Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs gun bill

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle:

If the government had acted against Nikolas Cruz and took away his guns without due process, the NRA would have filed suit over that.

This is a partial truth.

With “terroristic threats” Government could have allowed Nikolas Cruz due process AND taken away his arms.

And the NRA, who you besmirch, would have supported that.

You have to create a false scenario that gives a pass to a cavalcade of Government mistakes . . . Then cry out for . . . . More Government.

 

[JonNC]

Yup. It has that right too.

Government doesn’t have any rights.

 

[JonNC]

Yepper, he has some connections. He is an ex-USMC.
It there is a will, there is always a way.

Then he has special licensing, too

 

[JonNC]

Given this is a Catholic forum, one would think you’d consider what Catholics might value - like obeying Jesus and believing in the Gospel.

There is a significant number of Catholics here who have agreed with me , and agree that our view is not contrary to obeying Jesus and believing the Gospel.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Restricting their access to some guns is not attempting to hurt them.

It is a mistake to treat all rights the same. It is the fallacy of oversimplification.

Restricting their access to some guns is not attempting to hurt them.

Tell that to the police too. Tell them they ONLY can have LeafByNiggle-approved firearms and see how THAT goes.

The police are restricted from using some weapons. Naturally their restricted list is not the same as that for plain citizens.

But it’s NOT fine when YOU think you can impose YOUR selective infringements upon the good law-abiding free people of this country.

It is not my decision. It is the decision of legitimate authority. It is as term used many times in the Catechism, so you should be familiar with it.

LeafByNiggle:

The NRA has been one of the most divisive organizations on the planet since 1977. (It was a fine organization before that.)

If your point is that many people are blaming the NRA, then your point is well-taken. You can add me to the list of those who do that. As to whether or not it is going to work, only time will tell.

LeafByNiggle:

If the government had acted against Nikolas Cruz and took away his guns without due process, the NRA would have filed suit over that.

It is easy to say that now regarding Nikolas Cruz because we know what happened. There are plenty of people who are sometimes accused of making threats but who do not go on to do anything bad. I suspect the NRA and other such interests would not support taking their guns away without a hearing to see if those accusations are true or are just exaggerations by people who have a grudge against the guy with the guns. Show me one example of when the NRA has supported taking away guns from someone without due process.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When deciding one something that affects only them, the citizens should decide for themselves. But when deciding on something that also affects the common good, legitimate authority may have a role in that decision.

Not all gun restrictions are in conflict with the second amendment. And if anything further is done, it will be done by duly elected representatives who generally try to represent the will of the people. So it will still be the people deciding. For example, most people support universal background checks. Of course the NRA does not. But if universal background checks do become the law of the land, it will not be any usurpation of power, but a proper exercise of the public will being expressed through legitimate authority.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Yup. It has that right too.

Government doesn’t have any rights.

It does according to the Catechism.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle (on OKing breaking the Second Amendment–althought LeafByNiggle wouldn’t put it this way) . . .

.

It is a mistake to treat all rights the same. It is the fallacy of oversimplification.

Sure. And some other guy will say the same thing about the First Amendment.

And the next guy (like James Clapper did AFTER lying to Congress) will say its OK to ignore the Fourth Amendment.

And on and on your principle goes . . .shredding the Constutution.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle:

The police are restricted from using some weapons. Naturally their restricted list is not the same as that for plain citizens.

This is a partial truth.

When the need arises they use whatever they need and you know it.

The citizen does not have this option because ideas like yours, has turned them into felons if they even attempt that.

No LeafByNiggle.

Your arguments all fall short.

Why not just obey the law of the land and not “infringe” upon the good law-abiding citizen who in that capacity, presents no threat to society?

Just trust them to make their OWN decisions.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle:

It is easy to say that now regarding Nikolas Cruz because we know what happened. There are plenty of people who are sometimes accused of making threats but who do not go on to do anything bad. I suspect the NRA and other such interests would not support taking their guns away without a hearing . . .

