Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

While I do agree that people who violate other peoples rights forfeit theirs, I don't agree with background checks. Again, just trying to differentiate.

Beez, here is one of those absolutes I was talking about in another thread. Background checks can potentially keep guns out of the hands of those that have violated other peoples rights, or even those who are not mentally balanced enough to own firearms. While I have no issue with people owning guns, possibly even assault rifles, I do not want my drunk ass, psychotic, idiot neighbor owning an M16 and 20 thirty round clips, hand grenades, and a rocket launcher. I realize I am painting an extreme picture here, but just trying to make a point.

Something like 75-80% of the public polled supported universal background checks, your absolutist opinion on this is what drives many in the middle to not back your agenda.

reply to post by kaylaluv


reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I'm glad you brought up the 1st Amendment. Wouldn't background checks be akin to;

Before you say anything, you must have a background check to see if you are capable of speaking correctly, then once you've been approved, they (the government) will determine what you say, how you say it and where you can say it.

Not trying to be small or argumentative, but I see a correlation between the example and what they are trying to do via gun control.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

While I do agree that people who violate other peoples rights forfeit theirs, I don't agree with background checks. Again, just trying to differentiate.

Beez, here is one of those absolutes I was talking about in another thread. Background checks can potentially keep guns out of the hands of those that have violated other peoples rights, or even those who are not mentally balanced enough to own firearms. While I have no issue with people owning guns, possibly even assault rifles, I do not want my drunk ass, psychotic, idiot neighbor owning an M16 and 20 thirty round clips, hand grenades, and a rocket launcher. I realize I am painting an extreme picture here, but just trying to make a point.

Something like 75-80% of the public polled supported universal background checks, your absolutist opinion on this is what drives many in the middle to not back your agenda.

Then it stops being a right and becomes a privilege instead.

Every freedom contains within an element of risk. We can reduce the risk, but by doing that we reduce the freedoms as well.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I'm glad you brought up the 1st Amendment. Wouldn't background checks be akin to;

Before you say anything, you must have a background check to see if you are capable of speaking correctly, then once you've been approved, they (the government) will determine what you say, how you say it and where you can say it.

Not trying to be small or argumentative, but I see a correlation between the example and what they are trying to do via gun control.

You can't kill someone with words.

reply to post by kaylaluv


But when put in the same context, can't you at least see how draconian some of this is?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

But when put in the same context, can't you at least see how draconian some of this is?

See, I think the difference between us is that you (and others like you) are paranoid. You believe the "evil" government is wanting gun control so they can take away all our rights and leave us helpless and under their total control (mwa ha ha ha ha ha!) I believe that while the government is often times incompetent, and self-serving, they are genuinely trying to stop unnecessary deaths in this case.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

While I do agree that people who violate other peoples rights forfeit theirs, I don't agree with background checks. Again, just trying to differentiate.

Beez, here is one of those absolutes I was talking about in another thread. Background checks can potentially keep guns out of the hands of those that have violated other peoples rights, or even those who are not mentally balanced enough to own firearms. While I have no issue with people owning guns, possibly even assault rifles, I do not want my drunk ass, psychotic, idiot neighbor owning an M16 and 20 thirty round clips, hand grenades, and a rocket launcher. I realize I am painting an extreme picture here, but just trying to make a point.

Something like 75-80% of the public polled supported universal background checks, your absolutist opinion on this is what drives many in the middle to not back your agenda.

Then it stops being a right and becomes a privilege instead.

Every freedom contains within an element of risk. We can reduce the risk, but by doing that we reduce the freedoms as well.

You make a good point and I do understand what you are saying. However, to tie into a wider scope of ideas, Corporations pretty much had free reign to destroy our environment through all of the 19th and most of the 20th century, it is only by some limitations being put in place, that we do not live in an environment much like many parts of the industrialized third world. Sometimes, the needs and wants of many become more important than the desires of one particular group. Even you would have to admit, that in a shtf scenario, you would not want the unpredictable psychopath being responsible for your back, I sure wouldn't, would personally rather have you or BenevolentHeretic having my back.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

But when put in the same context, can't you at least see how draconian some of this is?

See, I think the difference between us is that you (and others like you) are paranoid. You believe the "evil" government is wanting gun control so they can take away all our rights and leave us helpless and under their total control (mwa ha ha ha ha ha!) I believe that while the government is often times incompetent, and self-serving, they are genuinely trying to stop unnecessary deaths in this case.

