Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Draco-Onis]

It doesnt matter if it was the basis when they include that excerpt. Like you said the gop position is to either gut or make it ineffective while the sc in their own writing said it was fine.

That's not what their writing said I am not sure what you read, all they said is that shall issue is still fine. Also we already know that the word of these justices is worth jack shit it's not even a ruling on the matter. When a case comes to them that directly addresses the issues (which is unlikely since not even the NRA is going after shall issue) then we can talk.

My point stands aside from Native American rights which may swing due to Gorsuch this court's ruling will line up the GOP agenda regardless of law or precedence.

[PhaelixWW]

It's one of the most prominent differences between a right and a privilege.

Nah. That's the thing you don't seem to understand. Rights are generally only restricted when they abut other rights, and then only as narrowly as required to ease the contention. I'm pretty sure I've never argued that a right... what was it you said? "...can never be taken from you, under any circumstance..."?

Just because someone argues that a certain restriction isn't valid for a right does not mean that there are no restrictions that are valid. Nor does arguing that some restrictions are valid mean that all restrictions must therefore also be valid. This type of undisguised hyperbolic rebuttal is frankly just disgusting.

Come to think of it, most of your rights are just privileges because they can be taken from you.

And it's not so much that those rights "can be taken from you", it's that you, through your own person and/or actions, can forfeit those rights for the aforementioned reason. That's what's different: specificity and agency. If you prove yourself to be a legitimate danger to yourself or others (via a felony conviction or other appropriate adjudication, court martial, restraining order, doctor's evaluation, etc.), then you forfeit certain rights, including the right to "keep and bear arms".

That's inherently different from a blanket restriction that applies to everyone, regardless of any individual justification.

- - - Updated - - -

But no one is arguing to remove shall issue not even the GOP nor was it the basis of the case, removing "burdens" has always been the goal.

Uh... clearly you've never heard of the concept of "Constitutional carry". There are absolutely people who argue against even shall-issue, on the basis that it's a "burden". As of July of this year, half the states will have some form of permitless carry enacted. That quite demonstrably belies your statement.

So, sure, SCOTUS could have made even more of a change here, had they so wished.


For myself, I haven't changed my position since I posted this, over 7 years ago:

For the record, though, I don't have a problem with requiring a permit for CCW, provided that it's potentially available to every non-prohibited person (shall-issue).

[Mayhem]

Nah. That's the thing you don't seem to understand. Rights are generally only restricted when they abut other rights, and then only as narrowly as required to ease the contention. I'm pretty sure I've never argued that a right... what was it you said? "...can never be taken from you, under any circumstance..."?

Just because someone argues that a certain restriction isn't valid for a right does not mean that there are no restrictions that are valid. Nor does arguing that some restrictions are valid mean that all restrictions must therefore also be valid. This type of undisguised hyperbolic rebuttal is frankly just disgusting.

You somehow make the right argument but come to the wrong conclusion, interesting.

Restrictions to rights can only be temporary and because others' rights would be infringed or denied. Rights are by definition non-forfeitable because if they were they would be pointless.

Humane treatment, not having to suffer torment, and so on can't be forfeited by you

And it's not so much that those rights "can be taken from you", it's that you, through your own person and/or actions, can forfeit those rights for the aforementioned reason. That's what's different: specificity and agency. If you prove yourself to be a legitimate danger to yourself or others (via a felony conviction or other appropriate adjudication, court martial, restraining order, doctor's evaluation, etc.), then you forfeit certain rights, including the right to "keep and bear arms".

That's inherently different from a blanket restriction that applies to everyone, regardless of any individual justification.

That is explicitly the antithesis of what rights are, you can't forfeit them, you can't lose them, that's the whole fucking point of what rights are, no one can take them from you not even you yourself.

