Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And how can you insure that this will always be so?

"No, it's not the same issue"

How is it not the same issue? If the issue is "sometimes it's OK to limit freedoms in the interest of saving lives" than what's the difference?

You were comparing guns to seat belts. One is a Bill of Rights issue. The other isn't

"Restrictions are bad if they create legal precedents which can be used to expand the power to restrict"

Can you name a single law that can't be potentially expanded? If expandability makes a law bad, then all laws are bad.

In the instances where the Constitution enumerates a power given to the government, that power is unlimited. That power is absolutely expandable so long as it doesn't drift (expand) into areas not enumerated as governmental power or are constitutionally limited or denied to government. If laws fall in an area limited by the Constitution, they cannot expand outside of that constitutional scope. If laws are prohibited by the Constitution, they are bad laws.

If laws that are allowed by the Constitution can be "interpreted" in ways that facilitate the creation of laws which are actually limited or denied by the Constitution, those interpretations erode the Constitution and set precedents for further erosion and eventual destruction of the Constitution.

If laws such as seat belt law are used as interpretive examples that justify limiting specifically constitutionally guarantied rights (such as the Second Amendment) such interpretation erodes the Constitution.

Examples of laws that unconstitutionally limit freedom as a result of "interpreting" existing law ("good" or "bad" law) are way, way, too numerous to list, even to research and find. The federal regulatory agencies, for instance, and their thousands and thousands of regulations which all stem from an "interpretation" that the federal Congress has the power or right to delegate its authority of regulation to unelected agencies. Nowhere in the Constitution is there such a delegatory power granted to Congress. The Constitution specifically entrusts legislation to Congress itself, to the elected representatives of the people, not to unaccountable, unelected agencies, and worse, to agencies that have legislative, executive, and judicial power such as the federal regulatory agencies have. And all that has mushroomed from early precedents, especially under the FDR New Deal administration's creation of several of these agencies including, for example, agency actions that led to the freedom busting Supreme Court's expansion of the Commerce Clause.

The meaning of "commerce" was expanded from merely the trade of goods (as was defined during the founding era) to include the production or manufacture of them. And the original meaning of the clause's wording "among the several States," was defined as commerce occurring across State lines, and was mostly meant to prevent States from impeding commerce between them such as when States imposed tariffs on goods from other States. The regulation of purely intrastate commerce, (occurring within the State) was left to the States themselves.

That all was expanded to mean any trade, production, or manufacture which in the aggregate might have a "substantial effect" on [the expanded definition of] "commerce," and whether it occurs within a State or across State lines. Which, actually, affects in some way most human activity in our country. And that expanded interpretation has resulted in many important Court decisions which would not have been possible under the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and has, in itself, given the federal government an almost unlimited power to regulate most aspects of our lives if and when it chooses to do so. If we add to that other such interpretations of different parts of the Constitution along with the many thousands of regulations imposed on us by the hundreds of federal regulatory agencies, there isn't much, due to its expanded power, that the federal government can't regulate if it wants, and if it appoints enough Progressive judges to approve.


"how can you insure that this will always be so?"

I can't. What I can be sure of, is that bump stocks can be used to slaughter huge numbers of people in no time. So we can worry about hypotheticals (which sound like something that someone wearing a tin foil hat would say), or we can respond to things that actually happen.[/QUOTE]

Yes, what has actually happened, while we have been gradually conditioned to want the federal government to "do something" about every crisis and public emotional trauma, is that we have been encumbered by thousands of regulations, many of which most of us are unaware, which, in fact if not in total practice, has created a basically unlimited government waiting for enough crises to convince us that the latent total power it actually has garnered due to the erosion of constitutional limitations, must be implemented--to make our lives better and secure and free from emotional trauma, of course. And when that happens, there will no longer be a constitutional guaranty that the agenda of those in power can be prevented from doing things to us we don't like. When government has unlimited power and demonstrates its use of that power, history shows that such a government is ripe for the taking by some ego-maniacal, narcissistic, Stalin, Hitler, Caesar, Kim il whatever, or becomes one that imposes the worst of "democracy" in which collective groups rule over minorities, especially the minority of actual producers. In either case, the wealth and security of its citizens diminishes or is lost. But while things are still good, that seems unlikely. The slowly but gradually rising temperature of the water that baths them in good times is not noticed until it's too hot and too late to escape, or until its time for one of those persistent revolutions that human societies resort to when the rulers go too far. And yeah, they vote in dictatorships. The ballot as a last resort may not cut it.

Yeah, let's do the bump stock regulation. Hey, it wasn't as if there weren't mass shootings without its use. Hey, it's not as if those simple hand guns that we think are OK aren't used to kill way more people than bump stocks and semi-automatic weapons do. Oh, right, the really bad weapons kill more at once than the nice handguns do at once. No doubt, after we somehow eliminate public ownership of the heavy duty bad stuff and limit the people to acceptable hand guns, there will be no more cries demanding we do something about the overall larger gun violence that those handguns in the hands of bad guys wreak.

Yeah, right.

