Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This is why Gun Control is Contentious

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    This is why Gun Control is Contentious

    https://www.sacbee.com/news/californ...238203004.html


    Yes, I believe both sides fear monger and exaggerate to make their point. Yet, this is the exact type of issue I have as a gun owner. Most gun owners want gun control, but there are too many stories like this one.

    Of the 345,547 ammunition background checks performed,


    Yet another 62,000 ammunition purchases were rejected as well
    Last edited by It is Fake; 12/11/2019 12:58pm, .

    #2
    So, let me rephrase this, for those of you who can't math (and I count myself in that crowd).

    Just the facts: 18% of purchase attempts in Kalifornia, that would otherwise be legal, were stopped because of a failure in bureaucracy, likely stemming from poor legislation and/or execution. This translates to lost revenue, lost time for the retailers and would-be-purchasers, and definitely bad feelings all around.

    Now, here's the opinion:
    Government is bad. Not intentionally bad, just really fucking piss-poor at doing shit correctly, fairly, etc. And, for some reason, left-coast governments are truly fucking horrible at this kind of stuff. That leads to a lot of the consternation between the parties involved, because this simple failure to execute is easy to paint as conspiracy. It plays right into the message that anti-gun-control lobby wants to send. Fucking stupidity all around.
    Last edited by submessenger; 12/11/2019 2:05pm, . Reason: rephrased a bit
    Consider for a moment that there is no meme about brown-haired, brown-eyed step children.

    Comment


      #3
      Here's some hard facts: every gun law is an infringement.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
        Here's some hard facts: every gun law is an infringement.
        Even the ones in favour?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
          Even the ones in favour?
          The absence of gun laws means all forms of gun ownership are by default legal. Why would I need laws in favor of a right that is already protected? The Constitution doesn't grant us anything. It was intended to limit the ability of the government to fuck with us. Unfortunately SCOTUS has consistently failed to protect our rights for awhile now and our elected officials care more about consolidating power for the state than they do preserving liberty for their constituents.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
            The absence of gun laws means all forms of gun ownership are by default legal. Why would I need laws in favor of a right that is already protected? The Constitution doesn't grant us anything. It was intended to limit the ability of the government to fuck with us. Unfortunately SCOTUS has consistently failed to protect our rights for awhile now and our elected officials care more about consolidating power for the state than they do preserving liberty for their constituents.
            Oh, you think you’d be the one with the gun in a lawless world?

            Comment


              #7
              Absence of gun laws doesn't mean absence of law. You can have no laws regulating or restricting access to firearms and plenty of laws that make things like murder illegal.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
                Absence of gun laws doesn't mean absence of law. You can have no laws regulating or restricting access to firearms and plenty of laws that make things like murder illegal.
                I am surprised that Ghost would have to point that out to you, Lantern.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Krampus View Post
                  I am surprised that Ghost would have to point that out to you, Lantern.
                  People from the UK are incapable of understanding a framework where there are explicit restrictions on government power because they come from a tradition where by default the government is all powerful.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
                    Absence of gun laws doesn't mean absence of law. You can have no laws regulating or restricting access to firearms and plenty of laws that make things like murder illegal.
                    You understand your rights are still laws right? Protected under the same legal framework as prohibitions are. If there is no legal protection for your gun, it’s only yours until someone else wants it.

                    If you want to claim that it is a protected piece of property, legally defining as such would be a law in favour of it... hence not an infringement.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Krampus View Post
                      I am surprised that Ghost would have to point that out to you, Lantern.
                      Why? I basically set it up for him too.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
                        You understand your rights are still laws right? Protected under the same legal framework as prohibitions are. If there is no legal protection for your gun, it’s only yours until someone else wants it.

                        If you want to claim that it is a protected piece of property, legally defining as such would be a law in favour of it... hence not an infringement.
                        No sir, rights are not laws.

                        Restrictions on government, and restrictions on government abuse of power, and restrictions (and defined penalties) on other people or entities that may attempt to deprive you of your rights may be laws.

                        But for example, your right not to be murdered exists whether or not an arbitrary law has been written to codify that right, and that right exists whether or not someone or a government or entity sets pen to paper about it.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Krampus View Post
                          No sir, rights are not laws.

                          Restrictions on government, and restrictions on government abuse of power, and restrictions (and defined penalties) on other people or entities that may attempt to deprive you of your rights may be laws.

                          But your right not to be murdered exists whether or not an arbitrary law has been written to codify that right, which exists either way.
                          Sorry Ill clarify; a legal right, is still a law. As you outlined above under restrictions.

                          People can take what ever action that is within their own nature and limitation; that is a natural condition of existing.
                          Last edited by lant3rn; 12/12/2019 7:13am, .

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
                            Sorry Ill clarify; a legal right, is still a law. As you outlined above under restrictions.

                            People can take what ever action that is within your own nature and limitation; that is a natural condition of existing.
                            Again, a law may secure a right, safeguard a right, and protect a right, but a "legal right" just means that a specific law or set of laws has been written to secure a particular right.

                            Many rights exist whether or not a specific law has been written to secure it.

                            For instance your right not to be murdered, your right to refuse to be medically experimented on by your government, your right not to be sterilized because of your skin color or political views, etc., etc.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Krampus View Post
                              Again, a law may secure a right, safeguard a right, and protect a right, but a "legal right" just means that a specific law or set of laws has been written to secure a particular right.

                              Many rights exist whether or not a specific law has been written to secure it.

                              For instance your right not to be murdered, your right to refuse to be medically experimented on by your government, your right not to be sterilized because of your skin color or political views, etc., etc.
                              As a matter of fact, it is quite possible to have laws which violate the rights of others.

                              Such laws should not be enforced, they should be contested in court, and civil disobedience is justified in those cases.

                              If the situation is severe enough, this is sufficient to satisfy Jus Ad Bellum (the requirements for a just war), whether civil war or otherwise.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X