Colbert: Stop ignoring gun violence (new definition of insanity)

Look, I tried to be nice, told you I was weary of this debate and was basically done…. then you called me a liar. Frankly, I don't care what you think and didn't initiate this conversation. I've already told you that you aren't going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours. The links that I posted are there for anyone to see. Police Chiefs TODAY asked for UBCs. Discredit that if you like or keep your head in the sand. I don't care one way or the other. I won't be responding to you past this post.

 

If violent crime, specifically gun-related violent crime, is so bad that the state needs to further restrict the rights of the law abiding - as you argue - why would a thinking person not reach the reasonable conclusion that there is prudence in carrying a gun for self-defense?

- - - Updated - - -

You keep saying that, but then you keep responding...?
I believe there is an "unsubscribe" button...
:dunno:

 

Interesting
Why do you think the things you want to enact do not violate the constitution?

 

Why should I? You jumped into an issue we were discussing. Next time read the thread before you jump in and you won't need to clarify.

No problem.

- - - Updated - - -

There you go again. I did not say they did not violated the constitution. I said they "possibly but not necessarily" did.

In your question, do you mean the Constitution as it is written, or as interpreted by the Supreme Court?

 

False dichotomy.
Both.

 

It is not a false dichotomy -- they are not the same thing.

As to what is written, I've written many long detailed posts on the 2A in other threads if you are interested in my opinion, as I don't feel like regurgitating it all again here. But in sum, in my view, the 2A was created in the context of arming the militia that the founders thought a free state could not exist without, and has to be be read in that light and not independent of it.

As to what the Supreme Court has said through Scalia's Heller opinion, while undertaking a completely hypocritical display of judicial activism, the Supreme Court did say you have a right to own handguns, but it has not said you have a right to automatic weapons or that registration of guns or training etc violate the Constitution. Hence my answer "possibly but not necessarily."

Again, I've written long detailed posts on the subject in past threads which I'll refer you to if you are interested.

 

Perhaps not -- but you don;t need to li,it yourself to one answer -- that's the false dichotomy.

Please.

 

OK, I'll see if I can dig them up for you.

 

You're not getting it. No one fears laws,they fear the punishment of breaking them. Laws are meaningless unless there is punishment.

 

We have very few problems with legal gun owners, and tremendously large problems with people who own guns illegally.

So, um, yeah. No ridiculous argument at all on my part.

 

Of course. What's your point?

 

actually the supreme court is much closer to mine-its corruption is based on the faint hearted originalist nonsense meaning that since the Commerce clause crap has been around for years, Scalia wasn't about to completely wipe out that fiction because that would mean the end of welfare, socialist security and other things the sheeple rely upon

Registration is proof that gun banners really want to harass honest people because criminals cannot be charged for failing to comply with registration. and Unlike you, I want a society where the government fears the people and doesn't know who is armed rather than a fascist society where the government knows which law abiding people have arms and which ones. you don't need registration to prove who is the legal owner of a gun either.

 

I completely disagree. Scalia made it quite clear that there was an unrestricted right to own whatever weapons without restriction.

Scalia basically re-wrote the 2A to fit his personal preferences in a hypocritical display of judicial activism.

There definitely are some people that have guns that should be harrassed. Why can't criminals be charged for failing to comply with registration?

But I don't see it for law abiding gun owners. We've had registration for things like cars for decades and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

Criminals cannot be forced to register as it would violate their right not to incriminate themselves. This was already ruled on. So yeah, it would only affect the law abiding.

 

police chiefs don't equate to 90 percent of America and the polls linked to your post don't either, so you are a liar. Consider your post discredited! I don't care if you respond...your lies have been exposed.

 

you like many other gun restrictionists or banners confuse federal power with state power.

have you ever heard of the fifth amendment? I realize citing US V Haynes is probably a waste of time since you don't even understand the prohibition against self incrimination

no one is seeking to ban cars. no one is upset with the AAA and its lobbying

 

Explain how an individual being emotionally or psychologically compromised is the same thing as having a documented mental health record, and is fit to be classified as mentally ill. How exactly are those two standards even remotely related to one another?

What is even the point of documenting the mental health history of an individual, if there is no way of providing the necessary care for them?

 

Then if they were caught with a gun that wasn't registered we'd know they are a bad guy.

 

Have we not already been over this? Has it not been pointed out by the member Bryan as to precisely why your position is incorrect? Mandating background checks on private firearm sales will lead to no measurable difference, as there will be no way of enforcing such standards without the comprehensive registration of every single firearm currently available. And even then, there is no way of ensuring that someone sold a firearm without a background check, as they can simply claim that it was stolen by a prospective buyer.

 

Please explain why you think I've confused it.

Why would you say that?

That is true.

 

And the Gallup poll indicates that a majority of the people of the united states do not want anymore firearm-related restrictions enacted into law. Times are indeed changing. But they are not changing in the way you believe that they are. Trust in government is at an all time low. Do not expect that to get better anytime soon.

 

And ultimately what would you seek to prosecute them for? Possession of an unregistered firearm, as opposed to the already existing charge of felon in possession of a firearm? Explain how such would ultimately be any better than the system already in place?

 

I thought there had been threads here were I discussed these issues in detail, but this board seems to delete older posts after a while.

However, here are my posts in a couple threads from another board I used to participate in, where I explain my position re gun control, the 2A, and Heller in detail.

2dA
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/22762-2nd-amendment-constitution-3.html 47, 57, 78, 92, 104, 107, 112, 114, 117, 118, 124, 126, 128, 135, 139, 145, 147, 153, 157, 163, 193, and the rest of my posts in that thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/32983-weapons-does-2nd-protect-7.html # 248, 377, 387, 389, 437, 438

Heller
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/32983-weapons-does-2nd-protect-7.html # 67, 68, 92, 95, 137, 139, 143, 146, 152, 235, 244, 351, 353

Gun regulations
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/22762-2nd-amendment-constitution-3.html 28, 41, 45, 67, 69

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on the circumstances. It would provide a way to trace the ownership of the gun. Who sold it to whom and when. If the gun you sell is registered and can be traced back to you as the seller, you're more like to make sure you've complied with regulations in the course of selling it.

 

The member Bryan, who is a seasoned prosecuting attorney, has explained in detail exactly why this is not, cannot, and will not be the case.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=283227&page=12&p=1064982090#post1064982090

 

And they would be back on the street the next day. That's the real problem.