Not paranoid. (At least that's what the voices in my head say)

It comes down to this.

You believe that government has your best interests at heart.

I believe that government has government's best interest at heart.

This is the first of these usually redundant gun threads I'll post on. Of course the right to own and carry a gun is in the United States constitution. FOX made a wise move in hiring Kucinich, now let's see how long he lasts there. They should really give Keith Obermann a show, that would show them to be truly fair and not unbalanced.

And I still favor Dennis Kucinich's wife as the spokesperson for anything, anywhere, as long as she stands before a camera, and talks, and poses and stuff.

reply to post by beezzer


There are LIMITS. The limits on speech, religion, firearm ownership and other rights are naturally going to be different and geared to the specific rights. We have the right to vote. But we cannot vote anywhere, anytime. We must prove that we are a citizen of the country, etc. These limits are imposed to protect other people's rights.

reply to post by beezzer

Originally posted by beezzer
Then it stops being a right and becomes a privilege instead.

I think you're getting caught up in semantics. By that logic, all of our rights are actually privileges.

Consider that the state of maximum individual freedom (without limits) is known as anarchy and the fact is that humans aren't evolved enough to operate in a social environment under the structure of anarchy. (I actually support the idea of anarchy, but KNOW that our society cannot be trusted to function under it.)

For instance, free travel in the US is a right, but, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. And the reason is that some people are not capable or responsible enough to operating a motor vehicle, so while their right of movement must be maintained, their freedom to drive a car, ride a bus or board a plane is in fact a privilege, not a right. There have to be limits to individual freedoms to maintain a successfully-operating, complex society.

Everyone SHOULD be able to exercise our freedoms completely, but it is well-known fact that everybody doesn't.

“Our ultimate goal- total control of handguns in the United States- is going to take time... The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced... The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal.”

Sarah Brady quote

The slippery slope to slavery.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

But when put in the same context, can't you at least see how draconian some of this is?

See, I think the difference between us is that you (and others like you) are paranoid. You believe the "evil" government is wanting gun control so they can take away all our rights and leave us helpless and under their total control (mwa ha ha ha ha ha!) I believe that while the government is often times incompetent, and self-serving, they are genuinely trying to stop unnecessary deaths in this case.

Not paranoid. (At least that's what the voices in my head say)

It comes down to this.

You believe that government has your best interests at heart.

I believe that government has government's best interest at heart.

edit on 26-1-2013 by beezzer because: t

I don't see you as paranoid, I see you as someone that sees everything as Black and White in a world made up of grays. While this doesn't make you a bad person, it limits your ability to even glimpse the white side of an issue that you see as black. I don't know you so can't comment on all of your personal beliefs, however one of the problems I have with the all out "No gun control" crowd, is that while they do not want their freedoms reduced under the constitution, they are perfectly willing to deny others the rights to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", thinking abortion, gay rights, civil rights, and freedom of/from religion.

I do not believe that the government has my best interest at heart, the only thing the government is concerned about is their corporate backers.

reply to post by beezzer


I don't blindly think that "government" has our best interests at heart. "Government" doesn't have a heart. People do.

I think some of these recent measures by Obama are an attempt to quell the fear and anger that are developing around the violence worship in this country and others are attempting to keep guns out of irresponsible hands and protect the law abiding citizens. But I don't think he wants to have a "gun grab" as I've seen so many claim. That's just sensationalism and ignorance, IMO.

On the other hand, some of the left's proposed restrictions, bans and other extreme legislation on the table are ridiculous and I don't support them. I do support parts of some of the laws and not others. It's not a cut and dried situation for me.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


While i see your point. The Second Amendment is cut and dry. It is literally the only guarantee of a free world in the big picture.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

By that reasoning the AR-15 should be the most protected firearm in the US. There are, by most accounts, almost 3 million of these in civilian circulation. It has been the standard personal rifle of the US service member since the '60's, and almost every police agency in the country has at least a few if not a scores. The only guns in more "common use" would probably be the 1911 .45 and 12 guage pump.

The M-1 Garand was and still is an extremely deadly weapon the the American Soldier and Marine used in our deadliest war of the last century. The .30-06 round it shoots is much more powerful than the .223 from an AR. No one is talking about banning it because to the modern observer it looks like "you could hunt with it".

