Why are most political posts on BF outside this subforum against democrats?

[quietmike]

The Constitution isn't clear at all about what kinds of restrictions are allowable on the right to bear arms. Nobody seriously believes it's unlimited and trumps everything else, and the examples I provided to Codger prove it. This seems to be a topic you are unable or unwilling to engage.

Shall not be infringed is very plain except to those who also think general welfare means a monthly check.

At the time of the constitution, it obviously meant folks were able to own any and all weapons, as that is what they did. Yes technology has changed, but civilians owned the equivalent and superior weapons to the government then, with nary a peep from the founders, and there is absolutely no evidence to support a claim.that it should be different now.
As has been pointed out, the founders included a handy-dandy amendment process for things that needed to be changed, but leftists never want to.be up front about their intentions, instead preferring tap dance and subterfuge.

[Codger_64]

And again, we have very clear illustrations as to why most political posts on BF outside this subforum are against Democrats, from the mouths (fingers) of people who claim the Democrat position on the first and second amendments to the constitution, and other important issues of the day. Lacking the ability to clearly counter arguements against their often untenable positions, they resort to personal insults and attacking individual members.

The fact of the matter is... the "spokespersons" for the Democrat position on the second amendment do not see the constitution as any impediment to their desire to infringe upon the rights of others as they see fit, right down to the outright banning of firearm purchasing, ownership and posession and knife purchasing, ownership and posession. On the topic of the right to life, the tactic is to redefine "life" and even to assign "value" (or lack of value) to human lives. Again I will clarify. Not all people who are members of the Democratic party (or non-members who tend to vote Democrat) adhere to these points of view on these political topics. And not all of them would like to see constitutional prohibitions on government infringements removed, in part or in total. But enough of them do to give the appearance that it is an ingrained part of the party platform.

IMHO, an honest person is willing to admit that much of the Constitution is written in clear, unambiguous language and that if they wish to promote laws which conflict with the COnstitution, they need to facilitate a Constitutional Convention and seek to amend it. That is the built in process that prevents usurption of the Constitution by partisan elements in our government and society. They cannot legally do by law that which is forbidden by the Constitution and it's subsequent amendments. This is a lesson that it would do well for the three branches of our government to learn and adhere to, rather than try to make end runs around the Constitution. Like with the health insurance scam they are calling "Health Care Reform", which is nothing of the kind. Like with gun laws. Like with programs to promote, facilitate and spend tax dollars on infanticide. Like with laws allowing the spying on, arrest and detention of American citizens with no charges and no proof, no review by a jury of their peers. Or summary executions of American Citizens at Presidential directive.

If such views make me a "fundy" (a perjorative term which is relatively new to me and has little real meaning) to people of a more "liberal mindset", so be it. They reflect the views of my father, grandfathers and great grandfathers whose values I respect.

[timcsaw]

The Constitution isn't clear at all about what kinds of restrictions are allowable on the right to bear arms. Nobody seriously believes it's unlimited and trumps everything else, and the examples I provided to Codger prove it. This seems to be a topic you are unable or unwilling to engage.

Don't bore me with straw men like Morton's Grove vs. Kennesaw. It's the stupidest and most fact-free argument ever, and irrelevant to the discussion in any case. IMO it's just evidence you have no serious thoughts on the subject.

I'm sorry you are so easily bored, but no "strawman" here as the real world Morton Grove vs. Kennesaw results are prime examples of how MY and the Constitution's "way" (freedom to keep and bear arms) WORKS in the real world and proves my point so you had BETTER just continue to dismiss it (we all understand why you dismiss it).

It clearly illustrates the value of arms in the hands of the population as compared to arms being denied to the population. Two very similar towns in size, demographics, etc. At about the same time, one outlaws guns, and the other makes gun ownership mandatory. Both towns grow at similar rates, one sees crime rates rise well beyond the national average, the other sees crime rates drop to levels well below national averages. One town prospers, and the other goes straight to hell.

If we were to devise an experimental situation to test both your position, and the Constitution's, Morton's Grove vs. Kennesaw would be a great one. Let's select two, very similar societies, then fully arm one, and fully disarm the other and see how it goes.

As a full blown socialist (I believe you have admitted this), you should realize that "we the people" understand what drives you and others like you with a "socialist bent" to disarm the population, so I say again... try to amend the constitution to "clarify" that which you find "unclear"... go ahead... try it because it's the only real opportunity you have. Otherwise, we will continue to fight, tooth and nail, every of your attempts to "work around" or subvert our right to bear arms, uninfringed.

