0
Nightingale

California Ballot Propositions

Recommended Posts

>Speed limit posted is 15mph in a school zone. You decide that it is better
>for you if you go 80mph through this area.

Thus putting children at risk of being killed - thus we have laws against that for a very good reason.

Who do you put at risk of being killed by smoking pot?

And you did not answer my question. Would you hand over your (now-illegal) shot gun if a law made it illegal to possess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How is your scenario more relevant?

Wendy P.



Because weapons, like shotguns, are not considered consumables.
Bullets and ammo, maybe.

unless you are buying and selling illegal weapons, which would make the argument mute anyway.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>After you know something is illegal, and you have been caught doing
>that illegal thing twice and warned that you would go to JAIL FOR A LONG
>TIME, how about you don't do that thing anymore.

Or -

continue doing what you want with your own body, legally.

Imagine, for example, that we replaced "drug possession" with "assault weapon possession" - and you owned a shotgun that was now classified as an assault weapon. Is it wiser to simply heed the law, or is it better to work to change it? Would you immediately turn your weapon over to police, and face the music, or might you simply hide your possession of it until the law was changed?



When did drug possion become a right?

You know

A right

Something that is in our founding documents?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>When did drug possion become a right?

It's not. When did possession of an assault weapon become a right?



Well, with the pro drug crowd it seems to be a matter of dree. MJ is ok but heroin is not.

So, I read it possision of a weapon
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>When did drug possion become a right?

It's not. When did possession of an assault weapon become a right?



September 25, 1789
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Here's a thought.

After you know something is illegal, and you have been caught doing that illegal thing twice and warned that you would go to JAIL FOR A LONG TIME, how about you don't do that thing anymore.:|

Seems pretty simple.



Stop making it sound so simple. You'll scare people.

For the record, I'm +1 to what turtle said.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'd have something witty to say here, except turtle owned this one. I think he ought to savor the glory on this one....



Come on JP - We always appreciate your humor. I thank you for the comments though.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I am almost is complete agreement with you. I am only hesitant about legalizing drugs. I have no problem with legalizing all drugs. I don't care what people put in their bodies. I just have issues with paying for welfare, Social Security, health insurance, etc. for someone to do so. If they screw themselves up on drugs, I have to pay the price. I don't like that. Make them responsible for themselves and I think they should do whatever they like so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. While marijuana is low risk, a huge number of users don't hold down jobs and drag the rest of us down. Clear that up and I think they should smoke their little hearts out when not at work.



BUT on the other hand I guess you are good with supporting the hundreds of thousands that cost us billions of dollars to house them in prisons for low level drug users who were never violent offenders before they were sent to prison to learn how to be violent thugs.



That was a completely illogical leap of inference. If I am OK with legalizing drugs, why would I want to pay to house drug offenders?

And, having defended them in court, I can tell you that most jurisdictions have extensive programs and work very hard to keep from locking up users. I have had the DA offer probation to a six time felon with no negotiation at all. On possession charges, I have never seen anyone get locked up. Now, if the drugs are combined with firearms, burglary, etc.; sure.



I'm seen people sentenced to time for casual use as a first time offender in my jurisdiction. Granted, I believe it is more the exception than the rule but it definitely happens.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>When did possession of an assault weapon become a right?
>September 25, 1789

You'll have to quote the section that specifically legalizes assault weapons, then.



I will do that when you show me a law that specifically legalized "Chronic" or "Deisel"
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>When did possession of an assault weapon become a right?
>September 25, 1789

You'll have to quote the section that specifically legalizes assault weapons, then.



Assault weapons fall under the term 'arms' the keping a bearing of which shall not be infringed acording to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. If you read the Federalist Papers and much else written by our founding fathers, you will find the reasoning is clear. They just had to fight a tyranical government to start over. They used arms. They wanted future generations to have tha same ability. I've never understood why so many people are unable to grasp that simple truth. The founding fathers had no more faith in a republican form of government than in the monarchy. Franklin said the only thing worse than democracy was all the forms of government we had tried before. They put in at least solid protection for their posterity.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I will do that when you show me a law that specifically legalized
>"Chronic" or "Deisel"

There is none!

And that is precisely my point. We don't legalize things that the Constitution says we can legalize; that is exactly ass-backwards. The Constitution is not a document that says "people shall be allowed to X." The Constitution is a document that says "GOVERNMENT shall not be allowed to X." (and in some cases, shall be allowed to X.) It is assumed that people start with every right they could possibly ever have - the right to own guns, to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or pot, to marry, raise kids, race cars, skydive, start a business, eat a banana, or write a book. Indeed, this is even called out explicitly in the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So we all start out with all the rights imaginable. Laws can only limit them.