It ain't really, ultimately, about the danger of big guns vs. little ones. It's about transforming how we are governed. Guns, in the hands of common folks can get in the way of that transformation. Not necessarily, but possibly, if enough folks are of the mind to resist.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"No, it's not the same issue"

How is it not the same issue? If the issue is "sometimes it's OK to limit freedoms in the interest of saving lives" than what's the difference?

You were comparing guns to seat belts. One is a Bill of Rights issue. The other isn't

"Restrictions are bad if they create legal precedents which can be used to expand the power to restrict"

Can you name a single law that can't be potentially expanded? If expandability makes a law bad, then all laws are bad.

In the instances where the Constitution enumerates a power given to the government, that power is unlimited. That power is absolutely expandable so long as it doesn't drift (expand) into areas not enumerated as governmental power or are constitutionally limited or denied to government. If laws fall in an area limited by the Constitution, they cannot expand outside of that constitutional scope. If laws are prohibited by the Constitution, they are bad laws.

If laws that are allowed by the Constitution can be "interpreted" in ways that facilitate the creation of laws which are actually limited or denied by the Constitution, those interpretations erode the Constitution and set precedents for further erosion and eventual destruction of the Constitution.

If laws such as seat belt law are used as interpretive examples that justify limiting specifically constitutionally guarantied rights (such as the Second Amendment) such interpretation erodes the Constitution.

Examples of laws that unconstitutionally limit freedom as a result of "interpreting" existing law ("good" or "bad" law) are way, way, too numerous to list, even to research and find. The federal regulatory agencies, for instance, and their thousands and thousands of regulations which all stem from an "interpretation" that the federal Congress has the power or right to delegate its authority of regulation to unelected agencies. Nowhere in the Constitution is there such a delegatory power granted to Congress. The Constitution specifically entrusts legislation to Congress itself, to the elected representatives of the people, not to unaccountable, unelected agencies, and worse, to agencies that have legislative, executive, and judicial power such as the federal regulatory agencies have. And all that has mushroomed from early precedents, especially under the FDR New Deal administration's creation of several of these agencies including, for example, agency actions that led to the freedom busting Supreme Court's expansion of the Commerce Clause.

The meaning of "commerce" was expanded from merely the trade of goods (as was defined during the founding era) to include the production or manufacture of them. And the original meaning of the clause's wording "among the several States," was defined as commerce occurring across State lines, and was mostly meant to prevent States from impeding commerce between them such as when States imposed tariffs on goods from other States. The regulation of purely intrastate commerce, (occurring within the State) was left to the States themselves.

That all was expanded to mean any trade, production, or manufacture which in the aggregate might have a "substantial effect" on [the expanded definition of] "commerce," and whether it occurs within a State or across State lines. Which, actually, affects in some way most human activity in our country. And that expanded interpretation has resulted in many important Court decisions which would not have been possible under the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and has, in itself, given the federal government an almost unlimited power to regulate most aspects of our lives if and when it chooses to do so. If we add to that other such interpretations of different parts of the Constitution along with the many thousands of regulations imposed on us by the hundreds of federal regulatory agencies, there isn't much, due to its expanded power, that the federal government can't regulate if it wants, and if it appoints enough Progressive judges to approve.


"how can you insure that this will always be so?"

I can't. What I can be sure of, is that bump stocks can be used to slaughter huge numbers of people in no time. So we can worry about hypotheticals (which sound like something that someone wearing a tin foil hat would say), or we can respond to things that actually happen.

Yes, what has actually happened, while we have been gradually conditioned to want the federal government to "do something" about every crisis and public emotional trauma, is that we have been encumbered by thousands of regulations, many of which most of us are unaware, which, in fact if not in total practice, has created a basically unlimited government waiting for enough crises to convince us that the latent total power it actually has garnered due to the erosion of constitutional limitations, must be implemented--to make our lives better and secure and free from emotional trauma, of course. And when that happens, there will no longer be a constitutional guaranty that the agenda of those in power can be prevented from doing things to us we don't like. When government has unlimited power and demonstrates its use of that power, history shows that such a government is ripe for the taking by some ego-maniacal, narcissistic, Stalin, Hitler, Caesar, Kim il whatever, or becomes one that imposes the worst of "democracy" in which collective groups rule over minorities, especially the minority of actual producers. In either case, the wealth and security of its citizens diminishes or is lost. But while things are still good, that seems unlikely. The slowly but gradually rising temperature of the water that baths them in good times is not noticed until it's too hot and too late to escape, or until its time for one of those persistent revolutions that human societies resort to when the rulers go too far. And yeah, they vote in dictatorships. The ballot as a last resort may not cut it.

Yeah, let's do the bump stock regulation. Hey, it wasn't as if there weren't mass shootings without its use. Hey, it's not as if those simple hand guns that we think are OK aren't used to kill way more people than bump stocks and semi-automatic weapons do. Oh, right, the really bad weapons kill more at once than the nice handguns do at once. No doubt, after we somehow eliminate public ownership of the heavy duty bad stuff and limit the people to acceptable hand guns, there will be no more cries demanding we do something about the overall larger gun violence that those handguns in the hands of bad guys wreak.