Nor should they support taking from citizens without a hearing.

And you shouldn’t either.

But with your lust (not you personally but you guys in many cases) to destroy the Second Amendment, you are willing to jettison due process too.

Which just FULFILLS what I have already warned about. It spills into OTHER freedoms that free citizens enjoy.

If some guy’s “ex-wife” wants to get vindictive “digs” in against her man, without due process, he is hung out to dry. If she falsly accuses him of fire arm “issues”, and he has no due process, he is proverbial “toast”. (And guys with ideas YOU are esposing won’t be there to help him!)

But with you guys, its never about the other people.

It’s always about YOU, and your FEELINGS, and TELLING EVERYONE ELSE WHAT TO DO instead of minding your own business.

That is NOT freedom.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle:

But if universal background checks do become the law of the land, it will not be any usurpation of power, but a proper exercise of the public will being expressed through legitimate authority.

It will be an absolute usurpation.

And when “creative” judges and District Attorneys start proclaiming dad a “felon” (“straw purchaser”) because he bought his kid a shotgun at age 12 . . .

. . . your guys will be SILENT.
Your guys will be absent without leave.
Your GUYS will do nothing to preserve our freedoms.

On another thread I asked for just ONE of the gun-grabbers to come forward and say Emma Gonzales was wrong when she said she can get an automatic weapon EASIER than she can make weekend plans with friends.

Just ONE of you guys!

One!

But you couldn’t even do that.

Virtually a thousand posts later and a repeated call by me . . . .NO ONE has distanced themselves from an absolutely patentedly FALSE statement.

. . . your guys will be SILENT.
Your guys will be absent without leave.
Your GUYS will do nothing to preserve our freedoms.

 

[Xystus]

JonNC:

Assault weapons are already very difficult to get, with strict licensing, etc

My brother-in-law order one online without any problems. It came disassembled in multiple packages.

Your Brother-in-law either:

A, Has an FFL making it perfectly legal to do this (not really “connections” as much as it is being a “gun dealer” or being legally allowed to sell guns and have them shipped to you

B, Did not actually buy one online, but merely the non-restricted parts online but still purchased the receiver from someone with an FFL. I did this with mine, i purchased the lower receiver (which is the part the govt considered the “gun”) from a local store but the upper receiver and other parts online. I still had to pass a background check when i got the lower receiver. i am putting my money on this being what your brother in law did.

C, did something illegal.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Neither A or B. You’re assuming a standard wholesale or retail website.
Ergo: Probably C - to test the waters in a manner of speaking…

 

[JonNC]

It does according to the Catechism.

It has no rights, but only powers, which are derived from the consent of the governed. That consent comes in the constitution. No place is government said to have rights.

 

[JonNC]

Neither A or B. You’re assuming a standard wholesale or retail website.
Ergo: Probably C - to test the waters in a manner of speaking…

Sounds like you have a moral and legal obligation to turn him in to either local law enforcement or the BATF or FBI

 

[Cathoholic]

JoshuaIsLord:

My brother-in-law order one online without any problems. It came disassembled in multiple packages.

.
This is FALSE JoshuaIsLord.

I am not saying you are a liar.

But I am saying you are misinformed.

That DOESN’T happen in America today. It just doesn’t.

First of all “Assault Weapons” have been virtually illegal for citizens since the 1930’s in America.

But EVEN if you are pretending a non-assault rifle is an “assault rifle” this is jyst plain baloney. (You go back to your brother-in-law, and get your story cleaned up).

Even pretending a NON-assault rifle IS somehow an “assault rifle” and EVEN in person, you’ve gotta be a law-abiding citizen in PERSON otherwise NO firearm.

.

