Can we vote?

[DC-W]

Romney was the lesser of two evils. Period. I doubt we'd see the pressure for a renewed assault weapons ban had he became President. Fortunately, Obama's blunder has emboldened 2A supporters. It has forced those who claimed to be indifferent or harmless towards gun owners to show their true colors, one way or another. Shills and out-right opponents have come to surface.

The NRA supported laws in the past that are now pains in the ass. "Assault weapons" were not held in the regard they are today until 9/11 and popularization in movies/video games. Before that, older folks and hunters didn't see them as necessary or having to do with 2A rights. Many still don't.

Momentum is on the side of restoring 2A rights. MD is a temporary setback.

 

[6-Pack]

I am doing it for 2 reasons....

1. the majority of my idealogoly is liberal. Now, having said that please don't lump all people with liberal leanings as Nancy Pelosi.

2. I like to play devils advocate to create debate. Without a constructive conversation then the 20% of the nuts on the right and the 20% of the whackos on the left win.

was the man denied due process? he didn't get a trial of his peers so, how did he? (no, I don't believe this argument, but like I said, i'm playing devils advocate 'absolutist argument')

who gets to define crazy? not me. if it were up to half of the people I know would be 'crazy'. but you have to accept that there has to be an effective method of determining someone's medical capacity. Should it be done as a step before you buy a gun? No, I don't think so, but if there is a history of mental issues, shouldn't that be part of the equation?

similar to the exception to the 'unlawful search and seizure' as long as you have probably cause.

don't get me wrong, I think there should fewer exceptions than there are, but there has to be a happy medium between "Everyone gets a gun" and "no one gets a gun"

and of course you can shout fire if there in fact is one.... but that's really just arguing Symantec's, isn't it?

ok, now that I have identified myself as a liberal, go ahead and shun me and I'll go play with my 5 ARs, and SKS and 3 Sigs. I may be 'liberal' but I am one seriously armed liberal.

1. Do you even know what "due process" is comprised of? It has two parts: 1) notice and 2) an opportunity to be heard. That being said, I think the individual holding another at gunpoint could waive their due process rights by putting another's life in danger. Due process is a "sliding scale" in that some situations require more than others (such as discipline for a student at a public school). Due process doesn't necessarily mean a trial by jury. For instance, if I want a zoning variance, the county must provide me a hearing before they can reject my application. There won't be a jury at a zoning variance hearing.

2. Probable cause does not equate to a free ticket to conduct a warrantless search. In all cases, probale cause is required along with either a search warrant or an exception to conduct a search. Such exceptions are automobile searches, inventory searches and a search incident to lawful arrest. In other words, more than just probable cause is needed for a search because you must have a warrant or an exception to a warrant.

3. Your argument that there should be some restrictions on 2A would be right if it were any other one of our basic rights. However, the 2A is the only right in the Bill of Rights that specifically prohibits any restrictions (the whole "shall not be infringed" thing that gets overlooked). No other right has similar language.

 

[Kimerazor]

I'm fairly sure that my views on 2A are VASTLY different than most of the people on this board. While I do support the constitution, I believe that no right in the constitution is absolute, quite simply, it can't be.


if a police officer shoots a man who was about to kill his wife, it could be argued that the man shot was denied due process.

you can't shout fire in a movie theater...
Crazy people shouldn't have guns, I'm not really in a position to define 'crazy' but I really hope I'm not alone when I say "If you think your microwave is telling you to kill people" or "you think an acceptable response to an argument about parking is to shoot out their tires" you should not be allowed to have a gun.

you've heard them all, I don't have to continue.


What I do believe is that the government is subject to the will of the people. When the government starts imposing laws based on their own ideals and not the people they represent then we have an issue.

Look at Michigan's 'emergency manager law', the trap laws for abortion clinics, and now this law in Maryland that was a knee jerk reaction that happened in another state.

I guess my point is that nothing should be absolute, no matter which direction. There always has to be a caveat, without compromise what is the difference between Tyranny and Anarchy?

It appears that you only support the "parts" of the constitution in which you believe.

Regarding the man about to kill his wife, your "thought" is a typical liberal response in that the criminal is the victim & not the true victim who was about to be denied her right to life. Liberals want to "protect" these criminals v. subjecting them to the consequences (noted by several here) of our society.

