Joe Biden proposals for banning some firearms, high capacity magazines, immunity changes

Belk · Feb 19, 2021

98cwitr said:
And what is the source, or who is the grantor, of these rights; according to the Declaration of Independence?

Irrelevant to the fact the if they can be taken away they are not inalienable.

98cwitr · Feb 19, 2021

Belk said:
Irrelevant to the fact the if they can be taken away they are not inalienable.

They are only taken away if natural law is infringed upon, or if one consents.

98cwitr · Feb 19, 2021

Belk said:
No, we have actual legal precedents that show your claims to be incorrect. It is not I whom am judging it constitutional, it is actual judges ruling on the constitutionality of the measures.

Yes, conflicting legal precedents at that!

I'd like for you to answer my question, please.

Belk · Feb 19, 2021

98cwitr said:
They are only taken away if natural law is infringed upon, or if one consents.

Which means they are not inalienable.

Belk · Feb 19, 2021

98cwitr said:
Yes, conflicting legal precedents at that!

I'd like for you to answer my question, please.

Not conflicting that I have heard but feel free to point out them out.

Belk · Feb 19, 2021

98cwitr said:
If you are able to judge what "fits fine" then so am I. That's part of the American ideal: the people's ability to dictate the terms of government.

Do you agree or disagree that the intent of the founder's placing the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights was primarily for the sake of opposing (or deterring) a tyrannical government?

I disagree. From everything I have read it was a secondary idea at best. Mostly it was to deal with the fact that they made a standing army unconstitutional.

The Fear of Standing Armies is the Root of the Second Amendment

98cwitr · Feb 19, 2021

Belk said:
I disagree. From everything I have read it was a secondary idea at best. Mostly it was to deal with the fact that they made a standing army unconstitutional.

The Fear of Standing Armies is the Root of the Second Amendment

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Excerpt from the Federalist Paper #46

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46

More on the matter: 10 Essential Quotes On The 2nd Amendment From Our Founding Fathers

In his style, Jefferson is quite forthcoming:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

Belk · Feb 19, 2021

98cwitr said:
Excerpt from the Federalist Paper #46

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46

More on the matter: 10 Essential Quotes On The 2nd Amendment From Our Founding Fathers

In his style, Jefferson is quite forthcoming:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

Wow. Quote mining. There is how you get a full impression of peoples thoughts on a subject.

98cwitr · Feb 19, 2021

Belk said:
Wow. Quote mining. There is how you get a full impression of peoples thoughts on a subject.

That is why I gave you the link to the entire paper, to avoid such an errant claim. Is it possible we can now admit that there is a major faction that does not wish America to look much like the founders intended, and champions that the Constitution is not a document for our good, but a roadblock for "progress?"

To be frank, do you think there is a large movement for the Constitution to be discarded as irrelevant and thus subverted?

Belk · Feb 19, 2021

98cwitr said:
That is why I gave you the link to the entire paper, to avoid such an errant claim. Is it possible we can now admit that there is a major faction that does not wish America to look much like the founders intended,

Yes, the vast majority of the country. That is why we had a civil war to get rid of slavery and give non land owners and women the vote.

However the biggest faction I see who does not want America to look like the founders intended is conservatives. The founders wrote the constitution with the idea that we could change it as needed in order to govern ourselves.

98cwitr said:
and champions that the Constitution is not a document for our good, but a roadblock for "progress?"

To be frank, do you think there is a large movement for the Constitution to be discarded as irrelevant and thus subverted?

No. I see any time people of good conscience try to change the constitution to make it relevant to our times a certain faction of conservatives (Not all certainly) scream bloody murder since they appear to think it should be set in stone.

98cwitr · Feb 19, 2021

Belk said:
Yes, the vast majority of the country. That is why we had a civil war to get rid of slavery and give non land owners and women the vote

Hamilton was an abolitionist. Washington wished to see slavery die out as well.

However the biggest faction I see who does not want America to look like the founders intended is conservatives. The founders wrote the constitution with the idea that we could change it as needed in order to govern ourselves.

That's too wide of a brush. There's bipartisan support for an Article V Convention of States. I know conservatives support amending the Constitution where appropriate (fiscal restraint and term limits).

No. I see any time people of good conscience try to change the constitution to make it relevant to our times a certain faction of conservatives (Not all certainly) scream bloody murder since they appear to think it should be set in stone.

We don't want to become Venezuela, the UK, or Canada. We also support the intent as to why the Founders placed the 2nd into the bill of rights; and it wasn't for hunting!

Do the Truths that "we hold to be self-evident" change over time?

Belk · Feb 19, 2021

98cwitr said:
Hamilton was an abolitionist. Washington wished to see slavery die out as well.

That's nice, but they are not "The Founding Fathers". They are only two people and the government they helped to create was very different then it is today. That was the whole point of the constitution, to enable change through compromise so it could be improved.

98cwitr said:
That's too wide of a brush. There's bipartisan support for an Article V Convention of States. I know conservatives support amending the Constitution where appropriate (fiscal restraint and term limits).

Perhaps somewhat wider then intended. I did try to limit it to those whom scream anytime mention of seeing the constitution in a modern light is mentioned.