The constitution doesn't "restrict" the rights of the people, it DOES RESTRICT the powers of government very specifically. It doesn't say "bear registered arms", or "bear certain types of arms", or "bear a certain, limited number of arms" because those are INFRINGMENTS on the right it guarantees the people.

The cards (and facts, and guns and bullets) are against you.

[timcsaw]

Shall not be infringed is very plain except to those who also think general welfare means a monthly check.

At the time of the constitution, it obviously meant folks were able to own any and all weapons, as that is what they did. Yes technology has changed, but civilians owned the equivalent and superior weapons to the government then, with nary a peep from the founders, and there is absolutely no evidence to support a claim.that it should be different now.
As has been pointed out, the founders included a handy-dandy amendment process for things that needed to be changed, but leftists never want to.be up front about their intentions, instead preferring tap dance and subterfuge.

But... but... that Constitution "thingy" doesn't support MY position and the way that I think things should work so I'll just work around it, rationalize it, or just flat out ignore it.

[jdm61]

How about tracking the speech of people on the internet and holding them responsible, perhaps under the "time, place and manner" doctrine? Sure the Founders did not anticipate the internet......things change.

I don't think anybody could make a very convincing case that tracking guns and gun owners as we track cars and licensed drivers, and holding gun owners responsible as we do car owners, would ipso facto constitute much of an infringement.

Either way, it's even harder to make a case that we have "strict gun laws in place." That's pretty ludicrous, really.

[jdm61]

Gun laws, for the most part, are not strict in the US compared to most European countries, but for that to be so, the only thing that is required is that SOME people actually own guns and are able to keep them in their homes. Thats like saying that free speech laws are not to strict because you are allowed to engage in political speech that the government might not like at all. Sure, the press in Venezuela is more "free" to criticize the government compared to the press in say, North Korea, but that don't mean that it is free.

Because the gun laws really aren't very strict, and the NRA and other pro-gun advocates have managed to prevent all measures that would allow for meaningful tracking of firearm sales.

[Hog Feet]

Because the immigration laws really aren't very strict, and the liberals and other pro-illegal advocates have managed to prevent all measures that would allow for meaningful tracking of illegal aliens.

I don't think anybody could make a very convincing case that tracking illegal aliens and voters as we track cars and licensed drivers, and holding law breakers responsible as we do car owners, would ipso facto constitute much of an infringement.

Either way, it's even harder to make a case that we have "too many laws." That's pretty ludicrous, really.

Rational is exactly what they are not......I thought my post made that clear.

To go to positively CRAZED lengths to kill a fetus in the womb and then insist the parents' health care is paid for once it actually kills a baby......that is NOT rational behavior.

To just say, "Oh, it's a personal responsibility" is just as irrational.

We are ALL responsible for ourselves and and our own children we must all contribute to their needs, whether health, education or welfare.

I don't think such a fundamentalist and literal interpretation works for taxpayer rights or for most other other rights, and it becomes tiresome even to point it out. Is my right to vote really "infringed" by laws that forbid me from driving through residential neighborhoods in the middle of the night broadcasting surrealist poetry at 120 decibels?

The BATFE doesn't have a problem with restricting gun ownership--in fact, they are pretty enthusiastic about it, or claim to be, when it comes to restricting the rights of Americans to own guns, or people with demonstrated history of being law abiding, veterans, or people who know what the second amendment means. They also don't seem to have a problem with restricting civilian ownership of particular kinds of weapons like mortars, hand grenades, etc. I don't think second amendment haters get to pull the literalist card only when it suits a particular conversation without taking wider reality into consideration.

(And for what it's worth, despite the 18th-century fantasies of marxist-cult lunatics to the contrary, the current interpretation of the Constitution as regards the Second Amendment is thoroughly revisionist, resulting from a decades-long campaign by anti-freedom advocates and an activist Supreme Court. Until its takeover by its own extremists, the Brady Campain was actually in favor of people control.

Not the point. You still need to delineate in what way such registration infringes on welfare recipients' rights. In the same way, I don't see how anybody could seriously claim that their right to welfare would be restricted by limiting the number of checks they could get.

I'm not the one reducing an argument to the absurd. It's literalists who talk themselves into a radical position that has virtually no credibility or acceptance among anybody, and which would result in chaos if it were actually applied. The silliness of such a position is illustrated by my earlier examples which you have studiously ignored in favor of climbing onto a soapbox.

