments.
     
  2. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    9,135
    Likes Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem with the above pertains to when due process has become compromised, and someone can have their rights severed without evidence of wrongdoing, beyond the mere accusations of another party who has supposedly been wrong according to them. When the burden of proof is so low that a mere accusation is regarded as sufficient evidence for a conviction, due process no longer applies or otherwise exists.
     
    TheResister likes this.
  3. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No Rights are subject to being taken away by the 5th or 14th Amendments. That's nonsense.

    When a person is sentenced to prison, the term is what it is. IF an individual cannot be rehabilitated, they do not need to be returned to society. Period.

    The government is not authorized (in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic) to put people out into society AND strip them of unalienable Rights. I'm glad we do not live in a democracy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2017
  4. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    America leads the world in only three areas:

    1) We have the most effective tax collectors

    2) We spend the most on defense

    3) We lead the world in the number of people in jails and prisons.

    The liberals are creating two classes of people, and as you pointed, out a lot of people become "criminals" on mere accusations. Furthermore, where I live, a person can go to trial and the prosecutor can threaten witnesses, lie to the jury, use hearsay, and fabricate what the prosecution calls "our version of events" in order to secure convictions.

    Besides the points you made, I reiterate the point, the government is not authorized, under our Constitution, to withhold an unalienable Right after a person has paid their fines and done their time. And no, I would not arm murderers... I would keep murderers behind bars where they could not kill again.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2017
  5. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    20,756
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The 5th and 14th amendments allow rights to be taken away by due process. Here is the relevant texts of the 5th and 14th amendments (emphasis added) (didn't include the other sections of 14th Amendment, as they aren't relevant to discussion).
    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    Amendment XIV
    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Liberty means rights. If rights cannot be taken away by due process, then we cannot punish people by law, as all punishments involve taking away rights.
     
  6. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You can only be deprived of liberty for the duration of the punishment. Otherwise, the term unalienable is meaningless. The advocacy of having millions of people deprived of unalienable Rights creates different classes of citizens and no such nation can exist in a free society.

    When people are sent to prison they should be rehabilitated and once they have met certain goals, they should return to society as regular citizens. Many times "felons" as you like to call them never engaged in a violent act, so depriving them of a God given Right makes zero sense. It probably makes as much sense as you advocating allowing dangerous people to be able to roam the streets freely in our society.
     
  7. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    20,756
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Criminals can't usually be rehabilitated. That's a myth for the most part. Regardless, prison is the removal of rights, which is my point. Rights can be taken away by due process. You agree that they can.
     
  8. AlifQadr

    AlifQadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I would, do, and will resist any and all efforts at gun control, unless of course gun control is what training a person how to safely use a firearm is called. The problem is not gun usage in crime, the problem is with population expansion as well as where the population crimes from. See, when I was growing up and where I grew-up, there was never any talk within my family about using firearms for the purposes of committing crime. I know that this is not the case with many people, but it is with me. I also grew up knowing that guns are not play-toys and when I used to hunt, I saw first-hand that guns can be used to cause death. Besides, firearms control is unConstitutional as well as a sure way to that leads to despotism and tyranny. Governments should fear citizens and denizens, not the other way around. If what I have typed rings of a disturbing tone, the problem is not with me, it is with whomever thinks of firearm advocacy as problematic. People have used knives, shovels, ropes, automobile, pesticides, rat poison, baseball bats, tire irons, billy clubs, hands, feet, etc. to kill others, why are firearms always the main and sometime only focus when it comes to limiting access to "dangerous instruments"?
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2017
  9. AlifQadr

    AlifQadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    EXCELLENT POST!
     
  10. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Prison is not a permanent deprivation of Rights. It is merely a suspension of your Rights. As an example:

    The Right to Life is an unalienable Right. After a person leaves prison, they are deemed to retain that Right. Otherwise, victims of a felon would be well within their legal rights to kill felons that may have done something against them.

    You don't want to be an "absolutist" despite the courts ruling that is exactly what an unalienable Right is. So, you do not believe in the constitutional Republic that our forefathers envisioned. Again, to cover ground you and I have been on before, we start with the foundational principle:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

    The foundational principle is that you have some Rights that were bestowed upon you, at birth, by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Those Rights are above the jurisdiction of government. So, exactly what are those unalienable Rights? Ask the founding fathers:

    "The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals . . . . t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin writing about the Bill of Rights before it was officially ratified

    You have a problem with consistency. Just because a person serves time does not mean they lose their Rights in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic like ours. Courts have illegally usurped the Rights of the people and have now claimed they can circumvent them with "Due Process." BTW, the system is still trying to expand on that theme by claiming they can kill you without regard to Due Process via the so - called "Patriot Act." You are only aiding in the takeover with your specious argument.

    Either you have unalienable Rights or you do not. Next up, someone will try to prove to you how the courts changed the words a little, tweaked the meaning of the law and - if you follow their conclusions to their final end, you get that George W. Bush sentiment about the Constitution:

    "It's just a G.D. piece of paper."
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2017
  11. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    20,756
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Taking away someone's life is a permanent revocation of an unalienable right. Your tortured logic about suspension versus permanent deprivation loses it's coherence at that point.
     