What you think is viably losing some rights because of your actions is actually keeping other rights despite your actions. Also, there is a huge difference between temporarily losing some rights to prevent harm to yourself (your right to life supersedes your right to be free and harm yourself) or others (because their right to life, supersedes your right to be free and harm them) and indefinitely losing rights because of a conviction or a death sentence.

If you can lose a right, for example, the right to vote, then it is not a right. It is a privilege reserved for people that qualify under certain definitions.

[PhaelixWW]

You somehow make the right argument but come to the wrong conclusion, interesting.

Or you just lack a critical understanding of the subject matter, as usual.

Restrictions to rights can only be temporary and because others' rights would be infringed or denied. Rights are by definition non-forfeitable because if they were they would be pointless.

Yeah, no, that's not true at all. You do understand the difference between "taken away" and "forfeited", do you not?

Humane treatment, not having to suffer torment, and so on can't be forfeited by you

Physical harm is generally considered the highest tier when it comes to deciding which right gives ground. And since it's unlikely that that right would come into conflict with itself, it's understandable that there aren't typically going to be restrictions placed on it.

That's not true about most other rights, though.

Most of the ways in which a person forfeits some of their rights is when there's good reason to expect that the expression of that right will causes harm to someone else. Keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted felons is fine, because there's adequate reason to expect that felons will likely act in a way that is dangerous to others. The same cannot be said about the average law-abiding citizen, however.

That is explicitly the antithesis of what rights are, you can't forfeit them, you can't lose them, that's the whole fucking point of what rights are, no one can take them from you not even you yourself.

No, you can't just up and decide that you want to forfeit rights. What happens is that you act in a way that brings your rights into conflict with the rights of others, and through your personality and/or actions cause your rights to be forfeited.

What you think is viably losing some rights because of your actions is actually keeping other rights despite your actions.

Yes, you keep the rights which are not likely to come into conflict with others. That's the whole point. You only ever forfeit the ones that will allow you to cause damage, and only if your actions or nature warrant it, and only as long as they do.

This is really not a difficult concept.

Also, there is a huge difference between temporarily losing some rights to prevent harm to yourself (your right to life supersedes your right to be free and harm yourself) or others (because their right to life, supersedes your right to be free and harm them) and indefinitely losing rights because of a conviction or a death sentence.

Felons can have their rights restored; there's a pathway for that. Convictions can be overturned or voided. None of those is inherently permanent but that the potential punishment exceeds the time/availability for redemption. A death sentence is somewhat the exception, and there is certainly an argument to be made against it, but this is not the right thread for that.

If you can lose a right, for example, the right to vote, then it is not a right. It is a privilege reserved for people that qualify under certain definitions.

That's not the way it works, no. You can't change legal definitions to suit your whims, sorry.

[Mayhem]

Or you just lack a critical understanding of the subject matter, as usual.



Yeah, no, that's not true at all. You do understand the difference between "taken away" and "forfeited", do you not?



Physical harm is generally considered the highest tier when it comes to deciding which right gives ground. And since it's unlikely that that right would come into conflict with itself, it's understandable that there aren't typically going to be restrictions placed on it.

That's not true about most other rights, though.

Most of the ways in which a person forfeits some of their rights is when there's good reason to expect that the expression of that right will causes harm to someone else. Keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted felons is fine, because there's adequate reason to expect that felons will likely act in a way that is dangerous to others. The same cannot be said about the average law-abiding citizen, however.



No, you can't just up and decide that you want to forfeit rights. What happens is that you act in a way that brings your rights into conflict with the rights of others, and through your personality and/or actions cause your rights to be forfeited.



Yes, you keep the rights which are not likely to come into conflict with others. That's the whole point. You only ever forfeit the ones that will allow you to cause damage, and only if your actions or nature warrant it, and only as long as they do.

This is really not a difficult concept.



Felons can have their rights restored; there's a pathway for that. Convictions can be overturned or voided. None of those is inherently permanent but that the potential punishment exceeds the time/availability for redemption. A death sentence is somewhat the exception, and there is certainly an argument to be made against it, but this is not the right thread for that.