Though it is no doubt a marxist-cult lunatic's wet dream, no sensible person seriously believes that the right to vote implies that government can make no regulations about voter ID whatsoever.

The Constitution isn't clear at all about what kinds of restrictions are allowable on the right to get a welfare check. Nobody seriously believes it's unlimited and trumps everything else, and the examples I provided prove it. This seems to be a topic you are unable or unwilling to engage.

Don't bore me with straw men like Obama. It's the stupidest and most fact-free argument ever, and irrelevant to the discussion in any case. IMO it's just evidence you have no serious thoughts on the subject.

[timcsaw]

Because the immigration laws really aren't very strict, and the liberals and other pro-illegal advocates have managed to prevent all measures that would allow for meaningful tracking of illegal aliens.

I don't think anybody could make a very convincing case that tracking illegal aliens and voters as we track cars and licensed drivers, and holding law breakers responsible as we do car owners, would ipso facto constitute much of an infringement.

Either way, it's even harder to make a case that we have "too many laws." That's pretty ludicrous, really.

Rational is exactly what they are not......I thought my post made that clear.

To go to positively CRAZED lengths to kill a fetus in the womb and then insist the parents' health care is paid for once it actually kills a baby......that is NOT rational behavior.

To just say, "Oh, it's a personal responsibility" is just as irrational.

We are ALL responsible for ourselves and and our own children we must all contribute to their needs, whether health, education or welfare.

I don't think such a fundamentalist and literal interpretation works for taxpayer rights or for most other other rights, and it becomes tiresome even to point it out. Is my right to vote really "infringed" by laws that forbid me from driving through residential neighborhoods in the middle of the night broadcasting surrealist poetry at 120 decibels?

The BATFE doesn't have a problem with restricting gun ownership--in fact, they are pretty enthusiastic about it, or claim to be, when it comes to restricting the rights of Americans to own guns, or people with demonstrated history of being law abiding, veterans, or people who know what the second amendment means. They also don't seem to have a problem with restricting civilian ownership of particular kinds of weapons like mortars, hand grenades, etc. I don't think second amendment haters get to pull the literalist card only when it suits a particular conversation without taking wider reality into consideration.

(And for what it's worth, despite the 18th-century fantasies of marxist-cult lunatics to the contrary, the current interpretation of the Constitution as regards the Second Amendment is thoroughly revisionist, resulting from a decades-long campaign by anti-freedom advocates and an activist Supreme Court. Until its takeover by its own extremists, the Brady Campain was actually in favor of people control.

Not the point. You still need to delineate in what way such registration infringes on welfare recipients' rights. In the same way, I don't see how anybody could seriously claim that their right to welfare would be restricted by limiting the number of checks they could get.

I'm not the one reducing an argument to the absurd. It's literalists who talk themselves into a radical position that has virtually no credibility or acceptance among anybody, and which would result in chaos if it were actually applied. The silliness of such a position is illustrated by my earlier examples which you have studiously ignored in favor of climbing onto a soapbox.

Though it is no doubt a marxist-cult lunatic's wet dream, no sensible person seriously believes that the right to vote implies that government can make no regulations about voter ID whatsoever.

The Constitution isn't clear at all about what kinds of restrictions are allowable on the right to get a welfare check. Nobody seriously believes it's unlimited and trumps everything else, and the examples I provided prove it. This seems to be a topic you are unable or unwilling to engage.

Don't bore me with straw men like Obama. It's the stupidest and most fact-free argument ever, and irrelevant to the discussion in any case. IMO it's just evidence you have no serious thoughts on the subject.

Nice "turn". What's good for the goose, is good for the gander and so on and so forth.

"Free Speech" is restricted to the audible exclamation of (unaided) vocally audible sound produced by the human voice box isn't it? Only certain words are allowed to be spoken aloud... limits on the number of words spoken etc.? Speech-free zones... use of silencers ... er.. amplification is not allowed unless such a device is registered etc.?

[BlackKnight86]

Because the gun laws really aren't very strict, and the NRA and other pro-gun advocates have managed to prevent all measures that would allow for meaningful tracking of firearm sales.

I see that, once again, I have failed to properly convey sarcasm.

Oliver, your statement is false. "All" measures have clearly not been prevented, seeing as that there are numerous measures that have been in place for decades. The problem is that none of those methods can absolutely guarantee the expected measure of safety; and each time those measures don't work, the hoplophobes want increasingly stricter methods. The issue here is one of trust. The direction that the hoplophobes are going is total and absolute eradication of privately owned firearms. They can deny that all they want; no one believes them anymore.