The politicians have been allowed to make their work a career v. service. With this they've created laws that benefit them continuing their power-grab, and their creation of "dependent" people who support them and who want socialism.

"Who" should deem whom crazy? Read about the Bolsheviks to learn that the people were sent to Siberia due to mental illness. A witch hunt of the elite. If you weren't compliant, you were deemed mentally ill and never heard from again.


NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
GRRN Supporter

 

[Brooklyn]

I am doing it for 2 reasons....

1. the majority of my idealogoly is liberal. Now, having said that please don't lump all people with liberal leanings as Nancy Pelosi.

2. I like to play devils advocate to create debate. Without a constructive conversation then the 20% of the nuts on the right and the 20% of the whackos on the left win.

was the man denied due process? he didn't get a trial of his peers so, how did he? (no, I don't believe this argument, but like I said, i'm playing devils advocate 'absolutist argument')

who gets to define crazy? not me. if it were up to half of the people I know would be 'crazy'. but you have to accept that there has to be an effective method of determining someone's medical capacity. Should it be done as a step before you buy a gun? No, I don't think so, but if there is a history of mental issues, shouldn't that be part of the equation?

similar to the exception to the 'unlawful search and seizure' as long as you have probably cause.

don't get me wrong, I think there should fewer exceptions than there are, but there has to be a happy medium between "Everyone gets a gun" and "no one gets a gun"

and of course you can shout fire if there in fact is one.... but that's really just arguing Symantec's, isn't it?

ok, now that I have identified myself as a liberal, go ahead and shun me and I'll go play with my 5 ARs, and SKS and 3 Sigs. I may be 'liberal' but I am one seriously armed liberal.

Debate requires education. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Any guess how I know? Hint-- it was this line

If the constitution is not a living, breathing document, why are there so many amendments?

Not to be out done by the fact that you managed to miss the most active debate on this forum to wit

Has this [ voting on our rights ] already been suggested in here? What are people's thoughts on it?

Of course in your world all theaters are "movie theaters " but I defy you to find that quote. Or the fact the case upheld the conviction of a leftest expressing an unpopular opinion which simply failed to meet the invented clear and present danger standard. To put it another way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Punished political speech which did not present a "clear and present danger" on the grounds that it might be permissible to punish speech which did.
Sounds like a perfect argument for our position not yours.....



Now go look up prior restraint ...

And probable cause

and hot pursuit

and due process...

and the law of self defense...

and John Locke

and ... oh never mind.. fame awaits on facebook just the way you are.

 

[CLYDE3011]

1. Do you even know what "due process" is comprised of? It has two parts: 1) notice and 2) an opportunity to be heard. That being said, I think the individual holding another at gunpoint could waive their due process rights by putting another's life in danger. Due process is a "sliding scale" in that some situations require more than others (such as discipline for a student at a public school). Due process doesn't necessarily mean a trial by jury. For instance, if I want a zoning variance, the county must provide me a hearing before they can reject my application. There won't be a jury at a zoning variance hearing.

2. Probable cause does not equate to a free ticket to conduct a warrantless search. In all cases, probale cause is required along with either a search warrant or an exception to conduct a search. Such exceptions are automobile searches, inventory searches and a search incident to lawful arrest. In other words, more than just probable cause is needed for a search because you must have a warrant or an exception to a warrant.

3. Your argument that there should be some restrictions on 2A would be right if it were any other one of our basic rights. However, the 2A is the only right in the Bill of Rights that specifically prohibits any restrictions (the whole "shall not be infringed" thing that gets overlooked). No other right has similar language.

someone advise me here.... am I wasting my time trying to articulate my point that there are regulations and constrains to nearly every single amendment? Not all amendments are treated equally... it all comes down to interpretation, which is that I thought the judicial branch was for.

 

[CLYDE3011]

Debate requires education. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Any guess how I know? Hint-- it was this line





Not to be out done by the fact that you managed to miss the most active debate on this forum to wit



Of course in your world all theaters are "movie theaters " but I defy you to find that quote. Or the fact the case upheld the conviction of a leftest expressing an unpopular opinion which simply failed to meet the invented clear and present danger standard. To put it another way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Punished political speech which did not present a "clear and present danger" on the grounds that it might be permissible to punish speech which did.
Sounds like a perfect argument for our position not yours.....



Now go look up prior restraint ...