That's not the way it works, no. You can't change legal definitions to suit your whims, sorry.

Utter pointless, felons can have their rights restored, you mean regaining what qualifies them to have that privilege?

Serious question, please explain the difference between a right and a privilege.

[PhaelixWW]

Serious question, please explain the difference between a right and a privilege.

What, you mean:

Rights are generally only restricted when they abut other rights, and then only as narrowly as required to ease the contention.

A privilege has no such limitations on restrictions.

Again, this is not a difficult concept, and yet you're having such a hard time with it.

[Mayhem]

What, you mean:


A privilege has no such limitations on restrictions.

Again, this is not a difficult concept, and yet you're having such a hard time with it.

Right to vote one loses because of what other right?

Right to life one loses because of what other right?

Right to bear arms one loses because of what other right?

[PhaelixWW]

Right to vote one loses because of what other right?

Pretty much only if you're a felon (and not in all states, even then). Ostensibly, the feeling is that they forfeit the right to have a say in the process of elections/laws due to the likelihood of a damaging impact on the laws that they, themselves, have shown a disregard for through their actions.

The recent trend has been to undo many of these restrictions, however. The importance of voting rights is one of the reasons why strict scrutiny is pretty much always used in those cases, as it should be. Honestly, felons should probably still be able to vote; I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually becomes the standard, though the process may take decades.

Right to life one loses because of what other right?

The right to life. Justifiable homicide is a thing. The law allows for self-defense actions to take the life of someone else when they are engaged in an act that is placing the life of others in danger.

Right to bear arms one loses because of what other right?

The right to life/public safety. People who have been shown to be a credible threat to public safety are prohibited by law from possessing firearms. Again, this is entirely different from a blanket restriction on all people, including the law-abiding. I have no issue with laws that specifically target prohibited people.

Because the right to bear arms is largely predicated upon the idea of self-defense, which is critical to the right to life, the right to life is pretty much the only right that can cause a restriction on the right to bear arms.

[Mayhem]

Pretty much only if you're a felon (and not in all states, even then). Ostensibly, the feeling is that they forfeit the right to have a say in the process of elections/laws due to the likelihood of a damaging impact on the laws that they, themselves, have shown a disregard for through their actions.

The recent trend has been to undo many of these restrictions, however. The importance of voting rights is one of the reasons why strict scrutiny is pretty much always used in those cases, as it should be. Honestly, felons should probably still be able to vote; I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually becomes the standard, though the process may take decades.

So not a right.

The right to life. Justifiable homicide is a thing. The law allows for self-defense actions to take the life of someone else when they are engaged in an act that is placing the life of others in danger.

Aha, so someone on death row is a danger to whom exactly?

So not a right.

The right to life/public safety. People who have been shown to be a credible threat to public safety are prohibited by law from possessing firearms. Again, this is entirely different from a blanket restriction on all people, including the law-abiding. I have no issue with laws that specifically target prohibited people.

Because the right to bear arms is largely predicated upon the idea of self-defense, which is critical to the right to life, the right to life is pretty much the only right that can cause a restriction on the right to bear arms.

Well, one can get felony charges for all kinds of things that had no impact on someone's right to life, still, they lose their right to self-defense. Also, what weird justification is "sure, we let this dangerous person that very likely will harm others again back into society, but they can't have firearms"?

So not a right.

Want me to go on, or do you get it?

[Draco-Onis]

Uh... clearly you've never heard of the concept of "Constitutional carry". There are absolutely people who argue against even shall-issue, on the basis that it's a "burden". As of July of this year, half the states will have some form of permitless carry enacted. That quite demonstrably belies your statement.

So, sure, SCOTUS could have made even more of a change here, had they so wished.


For myself, I haven't changed my position since I posted this, over 7 years ago:

They are are people who want to bring back slavery again it a classic "burdens" case and they sided with the NRA, they don't get brownie points for not going further than the NRA and the current GOP.

