Newsom signs long gun rationing bill into 'law'. Lawsuit ensues
- Status
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
You and I, of course. We work together as a team. Actually, it is society and its leaders that ultimately decide. Politics play a significant role in leadersā policies.
Do I like all political decisions? Of course I do not. Sometimes I believe there is government overreach, as in requiring vaccinations at public events, no doubt coming up in the near future. And I am quite certain you do not agree with our esteemed political leadersā decisions in many cases. The best we might do is vote them out of office, unless you favor a popular takeover of the government, which I donāt think you do. We can also protest: we are still permitted to do this.
Do I like all political decisions? Of course I do not. Sometimes I believe there is government overreach, as in requiring vaccinations at public events, no doubt coming up in the near future. And I am quite certain you do not agree with our esteemed political leadersā decisions in many cases. The best we might do is vote them out of office, unless you favor a popular takeover of the government, which I donāt think you do. We can also protest: we are still permitted to do this.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
But the āteamā of Government has not been asking me or you, about when THEY get firearms for themselves.
You tacitly admitting Government should be the referee
just makes my original point.
It is all about ācontrolā.
In this case THEY control the decisions where there is absolutely no reason to (because these are, by definition as per your acknowledgment ālaw-abidingā citizens with the FREEDOM to be left alone by their Governments when not absolutely necessary).
Bold added.
Last edited:
No. It is all about control for authoritarian powerās sake.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
One long gun a month. 12 in a year? And this is a limit somehow to freedom?
How many does one need?
How many does one need?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
The authorities appointed to ensure the common good.F_Marturana:
I donāt know?
WHO do you think should decide?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
What is the violation of āthe common goodā when a ālaw abiding citizenā purchases more than one firearm when she wants to?
And what makes you think āauthorititesā will make good decisions for other people?
And what makes you think that people cannot decide for themselves decisions that āensure the common goodā of society too?
The current gun culture is far more harmful than good for society. A right granted for the very purpose of advancing the good of the State, has failed terribly. More Americans kill each other than any foreign or domestic invaders. Statistics canāt be argued with. I mean the State invented the right, so the State needs to revise it as a duty to society.Motherwit:
What is the violation of āthe common goodā when a ālaw abiding citizenā purchases more than one firearm when she wants to?
And what makes you think āauthorititesā will make good decisions for other people?
And what makes you think that people cannot decide for themselves decisions that āensure the common goodā of society too?
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
it is a benefit in this time of defund the police, eliminate bail, allow rioters to go free, eliminate crimes committed for certain reasons or amounts, allow burning and looting, allowing police-free zones, and allow the criminals to run free
not surprised that first time gun purchases are up.
Newspapers: one edition per month. 12 in a year? Is this a limit somehow to freedom?
Churches: one service/mass per month. 12 in a year? Is this a limit somehow to freedom?
Yes. It is. In all three cases.
Last edited:
Within the confines of their constitutional limits.
āShall make no law,ā. āShall not be infringed.ā
Last edited:
As I said, the State created the Constitution for the common good, so the State can amend if for the common good.Motherwit:
Within the confines of their constitutional limits.
āShall make no law,ā. āShall not be infringed.ā
U
upant
Guest
does the local state have the right to deny you your federal constitutional rights?
P
Pattylt
Guest
This law is one that I just canāt see the point to it. What is the limitation trying to achieve and is the best way to achieve whatever they are aiming for?
I agree, itāll slow down someone building up an arsenal quickly but it doesnāt prevent someone from building one up slowly. Iād much rather we look at ways to prevent the mentally deranged from access to guns as well as criminals getting guns. This doesnāt do either. So, what would? Guns are endemic in society already. We canāt reasonably ābuy them backā or magically make them disappear from criminals hands. That horse left the barn years agoā¦and guns last a long time. They donāt disintegrate after five years, they donāt become outdated.
The solutions arenāt gun laws unless they are agreeable to gun owners (the responsible ones). So, the solutions need to be directed at the groups illegally using them. Iām not sure the best way to do that? Guns used in the commission of a crime being tougher? Legal gun raids in gang cells?
I agree, itāll slow down someone building up an arsenal quickly but it doesnāt prevent someone from building one up slowly. Iād much rather we look at ways to prevent the mentally deranged from access to guns as well as criminals getting guns. This doesnāt do either. So, what would? Guns are endemic in society already. We canāt reasonably ābuy them backā or magically make them disappear from criminals hands. That horse left the barn years agoā¦and guns last a long time. They donāt disintegrate after five years, they donāt become outdated.
The solutions arenāt gun laws unless they are agreeable to gun owners (the responsible ones). So, the solutions need to be directed at the groups illegally using them. Iām not sure the best way to do that? Guns used in the commission of a crime being tougher? Legal gun raids in gang cells?
No. The states created the constitution to protect pre-existing individual rights. It is the primary function of the state. The best way to protect the common good is to protect individual rights. The greatest threat to individual rights is government.
No right was granted in the constitution. Rights are antecedent to government. No right is protected for the purpose of advancing the good of the state. The second protects a pre-existing individual right, as it does all rights. In this case, the pre-existing right is protected, in part, to give civilians the means to protect a FREE state, not simply the state. It is obvious that the existing state isnāt supposed to be able to stop the exercise of the right.
The statistics are clear: rifles are responsible for very few human killings. Of the 15 million plus AR-15 civilian semiautomatic rifles in citizen hands, less than 20 have ever been used to kill people.
The vast majority of killings with firearms are with illegal arms or illegally owned by the perpetrator.
The statistics donāt lie. Until government fixes the problem with illegal arms, they have no grounds to confiscate the arms of the roughly 100 million law abiding Americans.
Statistics do not lie. Over the last century, governments are responsible for far more civilian murders than civilians are. It isnāt even close. And the first thing they do is disarm the populace.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Hi @JonNC. I just want to point out that this is one of the very few times that we have agreed!
. This is spot onā¦and Iām a lefty liberalā¦who knew! 
Thanks.Hi @JonNC. I just want to point out that this is one of the very few times that we have agreed!
Iāve always said that there is a difference between liberals and progressives. Liberals believe in individual rights, just like conservatives do. We may argue on the role of government in things like government social spending. Thatās okay.
U
upant
Guest
we need extremely stiff penalties when a gun is used in a crime, but the gun charge is usually the first thing dropped by prosecutors.
this shows the intent isnāt about controlling guns but controlling people, especially minority people who canāt afford the taxes being proposed by some.
This is exactly correct. The entire progressive approach to gun control wreaks of bigotry against people of color: from the unwillingness to allow the law abiding to defend themselves with firearms, to not going after criminals with illegal guns, to trying to raise taxes on arms and ammunition.
- Status