A high capacity magazine ban would piss me off but it's not something that would push me over the edge. Rapidly changing magazines is useful skill in battle and limited ammo capacity forces you to train for that while shooting. Magazines are easy to manufacture anyway. Almost any machine shop could pump them out at a rapid pace if the need were to arise. I do believe ten rounds is too few to limit to. I believe banning any type of magazine is unconstitutional, but I personally wouldn't own any magazine with over a 30rd capacity because, in my experience, they are prone to causing malfunctions.

I like the versatility of the AR platform. If you were a taxpayer in the US, from say '95-'04. Your tax dollars taught me how to use and care for an AR. Due to my experience, it is the weapon I am most comfortable with.

reply to post by kaylaluv

I believe that while the government is often times incompetent, and self-serving, they are genuinely trying to stop unnecessary deaths in this case.

Ah yes, that's why they gave us NDAA and kill lists, to allow for only necessary deaths and indefinite imprisonment of citizens they arbitrarily choose to strip of constitutional rights.

And of course congress can limit who may or may not be armed using the " general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses of the Constitution. After all, its necessary and proper for only government officials to be armed in this dangerous time when people are starting to think its THEIR country.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

But when put in the same context, can't you at least see how draconian some of this is?

See, I think the difference between us is that you (and others like you) are paranoid. You believe the "evil" government is wanting gun control so they can take away all our rights and leave us helpless and under their total control (mwa ha ha ha ha ha!) I believe that while the government is often times incompetent, and self-serving, they are genuinely trying to stop unnecessary deaths in this case.

Since less than 400 people were killed by a rifle in 2011, what effect would banning rifles really have compared to deaths by gangs,drugs,alcohol,deer collisions ( way more deaths there) and the 1000 other reasons for death that make those numbers pale in comparison?
It seems to me that mental health,drugs,gang violence, breeding of criminals, romanticizing violence in rap music, the media bombarding us with violence, etc, would be at the forefront of any real attempt to curb death/violence.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

But when put in the same context, can't you at least see how draconian some of this is?

See, I think the difference between us is that you (and others like you) are paranoid. You believe the "evil" government is wanting gun control so they can take away all our rights and leave us helpless and under their total control (mwa ha ha ha ha ha!) I believe that while the government is often times incompetent, and self-serving, they are genuinely trying to stop unnecessary deaths in this case.

Not paranoid. (At least that's what the voices in my head say)

It comes down to this.

You believe that government has your best interests at heart.

I believe that government has government's best interest at heart.

edit on 26-1-2013 by beezzer because: t

Yes, many in the government have their best interests at heart. For example, the republicans who fight gun control the most, stand to lose the most in NRA donations - don't think that it's because they really value your second amendment rights.

I believe that there are those in the government who want to please their constituents who want the mass shootings to stop. Self-serving? Maybe -- but if the constituents are happy -- who cares.

What I do NOT believe, is that the "government" is planning a gun grab so they can overpower and enslave their citizens.

reply to post by jimmiec

Originally posted by jimmiec
It seems to me that mental health,drugs,gang violence, breeding of criminals, romanticizing violence in rap music, the media bombarding us with violence, etc, would be at the forefront of any real attempt to curb death/violence.

Sorry to butt in, but most, if not all of that is being addressed in Obama's 23 executive actions. It's a comprehensive approach to a problem that has grown over the years. And including some limits on firearms access is one of the measures they're working on, while doing nothing to interfere with keeping firearms in the hands of responsible and law abiding citizens.

Originally posted by jimmiec

Since less than 400 people were killed by a rifle in 2011, what effect would banning rifles really have compared to deaths by gangs,drugs,alcohol,deer collisions ( way more deaths there) and the 1000 other reasons for death that make those numbers pale in comparison?
It seems to me that mental health,drugs,gang violence, breeding of criminals, romanticizing violence in rap music, the media bombarding us with violence, etc, would be at the forefront of any real attempt to curb death/violence.

Agreed, there should be a very broad approach to curbing violence. There should be more social programs in place for the mentally ill, to help inner-city youths, etc. Government leaders should be having serious discussions with the music, movie, and video game industries. But that's me just being a progressive.

Wait.. did you say deer collisions??? Okaaaaaay. That was a little out of left field - I haven't heard that one yet. Not sure what to suggest on that one, other than better air bags.