[PhaelixWW]

So not a right.

You keep repeating this like you think it's a logical truth.

(Narrator: It is not.)

Aha, so someone on death row is a danger to whom exactly?

It's like you can't even read:

A death sentence is somewhat the exception, and there is certainly an argument to be made against it, but this is not the right thread for that.

Womp womp.

Well, one can get felony charges for all kinds of things that had no impact on someone's right to life, still, they lose their right to self-defense.

The idea is that felons have demonstrated such a lack of concern for the rule of law that they are inherently a danger to themselves or others and thus forfeit certain rights until such time as they can prove that they no longer represent such a danger. And yes, some people would argue that non-violent felons should not be prohibited at all based on on the non-violent nature of their conviction. And no, they don't forfeit the right to self-defense just because they forfeit the right to bear arms. They just wouldn't have the full, normal range of means at their disposal.

I'd even be willing to bet that a prohibited person who picked up a firearm solely for the purpose of an otherwise legal self-defense act would likewise not be found guilty of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, provided that their possession did not extend prior to or past the actual act of self-defense.

Also, what weird justification is "sure, we let this dangerous person that very likely will harm others again back into society, but they can't have firearms"?

Yes, there are people who argue that felons who have been released from probation/parole (not necessarily just prison) should be eligible to immediately have that right restored on the grounds that their rehabilitation has been completed. The idea of prison sentences as "rehabilitation" is also a topic for a different thread.

Want me to go on, or do you get it?

You don't even seem to get that your point isn't really a point, so why torture us both with more? You're literally just pretending that rights don't exist at all, in contravention of the actual law.

I'm not particularly interested in your brand of ignorance of the subject.

- - - Updated - - -

They are are people who want to bring back slavery again it a classic "burdens" case and they sided with the NRA, they don't get brownie points for not going further than the NRA and the current GOP.

With 25 states having enacted permitless carry, I'm not sure how you can possibly consider it "further than the current GoP".

That's some mental contortionism, right there.


Edit: Oh, and... NRA Achieves Historical Milestone as 25 States Recognize Constitutional Carry

A more than 30-year effort by the National Rifle Association (NRA) reached a milestone today as the Georgia legislature became the 25th state in the nation to pass constitutional carry. A movement long championed by the NRA, constitutional carry eliminates the need for government permission before a law-abiding individual can exercise their right to bear arms.

I guess it's not "going further than the NRA", either. When you're wrong, you're really wrong.

[Mayhem]

You don't even seem to get that your point isn't really a point, so why torture us both with more? You're literally just pretending that rights don't exist at all, in contravention of the actual law.

Of course not, as it goes right against your own argument. No, I am saying that what your country calls rights aren't actually rights for the reasons you yourself explained but just can't seem to grasp.

[PhaelixWW]

Of course not, as it goes right against your own argument. No, I am saying that what your country calls rights aren't actually rights for the reasons you yourself explained but just can't seem to grasp.

That doesn't make them not rights.

Literally the issue is that your definition of "right" is wrong.

[Draco-Onis]

With 25 states having enacted permitless carry, I'm not sure how you can possibly consider it "further than the current GoP".

That's some mental contortionism, right there.

Because that's not the case they are bringing to the supreme court, I don't know what's hard to understand. You guys seem dead set on drawing some magical victory from them not going beyond the scope of the case. Do you want to give them brownie points for not undoing same sex marriage at the same time as Roe?

[PhaelixWW]

Because that's not the case they are bringing to the supreme court, I don't know what's hard to understand. You guys seem dead set on drawing some magical victory from them not going beyond the scope of the case. Do you want to give them brownie points for not undoing same sex marriage at the same time as Roe?

Same sex marriage is not the same topic as abortion. They can't really draw a parallel between the two like that (despite the inane rumblings from Thomas).