98cwitr said:
We don't want to become Venezuela, the UK, or Canada.

No problem. No matter what laws you make we will not magically become another country entirely. Or were you wanting to argue against actual measures these countries implemented? The later can be discussed, the former is simply meaningless invective.

98cwitr said:
We also support the intent as to why the Founders placed the 2nd into the bill of rights; and it wasn't for hunting!

Then support it instead of trying to claim ideas you disagree with are unconstitutional.

98cwitr said:
Do the Truths that "we hold to be self-evident" change over time?

Obviously. See the aforementioned inclusion of African Americans and women into our idea of equality.

tall73 · Feb 19, 2021

Belk said:
Irrelevant to the fact the if they can be taken away they are not inalienable.

Definition of INALIENABLE

Definition of inalienable

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred inalienable rights

We recognize people have a right to some baseline of humane treatment. That is inherent to them being a person. Of course you can trample or violate those rights. But that doesn't take away the moral responsibility to treat people humanely.

You can take away life through murder, but we judge it wrong. You can rape someone, but we judge it wrong. You can abuse people but we judge it wrong. But being able to trample a right doesn't mean someone is not entitled to it by their nature.

As was already mentioned the inalienable rights in the declaration were more basic, such as life, liberty, etc.

Owning a particular firearm is a few steps away from the above. So I agree that it is not inalienable. However, its not being inalienable is not because you can violate it. It is not inalienable because it is a particular application of a broader principle or right. Applications are not themselves inalienable, in fact they have to adapt over time.

The right to arms stems from the perceived right of self-defense. What self-defense looks like and how to protect it as a right is something the people can decide upon. In this case the constitution can be amended. But it would need to follow the process.

The framers thought that you couldn't defend yourself without arms, so they put in protections to preserve that right. The country must decide if that is still the case.

tall73 · Feb 19, 2021

Belk said:
However the biggest faction I see who does not want America to look like the founders intended is conservatives. The founders wrote the constitution with the idea that we could change it as needed in order to govern ourselves.

No. I see any time people of good conscience try to change the constitution to make it relevant to our times a certain faction of conservatives (Not all certainly) scream bloody murder since they appear to think it should be set in stone.

I agree it can be changed. However, more concerning are efforts to undercut it without changing it. If the country wants a change, they should change it.

98cwitr · Feb 19, 2021

Belk said:
That's nice, but they are not "The Founding Fathers". They are only two people and the government they helped to create was very different then it is today. That was the whole point of the constitution, to enable change through compromise so it could be improved.

IMO, eroding the clear right for people to protect themselves is NOT improvement.

Perhaps somewhat wider then intended. I did try to limit it to those whom scream anytime mention of seeing the constitution in a modern light is mentioned.

Truth doesn't change over time. Truth is static.

No problem. No matter what laws you make we will not magically become another country entirely. Or were you wanting to argue against actual measures these countries implemented? The later can be discussed, the former is simply meaningless invective.

Unless states begin to secede.

Then support it instead of trying to claim ideas you disagree with are unconstitutional.

If our vision aligns with the founders' intents, and understanding that human nature hasn't changed over time, then we are also inline with the constitutional principles of our country's foundation. There are "other" principles which are attempting to wiggle their way in, and I think it's our job to push back on those unAmerican ideas.

Obviously. See the aforementioned inclusion of African Americans and women into our idea of equality.

Not so obvious to me. If "All men are created equal," and Washington and Hamilton both acknowledged the hypocrisy of that phrase while the institution of slavery was still in practice, then that Truth is as unchanged and apparent then as it is today.

tall73 · Feb 19, 2021

A2SG said:
It seems to me, if gun manufacturers faced a financial or legal disadvantage to guns being used illegally, then they'd be more likely to find some way to make that more difficult. I don't know how, exactly, maybe a fingerprint scanner like some cell phones have, making it only possible for the registered owner to operate them, something like that (not a gun guy, if that isn't obvious).

You are asking someone to be liable for another person's negligence or action, when they have no custody or control over that person. That is not how liability works.

If there is an inherent defect that causes harm, they are responsible for that. As Belk noted, if the people want bio locks required then lawmakers can make a law to do so. Then the manufacturers would be required to make that function correctly, etc.

But if guns being used illegally is financially advantageous for gun manufacturers (more guns stolen means even more guns are bought to replace them, cha-ching!), then there's no incentive to even try to make it harder to use guns illegally.

Illegal use also threatens their whole industry due to potential change of law. Do most gun makers want their guns stolen? I doubt it. Because stolen guns usually wind up in bad headlines. Whereas happy gun owners often buy more guns. The trend these days is collectors who have multiple guns. Gun manufacturers want happy gun owners to buy various models.

Having said that, a lot of folks who buy for self-defense only buy one handgun for that purpose and train with it for that situation, so they may not collect more. But it still doesn't help gun manufacturers if that weapon is stolen and creates backlash against the idea of protective use of firearms.

-- A2SG, I realize my example above is probably wildly impractical, if not impossible...so please refrain from explaining exactly why......as I said, not a gun guy.....