  12. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You sir, are clueless. America was built on Christian principles. Yet you are about to resort to a humanist argument.

    Your tortured logic leads people into the depths of despair and darkness. You are willing to compromise unalienable Rights for no reason other than your ignorance of the foundational principles upon which this nation was founded.

    If two people have an equal Right to Life, but one person takes away the life of another, unless society takes out the murderer, the constitutional guarantee is meaningless. So, society, based upon the morality that we were founded in accordance with, eliminates the murderer. It is the only choice we have in order to maintain the guarantee. You are preying upon people's weakness, hoping that they are equally ignorant as you. Then again, maybe you do know better.

    The Bill of Rights is a journey, not a destination. An unalienable Right means that the Right is given by a Creator (their God, whomever they deem that to be.) It does not mean that someone cannot take your life by an immoral / illegal / wrongful means. The principle is, government is not empowered to do it to an individual and, if an individual does it to their fellow man, the government (representing society) will permanently remove the murderer so as to preserve the unalienable Rights of all of citizenry.

    "In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so?" Frederic Bastiat

    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." -- Attributed to Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948)
     
  13. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    20,756
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are using tortured logic. You do understand that the Constitution was not written under purely Christian principles. It was written under the principles of the Enlightenment. There is no way we can have capital punishment if rights are unalienable. That is a permanent loss of rights that cannot ever be undone, plain and simple. To be more precise, your rights cannot be purely taken away ever, but your actions can result in the forfeit of your rights. If you commit certain crimes, you have forfeited your rights--your actions takes away your rights. I believe this stands for the right to vote and the right to bear arms as well as the right to freedom. If I choose to commit a felony, I have chosen to give up certain rights, if I should be convicted under due process.
     
  14. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It is a permanent loss of Rights when a murderer kills someone. Here is a link to help you understand YOUR tortured "logic."

    https://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html

    If a murderer takes away your Right to Life, he cannot replace it. That is why certain crimes merit the death penalty. OTOH, owning a firearm to protect your Life is an unalienable Right. Jesus instructed his apostles to carry a sword (the equivalent of what Caesar's SWAT Team would have carried) even if they had to hock their robes to buy it.

    You can be tried for certain crimes, but once you are put back into society, you retain your God given, unalienable Rights. Otherwise, other people could hunt you down and kill you without fear of retribution from the government. So, if you leave prison and return to society, the system is saying you are rehabilitated and have paid for your crime. It only stands to reason that if you have a Right to Life after leaving prison, you have a Right and a duty to protect that Life as the LEO community is NOT responsible for your individual safety.

    The "right to vote" is NOT unalienable, but more like a government created privilege that they grant and call a "right."
     
  15. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,678
    Likes Received:
    812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually they don't need to live in the United States permanently to become US citizens. They can simply obtain a residency visa, maintain a residence, visit annually, and become then become naturalized.

    There's also no requirement for them to become naturalized citizens after they obtain a permanent residency visa.

    Once again let's simply look at an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.

    No where in the US Constitution does it grant any authority to the federal government to control immigration. Textual interpretation (what the Constitution literally states) does not support our immigration laws.

    In addressing "original intent" the founders and authors of the Constitution openly, and in writing, opposed limiting immigration because that limitation violated the fundamental Right of Liberty of the person which why the Constitution granted no authority to Congress to control immigration. The omission was intentional. As Jefferson wrote the Right of Expatriation (i.e. the right of the person to relocate from their country of birth to their country of choice) is a natural right that cannot justifiably be violated by even the entire population of a nation.

    http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1280.htm

    The "illegal" (undocumented) immigrants to the United States are here with the blessing of Thomas Jefferson. I'll accept Jefferson's arguments over the arguments of any White Nationalist/White Supremacist in America today that opposes the Right of Liberty that's exercised by immigration.
     
  16. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    16,056
    Likes Received:
    3,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And so you agree: immigration is an inherent part of naturalization. Thank you.
    Enter: The elastic clause.
    / Topic
     
  17. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,678
    Likes Received:
    812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it was not. It was built upon America's First Principles.

    http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php

    The First Principles are not Christian principles and many Americans, such as my maternal ancestors that arrived in the American colonies in the mid-1700's, came here to escape the "Christian principles" that resulted in their oppression under the Anglican Church of England.
     
  18. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,678
    Likes Received:
    812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Immigration is not an inherent part of citizenship, immigration does not imply citizenship, naturalization is not an inherent part of immigration, and all of our immigration laws starting with the very first Chinese Exclusion Act have been based upon racism to prevent non-WASP's from immigrating to the United States with the singular purpose of preserving the institution of WASP Male Supremacy in our social, economic, and political institutions.
     
  19. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    16,056
    Likes Received:
    3,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Immigration IS an inherent component of naturalization. Your example proves this.
    The elastic clause does the rest.
     
  20. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact. I suggest you read it along with the earliest state constitutions.
     

Share This Page