Yeah, right.

It ain't really, ultimately, about the danger of big guns vs. little ones. It's about transforming how we are governed. Guns, in the hands of common folks can get in the way of that transformation. Not necessarily, but possibly, if enough folks are of the mind to resist.[/QUOTE]

"You were comparing guns to seat belts. One is a Bill of Rights issue. The other isn't"

You seem to be cherry picking. But fine, let's stick to the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights is not absolute, and was never, ever intended to be. The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to threaten someone, nor to possess child pornography.

Child pornography, like firearms, is a tangible thing. And its existence has been banned, in the interest of public safety (same argument I am making here). There are extremist kooks out there who claim that laws banning child pornography, are a violation of the first amendment, since that amendment doesn't specify that kiddie porn is excluded. The people who want to legalize kiddie porn, are using the same exact argument and language you are using. There is zero difference. So if your argument supports the possession of bump stocks, why doesn't it support the right to possess kiddie porn?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to threaten someone, nor to possess child pornography. this is correct,
no where in the 1st Amendment does is state a right to possess or do these things

Child pornography, like firearms, is a tangible thing. And its existence has been banned, in the interest of public safety (same argument I am making here). There are extremist kooks out there who claim that laws banning child pornography, are a violation of the first amendment, since that amendment doesn't specify that kiddie porn is excluded. The people who want to legalize kiddie porn, are using the same exact argument and language you are using. There is zero difference. So if your argument supports the possession of bump stocks, why doesn't it support the right to possess kiddie porn?

I see what you are trying to do there....I'm really concerned about you....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I see what you are trying to do there....I'm really concerned about you....

If you are concerned, then you don't know what I am doing, probably because I am not articulating it well.

If it's unconstitutional to impose restrictions to the second amendment for the sake of public safety, why is it considered not unconstitutional to impose restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety? That's all I'm asking, and neither you nor detbuch (two guys I deeply respect and agree with 95% of the time) have come close to answering that. I don't think you can, because I don't think there is a conceivable retort to that.

We can disagree about where to draw the lines, to be sure. But that's not what the pro-gun folks usually argue. They always use the same tired arguments (slight exaggeration for effect)::

I need my guns to protect against a tyrannical government (because Seal Team Six might seize my home if I didn't have a deer hunting rifle in my basement)

Banning bump stocks would not be a 100% guarantee that there would be zero gun crime in the future, therefore we shouldn't do anything, because only perfect laws are worth ratifying.

If we let the feds ban bump stocks today, we go down a slippery slope where tomorrow if I criticize Trump, I will be put into a gulag. Because today, apparently, there are zero restrictions on anything I might do, so this would be the very first time in the history of the USA that the feds have ever said "no" to me.

I feel like I'm talking to people who are trying to defend slavery. That's how hard it is for me to believe that otherwise rational and logical people, can be so...I don't know... extremist? thoughtless? Unsympathetic to the victims? I have very close friends who agree with you and detbuch, these are guys of high intelligence and very solid moral character. I just can't fathom their position on this issue.

[scottw]

between you and Eben the nonsense is epic

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

between you and Eben the nonsense is epic

That’s our job
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If you are concerned, then you don't know what I am doing, probably because I am not articulating it well.

you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi

You can fantasize about Pelosi. You just can’t own one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You can fantasize about Pelosi. You just can’t own one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi

I feel like I'm talking to a liberal too. You are claiming I am saying things, that bear no resemblance to anything I have ever said.

"you act as there are no gun laws"

In what way am I acting as if there are no laws? Of course there are laws. In my opinion, they can be improved. In fact, I am very confident they can be improve din a way which (1) saves a few lives (but doesn't eliminate 100% of gun violence, obviously), and (2) doesn't trample on the intent of the second amendment. That's all I am saying. I'm not saying the earth is flat...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I feel like I'm talking to a liberal too. You are claiming I am saying things, that bear no resemblance to anything I have ever said.

"you act as there are no gun laws"

If it's unconstitutional to impose restrictions to the second amendment for the sake of public safety, why is it considered not unconstitutional to impose restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety?


In what way am I acting as if there are no laws? Of course there are laws. In my opinion, they can be improved. In fact, I am very confident they can be improve din a way which (1) saves a few lives (but doesn't eliminate 100% of gun violence, obviously), and (2) doesn't trample on the intent of the second amendment. That's all I am saying. I'm not saying the earth is flat...

:kewl you seem upset that I'm not a hysterical as you

I agreed with regard to bump stocks....limit the number of guns?...he had a bunch but only used "two" I believe

restrictions "to the second amendment" can not stop people from doing evil acts...just as "restrictions to the 1st"...cannot stop someone from yelling fire in a theater(talk about tired arguments)

that is why Rights come with Responsibilities...not restrictions.....restrictions are a joke to someone lacking responsibility....restrictions mainly restrict those that are already responsible

Freedom is exercising your inalienable Rights with Responsibility....I think socialism might be exercising the rights they allow you *with restrictions

you have yet to offer any "restrictions" that would have prevented the shooting in Vegas...

can you identify a few restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety? I'm just curious