You don't have to be a gun guy to discuss the general principle of whether liability for manufacturers is constitutional.

The primary issue with what you have said is that we cannot expect person a. to be responsible for the behavior of person b. because person a. sold person b. a product.

As to bio locks in particular, some want them, some don't. It is a trade off between it being more secure against accidental fire, etc. and the possibility that more complexity means a higher chance of failure when you actually need it to work in a defense situation.

A step removed, but along the same lines, a number of folks use biolock or RFID bracelet type gun safes. Some use the old fashioned combination lock, etc.

As to stolen firearms, the trend now is for guns to be stolen from vehicles. So if you want to prevent that then you may revisit those laws. Or counterintuitively, you may want to reconsider laws that prevent carry to various locations, because the main reason people leave a gun in a car is that they can't carry it where they have to go.

Another option is to require reporting stolen firearms. A number of states do not do so.

Belk · Feb 19, 2021

tall73 said:
Definition of INALIENABLE

Definition of inalienable

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred inalienable rights

We recognize people have a right to some baseline of humane treatment. That is inherent to them being a person. Of course you can trample or violate those rights. But that doesn't take away the moral responsibility to treat people humanely.

You can take away life through murder, but we judge it wrong. You can rape someone, but we judge it wrong. You can abuse people but we judge it wrong. But being able to trample a right doesn't mean someone is not entitled to it by their nature.

I agree that these are things we should treat as a moral responsibility. I disagree that these are things that can not be taken away even as a moral idea. There have been many cases throughout history of people no longer considering others worthy of protection.

tall73 said:
As was already mentioned the inalienable rights in the declaration were more basic, such as life, liberty, etc.

Owning a particular firearm is a few steps away from the above. So I agree that it is not inalienable. However, its not being inalienable is not because you can violate it. It is not inalienable because it is a particular application of a broader principle or right. Applications are not themselves inalienable, in fact they have to adapt over time.

The right to arms stems from the perceived right of self-defense. What self-defense looks like and how to protect it as a right is something the people can decide upon. In this case the constitution can be amended. But it would need to follow the process.

The framers thought that you couldn't defend yourself without arms, so they put in protections to preserve that right. The country must decide if that is still the case.

An interesting thought, though I think it would need to be expanded. I can see a case for a right to self defense but that is a far cry from what most who support the second amendment assert. You certainly do not need an AR to defend yourself. In fact I can think of many other weapons that would be better suited to that task.

A large part of the problem I see is that people become so black and white in their thinking they refuse to discuss the ideas behind their stances. I, for example, am pro second amendment and own several firearms. I still think we should have reasonable gun control and favor measures such as bio keyed locking devices to reduce the damage that weapons can produce. That stance has me labeled as a "Gun grabber" by some even though that is not even close to my stance.

Belk · Feb 19, 2021

tall73 said:
I agree it can be changed. However, more concerning are efforts to undercut it without changing it. If the country wants a change, they should change it.

Can you give me an example of what you see as undercutting it?

Belk · Feb 19, 2021

98cwitr said:
IMO, eroding the clear right for people to protect themselves is NOT improvement.

IMO stopping men who beat their wives from owning weapons is not undercutting the right of self protection, it is strengthening it.

98cwitr said:
Truth doesn't change over time. Truth is static.

Not true in all cases. For example I am online. That is not always true. But more important is that our perception of truth changes. Women were not always seen as the equal of men as far as politics is concerned but that is more and more coming to be the case.

98cwitr said:
Unless states begin to secede.

Let me know when states start lobbying to join Venezuela. ^_^

98cwitr said:
If our vision aligns with the founders' intents, and understanding that human nature hasn't changed over time, then we are also inline with the constitutional principles of our country's foundation. There are "other" principles which are attempting to wiggle their way in, and I think it's our job to push back on those unAmerican ideas.

Why should our vision align with the founders' intent? They were certainly visionary for their time but we have changed much since then and our intent should as well. Likewise the idea that things are "un-American" simply because you disagree with them is an issue. What is un-American is the idea that any one group gets to determine what is "American". We all have a say and it all should be able to compete in the market place of ideas.

98cwitr said:
Not so obvious to me. If "All men are created equal," and Washington and Hamilton both acknowledged the hypocrisy of that phrase while the institution of slavery was still in practice, then that Truth is as unchanged and apparent then as it is today.

Yet slavery was still written in to the constitution. How do you explain this apparent contradiction with "All men created equal"?

FenderTL5 · Feb 19, 2021

Belk said:
Why should our vision align with the founders' intent?

As it applies to the 2nd Amendment, conservatives do not want to align with the founder's intent, but to a modern interpretation such as the one found in Heller.
As example, your previous post:

Belk said:
From everything I have read it was a secondary idea at best. Mostly it was to deal with the fact that they made a standing army unconstitutional.

The Fear of Standing Armies is the Root of the Second Amendment

Joe Biden proposals for banning some firearms, high capacity magazines, immunity changes

Senior Member

Lord forgive me

Lord forgive me

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Lord forgive me

Senior Member

Lord forgive me

Senior Member

Lord forgive me

Senior Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Lord forgive me

Sophia7's husband

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Similar threads