[BlackKnight86]

I don't think anybody could make a very convincing case that tracking guns and gun owners as we track cars and licensed drivers, and holding gun owners responsible as we do car owners, would ipso facto constitute much of an infringement.

Either way, it's even harder to make a case that we have "strict gun laws in place." That's pretty ludicrous, really.

This is old. Gun owners have called your bluff on this many times.

1) Cars and drivers are not tracked at the federal level
2) Ownership of a car is not unlawful without a license; only operating it is
3) I can operate a car on my own private property all I want, independent of age or license
4) I can make my own car, without any safety standards; I just can't take it on public roads
5) If I hit someone with my car, that someone can't sue the dealership who sold it to me, or the manufacturer (barring an actual defect in the operation)

...etc., etc....

So go ahead....propose that we do guns like we do cars.

[BlackKnight86]

Rational is exactly what they are not......I thought my post made that clear.

To go to positively CRAZED lengths to protect a fetus in the womb and then deny it health care once it actually becomes a baby......that is NOT rational behavior.

To just say, "Oh, it's a family responsibility" is just as irrational.

We are ALL responsible for the children in our midst and we must all contribute to their needs, whether health, education or welfare.

Baloney. Refusing to pay for health care is not denial of health care; although somewhere along the way it became that in the mind of the left.

And if "we are ALL responsible for the children in our midst" and "must all contribute to their needs, whether health, education, or welfare"; then you no doubt would not mind if I started restricting use of video games on other people's children, set their bedtimes, monitored their performance in school, denied them access to poor food choices, gave them curfews, told them how to dress, etc., etc., etc.? I mean, you certainly wouldn't want to have an inconsistent argument, would you?

[BlackKnight86]

I don't think such a fundamentalist and literal interpretation works for gun rights or for most other other rights, and it becomes tiresome even to point it out.

Not half as tiresome as constantly having to correct misinterpretation.

[OliverH]

Not half as tiresome as constantly having to correct misinterpretation.

I know exactly what you mean. Why can't people be reasonable and see that my way of looking at things is obviously the proper one?

[OliverH]

This is old. Gun owners have called your bluff on this many times.

1) Cars and drivers are not tracked at the federal level
2) Ownership of a car is not unlawful without a license; only operating it is
3) I can operate a car on my own private property all I want, independent of age or license
4) I can make my own car, without any safety standards; I just can't take it on public roads
5) If I hit someone with my car, that someone can't sue the dealership who sold it to me, or the manufacturer (barring an actual defect in the operation)

...etc., etc....

So go ahead....propose that we do guns like we do cars.

It's an analogue. Imperfect and approximate, but enough to provide the outlines for what a lot of us think is a reasonable proposal. The basic idea is that firearms would be registered to particular owners, and the owners would be repsonsible for reporting changes of ownership or reporting lost or stolen weapons to the authorities. Similarly, anybody who wanted to own a firearm could simply register for a license and get one unless they weren't entitled to own guns. It seems for the most part rather neat, clean, and would confer advantages even on the license holders. For instance, if you want to buy a gun from a dealer, there's no muss, no fuss, no waiting period--just flash your license, which would essentially provide immediate confirmation that you're a legitimate person, then walk out the door with the ordnance of your choice. For states that allow concealed carry, that could be an additional endorsement on the license. And so on. Maybe I'm missing some critical objections here, in which case I'll count on others to point them out and correct me.

[BlackKnight86]

I know exactly what you mean. Why can't people be reasonable and see that my way of looking at things is obviously the proper one?

LOL....good to have a worthy adversary again! It's a refreshing change....

It's an analogue. Imperfect and approximate, but enough to provide the outlines for what a lot of us think is a reasonable proposal. The basic idea is that firearms would be registered to particular owners, and the owners would be repsonsible for reporting changes of ownership or reporting lost or stolen weapons to the authorities. Similarly, anybody who wanted to own a firearm could simply register for a license and get one unless they weren't entitled to own guns. It seems for the most part rather neat, clean, and would confer advantages even on the license holders. For instance, if you want to buy a gun from a dealer, there's no muss, no fuss, no waiting period--just flash your license, which would essentially provide immediate confirmation that you're a legitimate person, then walk out the door with the ordnance of your choice. For states that allow concealed carry, that could be an additional endorsement on the license. And so on. Maybe I'm missing some critical objections here, in which case I'll count on others to point them out and correct me.