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his “admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”
.
“Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark,” the Chicago Sun-Times’ Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.
.
“Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters … that’s a different story,” he added.
.
The owners of Maxon Shooter’s Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg’s application was rejected not because he’s in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.
.
“Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. ‘Journalist’ is not a protected class, [by the way],” the store said . . .

Columnist fails gun check, blames store owners

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Chicago Journalist Tries to Buy an AR-15 to Prove a Point, Gets Humiliated

A Chicago journalist nvestigating the ease with which one can acquire an AR-15 had his purchase denied based on a "domestic battery" charge.

www.breitbart.com

And you being misinformed about mail-order assault rifles is not going to convince me of anything here.

A lot of anti-Second Amendment people are not allowed to own fire arms (like the alleged wife-beating journalist above).

It makes me wonder how much of their “activism” is motivated by envy.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Would you turn in your Mother?
There are some bonds stronger than Moral/Legal obligations.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The police are restricted from using some weapons. Naturally their restricted list is not the same as that for plain citizens.

Whatever they need - yes. Whatever they want - no. If a cop thinks he needs a anti-tank firearm, he will be denied and the military would take over that situation. Police are limited in what they may use. Fortunately it never comes to that because police are smart enough not to ask for something unreasonable.

Why not just obey the law of the land and not “infringe” upon the good law-abiding citizen who in that capacity, presents no threat to society?

Just trust them to make their OWN decisions.

Because their decisions can affect all of us.

Sure. And some other guy will say the same thing about the First Amendment.

And the next guy (like James Clapper did AFTER lying to Congress) will say its OK to ignore the Fourth Amendment.

Continuing in your oversimplification, treating anything that someone calls a right the same as any other right.

LeafByNiggle:

It is easy to say that now regarding Nikolas Cruz because we know what happened. There are plenty of people who are sometimes accused of making threats but who do not go on to do anything bad. I suspect the NRA and other such interests would not support taking their guns away without a hearing . . .

None other than Mr. Trump himself called for temporarily bypassing due process in Risk Protection Orders, and I agree with him on that. Unfortunately his call was also temporary since he walked it back the next day, presumably after hearing from the NRA. The point is due process is served - eventually - when he does get a timely hearing, at which time his guns will be returned to him if the hearing finds in his favor. But when a risk is imminent, there is no time for a formal hearing at which the subject is given several days to get ready and prepare his defense. Risk Protection Orders have already been implemented in several states. One side benefit of these orders is that suicides have fallen dramatically in areas where these orders are implemented.

If some guy’s “ex-wife” wants to get vindictive “digs” in against her man, without due process, he is hung out to dry. If she falsly accuses him of fire arm “issues”, and he has no due process, he is proverbial “toast”.

Sure, he has recourse. He has a hearing, establishes his innocence, is given back his guns, and can then counter-sue the ex-wife for falsely accusing him.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

There are numerous “Members Only” websites. One he knows of requires a triple logon process just to get inside to the “Members Only” area. And all three logons and passwords are restricted to uniqueness. Virtually unhackable.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It does according to the Catechism.

It has no rights, but only powers, which are derived from the consent of the governed. That consent comes in the constitution. No place is government said to have rights.

You can call it powers then, and those powers are indeed decided by the consent of the governed. But before settle on this being a constitutional issue, let’s go back to your claim that I challenged:

It [government] doesn’t have the authority to blame and confiscate the rights of the innocent law abiding citizens who are not harming others.

This of course is much more general than the 2nd amendment, and I don’t think you can support it in its full generality. The government does have the authority to determine when someone is not innocent and when someone is potentially harming others. For example, if they say you may not build your garage within 3 feet of your property line and you do so anyway, you may think you are innocent, law-abiding, and not harming anyone, but the government does have the authority to declare you are not innocent, are breaking the law, and that your garage is harming your neighbors. Getting back to guns, the government does have the authority to place certain limits on what otherwise innocent, law-abiding citizens may do with guns, and still be within the bounds of the 2nd amendment. So it may not even be a constitutional issue.