But in a question about what qualifies as Constitutionally-protected public carry... yes, they both fall close enough together that the ruling for one could leave very little room for question about the other. Would there have to be plenty of follow-up suits to achieve this? Probably. But that would likely be limited to the Circuit Court level and never have to rise again to the Supreme Court, as the case law precedent would have been firmly established by the SCOTUS ruling.

That didn't happen, however.

[Draco-Onis]

Same sex marriage is not the same topic as abortion. They can't really draw a parallel between the two like that (despite the inane rumblings from Thomas).

But in a question about what qualifies as Constitutionally-protected public carry... yes, they both fall close enough together that the ruling for one could leave very little room for question about the other. Would there have to be plenty of follow-up suits to achieve this? Probably. But that would likely be limited to the Circuit Court level and never have to rise again to the Supreme Court, as the case law precedent would have been firmly established by the SCOTUS ruling.

That didn't happen, however.

Roe V. Wade was decided on the same basis as same sex marriage which was privacy.

For now the crazies seem to rather limit their ruling to one case at a time only expanding on things in their writings. So no they don't get brownie points they seem to want to keep some semblance of "respect" for the kangaroo court.

[Elegiac]

Notably, in addition to the right to keep arms for self-defense (2nd) the English Bill of Rights also included concepts such as freedom of speech (1st), no cruel and unusual punishment or excessive bail (8th), right to trial (6th/7th), etc.

The idea that self-defense wasn't considered an aspect of the 2nd Amendment from the start is just preposterous. It certainly wasn't the only consideration, but the 2nd Amendment definitely was based at least in part on an individual right to self-defense, as later recognized in DC v. Heller.

Yeah, no.

The English Bill of Rights, like the American Bill of Rights, exists within a historical context; that being they had just expelled a head of state on the grounds of religious sectarianism. "Self-defense" in that case is not a function of individual self-defense as it is commonly touted by 2A advocates in a post-Heller world but instead a function of trying to negate a perceived threat of a monopoly of power by a central government that is of the wrong religion and/or violent reactions to oppression - which is precisely why it only guarantees said right to Protestants.

So when people point out that the American right to bear arms is also primarily a function of trying to negate a perceived threat of a monopoly of power by a central government that is of the wrong moral inclination (i.e. abolitionist) and/or violent reactions to oppression , pointing at the English Bill of Rights does not nullify that argument in the slightest because "enslaved people" and "Catholics/Papists" are essentially interchangeable under the comparison.

[Armael]

Yeah, no.

The English Bill of Rights, like the American Bill of Rights, exists within a historical context; that being they had just expelled a head of state on the grounds of religious sectarianism. "Self-defense" in that case is not a function of individual self-defense as it is commonly touted by 2A advocates in a post-Heller world but instead a function of trying to negate a perceived threat of a monopoly of power by a central government that is of the wrong religion and/or violent reactions to oppression - which is precisely why it only guarantees said right to Protestants.

So when people point out that the American right to bear arms is also primarily a function of trying to negate a perceived threat of a monopoly of power by a central government that is of the wrong moral inclination (i.e. abolitionist) and/or violent reactions to oppression , pointing at the English Bill of Rights does not nullify that argument in the slightest because "enslaved people" and "Catholics/Papists" are essentially interchangeable under the comparison.

This guy gets it. He articulated what I couldn't. I had wanted to say something the other day about the self-defense thing being not for oneself against just any old body, but mainly from a government, since you know, they had no established military back then.

[Mayhem]

That doesn't make them not rights.

Literally the issue is that your definition of "right" is wrong.

I am using your definition.

[Endus]

This guy gets it. He articulated what I couldn't. I had wanted to say something the other day about the self-defense thing being not for oneself against just any old body, but mainly from a government, since you know, they had no established military back then.

The 2nd Amendment in no way was ever meant to arm the populace against their own government.

That's a myth invented by wannabe terrorists.