Imperfect and approximate, yes; but there comes a point when you "tweak" your analogy too much; and it ceases to resemble its original form. I don't have to register a car unless it is taken on the road. I can own a high performance race car; I just can't take it on the road. I can own as many cars as I want. I can operate a properly registered car, with a license, at the age of 16. And so on....

When you do the old "it's just like with cars....except for all the following differences"; then what you're saying is, it's NOT just like with cars. You're basically saying "because we control cars, we should also control guns". But if you're going to use such a loose association, you just opened the doors to control of any consumer product...how would you differentiate between your association and any other, when you have so many points of difference in your own association? No doubt you'll have plenty of exceptions here, as well....but that just further demonstrates that your analogy....isn't.

[Codger_64]

No license is required to exercise a right. A license is permission from the government. A license, and the permission it conveys can be rescended for any reason. Or for no reason at all. Thus no license is required to exercise a right. Only to exercise privileges. A license grants permission to do something that is otherwise illegal. Keeping and bearing an arm is not illegal.

[OliverH]

I'm sorry you are so easily bored, but no "strawman" here as the real world Morton Grove vs. Kennesaw results are prime examples of how MY and the Constitution's "way" (freedom to keep and bear arms) WORKS in the real world and proves my point so you had BETTER just continue to dismiss it (we all understand why you dismiss it).

It clearly illustrates the value of arms in the hands of the population as compared to arms being denied to the population. Two very similar towns in size, demographics, etc. At about the same time, one outlaws guns, and the other makes gun ownership mandatory. Both towns grow at similar rates, one sees crime rates rise well beyond the national average, the other sees crime rates drop to levels well below national averages. One town prospers, and the other goes straight to hell.

If we were to devise an experimental situation to test both your position, and the Constitution's, Morton's Grove vs. Kennesaw would be a great one. Let's select two, very similar societies, then fully arm one, and fully disarm the other and see how it goes.

In the first place, it's a meaningless comparison and a meaningless conclusion, depending on deep naivete regarding statistics and the evaluation of data, not to mention it ignores all other factors contributing to crime rates. It's not even worth talking about. In the second place, if you're talking about the trajectory of social conditions in Mortons Grove, I don't think you can make a case that the place has exactly gone to hell, at least as nearly as I can tell from a brief search on the internet. This year Business Week named it No. 3 "Best Places to Raise Children." I'm not a big fan of those bogus lists, but at the same time I don't think it's so off-base that garden spots like East St. Louis would make the list.

As a full blown socialist (I believe you have admitted this), you should realize that "we the people" understand what drives you and others like you with a "socialist bent" to disarm the population, so I say again... try to amend the constitution to "clarify" that which you find "unclear"... go ahead... try it because it's the only real opportunity you have. Otherwise, we will continue to fight, tooth and nail, every of your attempts to "work around" or subvert our right to bear arms, uninfringed. The cards (and facts, and guns and bullets) are against you.

It would be interesting if you could refer to anything I've posted in which I claimed to be a full-blown socialist, or that I am interested in disarming the population. You are apparently confusing me with the boogeyman inside your head. Perhaps it's easier to sling stereotypes and make unsupportable literalist claims than to engage concrete issues or examples such as the ones I made. Again, if you want to claim that all freedoms should be "uninfringed" and that any government regulation that limits them is unconstitutional, I think you would have a tough row to hoe when you have to actually translate your pie-in-the-sky stance into actual public policy.

The constitution doesn't "restrict" the rights of the people, it DOES RESTRICT the powers of government very specifically. It doesn't say "bear registered arms", or "bear certain types of arms", or "bear a certain, limited number of arms" because those are INFRINGMENTS on the right it guarantees the people.

I don't think that is anything like a reasonable or practical interpretation of how the constitution should be applied, and furthermore, I don't think you or anybody else would be willing to accept the concrete consequences of your own position, either in regard to your beloved firearms, and much less in regards to freedoms of speech or assembly, which you and other pro-gunners apparently think far less important.

[Fanglekai]

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Where are all the well regulated Militias?

[Codger_64]

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Where are all the well regulated Militias?

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Easy enough to answer.

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 - Richard Henry Lee

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

[Fanglekai]

That sounds mighty poetic to me....not plain speech or literal at all. It sounds like they are interpreting the constitution instead of reading what's there.