You don't have the right to own assault weapons because the Constitution says you can own assault weapons - you can own them because the Constitution (and through it the government) doesn't restrict that right; indeed, it makes a more general statement that bearing arms shall not be prohibited. Likewise, the reason it's legal to smoke is not because there is a section of some amendment that says "it's legal to smoke" but because nothing actively prohibits it.

The knee-jerk reaction of some people whenever guns (or pot) comes up is depressing, and is the reason that we are gradually losing rights over time. "Guns? They scare me! There ougtha be a law to protect me." And a new assault weapon ban is passed. "Pot? It scares me! There oughta be a law to assuage my fears." And the laws against marijuana are passed. Different topics, same sort of thinking.

If you really want freedom, you have to be OK not only with your own favorite thing, but with someone else's favorite thing, even if you don't like it. You don't have to own a gun, or smoke pot, or marry a guy, but you do have to be OK with other people doing it. The standard cannot be "but it's worrisome" - the standard must be "will it injure anything or anyone else?" That's the only real reason for a ban on it.

Once you are willing to extend such freedoms to others, you'll see the same sort of freedoms extended to you - not just on this topic, but on a great many others. And, to me, that's a good goal to shoot for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed

To: Billvon
From: Wiki


Quote


The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), interpreted the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm (unconnected to service in a militia)[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald, the Court determined that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority.[4]



I would like to see Bill prove that an assault rifle is not a firearm. Even when it is pretty common sense to prove that a nuclear weapon is not a firearm.

I do like how he is turning this thread into a gun thread to deflect from what was posted earlier.:)
I believe Diablopilot described it as being "Owned".:P
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>If you really want freedom, you have to be OK not only with your own favorite thing, but with someone else's favorite thing, even if you don't like it. You don't have to own a gun, or smoke pot, or marry a guy, but you do have to be OK with other people doing it. The standard cannot be "but it's worrisome" - the standard must be "will it injure anything or anyone else? when used in it's normal manner" That's the only real reason for a ban on it.

Once you are willing to extend such freedoms to others, you'll see the same sort of freedoms extended to you - not just on this topic, but on a great many others. And, to me, that's a good goal to shoot for.



agree, nicely stepping out of the stereotype of both parties there

I added the blue part, because a pile of feathers can be used to injure someone else when used in an irresponsible way

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>When did possession of an assault weapon become a right?
>September 25, 1789

You'll have to quote the section that specifically legalizes assault weapons, then.



"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."

-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, December 15, 1791


"Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 478 F. 3d 370
June 26, 2008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>When did possession of an assault weapon become a right?
>September 25, 1789

You'll have to quote the section that specifically legalizes assault weapons, then.



"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."

-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, December 15, 1791


"Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 478 F. 3d 370
June 26, 2008


It's pretty hot when you get all legal like that!:):$
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I would like to see Bill prove that an assault rifle is not a firearm.

I'm not going to try, because I think it is.

Yet there was a law passed against owning them. There is a law against smoking pot now. Neither law means that the Constitution forbids either act.

And to get back to the original question, I don't think you would turn in your shotgun even if the Federal law against assault weapons was still in place - because you would disagree with that law. Other people feel the same way you do on other topics. Doesn't make them idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sure, the 2nd explicitly guarantees the right to bear arms - though not necessary. They 'explicitly' listed a few just to be sure - but that doesn't mean they are granted

IMO - The constitution should only speak to restrictions of rights and where it's silent, that just means the right exists by default (we have rights, the government doesn't GIVE anyone rights they already have - it can only restrict)

aside - Rush: you're logic on individual rights and application of law is a bit upside down in a couple threads today......(this thread, the Iowa thread)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I would like to see Bill prove that an assault rifle is not a firearm.

I'm not going to try, because I think it is.

Yet there was a law passed against owning them. There is a law against smoking pot now. Neither law means that the Constitution forbids either act.

And to get back to the original question, I don't think you would turn in your shotgun even if the Federal law against assault weapons was still in place - because you would disagree with that law. Other people feel the same way you do on other topics. Doesn't make them idiots.



No, but the original topic of this was you complaining that there were too many people in jail for doing what they knew was illegal.

If you don't want to do the time - don't do the crime!

As far as the third strike goes . . . If the first two times you were arrested and the rules were explained to you and you did it again . . . Jail is probably the best place for you since sterilization is not an option.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0