And probable cause

and hot pursuit

and due process...

and the law of self defense...

and John Locke

and ... oh never mind.. fame awaits on facebook just the way you are.

man, all I wanted to do was start a conversation.

Take care everyone.

 

[Longvisit]

man, all I wanted to do was start a conversation.

Take care everyone.

I appreciated the start. I'm surprised it went so far south so fast. I find understanding the position of the devils advocate helpful in debating gun control.

 

[Brooklyn]

I appreciated the start. I'm surprised it went so far south so fast. I find understanding the position of the devils advocate helpful in debating gun control.

Feel free to carry on in his place

Have you read John Locke.. It would really help to find someone, anyone, who will attempt to directly refute his ideas about Government...

That would actually help ....

 

[Longvisit]

Feel free to carry on in his place

Have you read John Locke.. It would really help to find someone, anyone, who will attempt to directly refute his ideas about Government...

That would actually help ....

Can't help you there. I've only read John Lotte though Locke is on my list. From what I know so far I won't be refuting his ideas afterwards either.

 

[Brooklyn]

Can't help you there. I've only read John Lotte though Locke is on my list. From what I know so far I won't be refuting his ideas afterwards either.

Yea Locke is a hard guy to refute.. Unless you like divine right, fascism or communism, oh theocracy works here as well.

Not a lot of choices that give us liberty... I know of only one.


That's why I stand with John Locke.

BTW its a short read--- he was very to the point-- not like Kant...

or Marx.

In fact his ideas are very elegant and require little elaboration -- of course that does not stop anyone.. If you what to know what Locke would be like if he need to justify getting tenure read John Rawls.. There is a reason academics get a bad name... think fugue in 405 parts.

 

[CLYDE3011]

Who is trying to kill my wife? Who is suggesting that the attacker is a victim? Where did this come from?



My opinion is that I will use any means necessary to protect my family.




Sent from my HTC6990LVW using Tapatalk

 

[parksd70]

Parks, is the Constitution a "living document" subject to revision via legislation and judicial interpretation without the amendment precess? Some say it is

Exactly...some say it is. Some say a woman doesn't have the right to choose her own health decisions. So say a man can't marry another man. Whatever the point may be, there are two sides to just about any arguement. It's not the fundamental, core beliefs on government that divide our country (yes...I have read and teach Locke in my classes). It's issues. Plain and simple. In the grand scope of political theory, the majority of our politicians agree on a lot more than we are led to believe. Because many high profile issues are divissive in American, politicians are painted as extremeist when in reality they're relatively moderate (compared to, say, Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, etc.).

However, I feel like there's no point here in trying to argue for the Liberal angle, because the vast majority of people on here don't perscribe to that viewpoint. Two things happen when one does attempt this. Several people pose sound, well argued points that characterize any Conservative/Liberal debate, opening the door for discussion. Others flame the poster, post short, sarcastic or outright rude remarks, and attempt to derail the discussion because they can't actually support their ideas. This comes back to Clydes point of circular argument. Some present fine points to contribute, but others, in a more volitale way, harass the minority view poster until they tire of wasting their time in the interwebs. I'm sure we'd see the same thing in reverse if we were to take a peek at, say, a womens right's message board, or any other Liberal leaning forum (as I still have hope that there are Conservatives out there who don't hate women).

Ultimately, it comes down to the labels one places on Liberals and Conservatives. As many have tried in vain to prove, clearly since Clyde is a Liberal, he can't possibly comprehend or agree with any non-Liberal viewpoint. Yet...here he is, a member of a 2A community in a state where 2A is ignored by so many. To cover political views with 2 broad blankets is insane. Making the case that there are only 2 possible viewpoints in the entire United States is narrow-minded and frankly stupid. I did this very thing when I assumed above that all Conservatives hate women. I know it's not true, but it's easier to just lump yinz together than pick your brains for who hold what view. After teaching the "accepted" basics of Liberal and Conservative, I never use the words again in AP Government. They are simply easy terms we can use because we don't feel like engaging the other side.

In all honestly, Clyde made some good points, some people did a good job of engaging him in intelligent discussion, and unfortunately the thread was ruined by the few who can't be bothered to actually support their views. Rather, they simple cry foul at the sight of a "Liberal" and call it a day.

Sigh. Such is the internet.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I didn't need to read four pages of this thread , only tool the first few posts. To wit :

1. Joined during our biggest turnouts during MGA session.

2. Professes ignorence of everything developed since, including repeated near even splits on 2A Stratagy with scorched earth positions taken.

3. Implies to be "one of us" , yet imeadately professes counter 2A views ( not anti- all guns per se , but against any Constitutional Right thereof.

4. Provokes argument within the 2A supporters.

5. Gosh , it's run up time for 2014 MGA session .

This screen name is walking and quacking not as would a garden variety Troll , but as an actual Democratic Party Operative.

 

[6-Pack]

someone advise me here.... am I wasting my time trying to articulate my point that there are regulations and constrains to nearly every single amendment? Not all amendments are treated equally... it all comes down to interpretation, which is that I thought the judicial branch was for.

You are 100% that that are restraints, restrictions and even some prohbitins to "nearly every single amendment."

However, I think your education in the subject may be lacking. The Bill of Rights are the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights spells out rights inherent to us as Americans and limits the federal government's powers (see the 10A). There is only one amendment, the 2A, that specifically states the right cannot be limited. No other rights has the same or similar language.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "amendments not being treated equally." Are you talking about selective incorporation treating amendments differently or the SCOTUS' treatment of the amendments? If the latter, which justices in particular? The SCOTUS swings from conservative to liberal every so often.

 

[Kimerazor]

Who is trying to kill my wife? Who is suggesting that the attacker is a victim? Where did this come from?



My opinion is that I will use any means necessary to protect my family.


Re-read your post & you'll answer your own question.



Sent from my HTC6990LVW using Tapatalk

NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
GRRN Supporter

 

[JettaRed]

I am doing it for 2 reasons....


was the man denied due process? he didn't get a trial of his peers so, how did he? (no, I don't believe this argument, but like I said, i'm playing devils advocate 'absolutist argument')

Self defense (and the defense of others) is protected by the law. Therefore, he was dealt due process. Due process isn't necessarily limited to the courtroom.


similar to the exception to the 'unlawful search and seizure' as long as you have probably cause.

It's not "unlawful" if probable cause exists or if the officer can demonstrate that the time and effort to obtain a warrant would put collection of the evidence in jeopardy.

There is a real danger to using sound bites or snippets of a resource because of the risk of losing context. I see it often when people quote verses or passages from the Bible and take them totally out of context. (God must shake His head over how much of His Creation is learning-disabled.) You need to understand the whole of the reference you make lest you hose up its purpose and meaning.

I think rights must be considered absolute first, and then evaluated against the current and immediate situation in their application each and every time. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire isn’t about free speech, it’s about responsible behavior.

 

[Mark75H]

I didn't need to read four pages of this thread , only tool the first few posts. To wit :

1. Joined during our biggest turnouts during MGA session.

2. Professes ignorence of everything developed since, including repeated near even splits on 2A Stratagy with scorched earth positions taken.

3. Implies to be "one of us" , yet imeadately professes counter 2A views ( not anti- all guns per se , but against any Constitutional Right thereof.

4. Provokes argument within the 2A supporters.

5. Gosh , it's run up time for 2014 MGA session .

This screen name is walking and quacking not as would a garden variety Troll , but as an actual Democratic Party Operative.

agreed

 

[parksd70]

Democratic Party Operative? REALLY???

That's what the Democratic Party is resorting to? Flaming Conservative groups via online message boards??

Next I suppose Republicans will be launch protests at clinics with signs that say "we're Liberal, but abortion and contraception is bad!!"

Wow.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Democratic Party Operative? REALLY???

That's what the Democratic Party is resorting to? Flaming Conservative groups via online message boards?.

Nothing new.

The OP asked a question, got his answer and continued to poke and prod unnecessarily.

The OP was active on MDS at the time of the great referendum debate and somehow missed all of the threads and discussion? I call bs

 

[JettaRed]

To clarify, I didn't say I was A liberal, I said I had a liberal Ideology. And It would probably surprise you to see how much you and I probably have in common.

Perhaps, then, you should define or describe your liberal ideology. In a literal sense, a liberal ideology is counter to how it is used commonly today. Liberal ideology is about self-determination and independence from government controls. However, it has become synonomous with the Democratic party and those that want government to control every aspect of life.

The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. --Wikipedia

So, what is it that you really believe?