Newsom signs long gun rationing bill into 'law'. Lawsuit ensues

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Cathoholic:

This is all about control for control’s sake.

On the other side, the lawsuit is all about legality for legality’s sake.

The law suit is all about rights for rights’ sake.
Of course, progressives like Newsom have a low regard for rights.

You can call them rights. That does not make them rights. It is just a legalistic ploy.

 

[Cathoholic]

Of course they are. If the left can eliminate the distinction between law abiding gun owners and criminals, it makes banning all civilian firearms an easier sell.

Good points here (this among them JonNC).

It is a shame when a good guy defends him/herself and/or others with a firearm, then the leftists hijack that as “gun violence” and roll that into partial-truth gun violence “statistics” to work AGAINST good guys in the future replicating these saving actions.

But that’s exactly what happens. (They even roll police usage of firearms into their phony “stats” to attack the good guy. It is annoying to watch this happen over and over.)

It is leftist politician dishonesty.

 

[Cathoholic]

You can call them rights. That does not make them rights.

They are rights.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You can call them rights. That does not make them rights.

They are rights.

They are not rights when JonNC says so, and they are still not rights when you say so. They are arbitrary laws, expressed in the Constitution - an arbitrary founding document of a country with only 4% of the world’s population. It is a right only in the US or is it a right everywhere? If it is only in the US, then it is just a legalistic ploy, because nothing proclaims it to be a right for 96% of the people in the world.

 

[upant]

They are rights.

globalist only see rights as what their global leaders allow

personal ownership of the tools of self-defense is part of the right to defend oneself, you can’t defend yourself without the proper tools.

just because some governments take away your right to self-defense doesn’t mean it isn’t a right given by God.

 

[Cathoholic]

They are not rights when JonNC says so, and they are still not rights when you say so.

Thank you for at least saying this instead of other things.

To everyone else: They are rights.

Leftist politicians would have you think there are no “rights” unless they are “invented” by them.

They have the state and power as their god.

Fortunately there are NOT people like that here on this thread,
but some of the leftist politicians nationally ARE like that.

Their actions give them away. Don’t fall for it.

 

[Cathoholic]

It is a right only in the US or is it a right everywhere?

If you think that LeafByNiggle, are you applying this against peaceable law-abiding citizens?

Or against Governments?

(Or both?)

Would you mind posting links to you calling Governments to task for retaining guns for THEMSELVES (including The Vatican)?

They seem to think it is their right.

Thanks in advance.

If it is only in the US, then it is just a legalistic ploy, because nothing proclaims it to be a right for 96% of the people in the world.

If it (Government retaining guns for THEMSELVES) is every country in the world including in the US, then it is just a legalistic ploy DENYING these rights (also to citizens), because something (self-evident) proclaims it to be a right for 100% of the Governments in the world.

 

[ConcernedAmerican]

If it is only in the US, then it is just a legalistic ploy, because nothing proclaims it to be a right for 96% of the people in the world.

By this line of logic, there are no inherent human rights because it’s all just privileges granted by government.

That’s a dangerous road to be on.

 

[upant]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Cathoholic]

By this line of logic, there are no inherent human rights because it’s all just privileges granted by government.

This is how many of the media types and politicians think.

There is no clearer evidence of that mindset (in principle),
than with abortion
where even the RIGHT to life is seen a “Government option” by those politicians and media people.

(If this RIGHT can be trumped by “Government”,
ANY RIGHT can.
Which is WHY the late Saint Pope John Paul II the Great
referred to abortion-governments as tyrannical.)

.

Democrat Senators high-five after voting in favor of late-term abortion World News

Tue Jan 30, 2018 - 10:51 am EST Democrat Senators high-five after voting in favor of late-term abortion . WASHINGTON, D.C., January 30, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer high-fived one of his Democrat colleagues yesterday after she voted in favor of late-term abortion. . Sen. Schumer, D-NY, high-fived and then clasped the hand of Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-ND, on the floor of the U.S. Senate after she voted “no” on ending debate over the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protec…

Pope Francis: Sacrificing Children for Career Is Modern ‘Idolatry’ World News

This has to do with pursuit of careers and other things (the Pope even mentions Atheists) AND Catholic teaching. I could have put it under Catholic News (news such as a Bishop moving from one Diocese to another) or World News. I chose World News. If you moderators want to move it to Catholic News, I am perfectly happy with that too. Pope Francis: Sacrificing Children for Career Is Modern ‘Idolatry’ By Thomas D. Williams, PH.D. Breitbart News Modern idolatry takes many forms, Pope Francis…

Even Cardinal Wuerl gets this as a fundamental issue. . . .

Cardinal Wuerl: abortion remains 'the fundamental basic issue' [CC] World News

In an interview with Newsmax TV, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington said that abortion “remains the fundamental basic issue” in an election year. “One reason it strikes me, one reason why we are so casual in our country with violence, we see violence exercised with such ease, such disrespect for human life,” he said on January 11. More…

 

[vz71]

The authorities appointed to ensure the common good.

Should these same be allowed to tell you when and how you worship God?
Should they be allowed to tell you how many children you may have?

Don’t ever be so cavalier about giving up freedom.
The things you so willingly give away people die to secure for you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If it is only in the US, then it is just a legalistic ploy, because nothing proclaims it to be a right for 96% of the people in the world.

By this line of logic, there are no inherent human rights because it’s all just privileges granted by government.

No, there are God-given rights. Many of them. It is called Natural Law. The right to carry a gun around wherever you choose is not one of them.

If you think that LeafByNiggle, are you applying this against peaceable law-abiding citizens?

Or against Governments?

(Or both?)

Both. There is no God-given right for the people or their government to have guns. But there is also no divine law that says they can’t have guns. That too applies to both governments and to individuals. Therefore issue is one that is open to prudential judgement. Therefore different nations can and do decide this issue differently.

 

[Cathoholic]

No, there are God-given rights. Many of them. It is called Natural Law. The right to carry a gun around wherever you choose is not one of them.

Are you talking about Governments or law-abiding citizens here?

(If “both” where have you ever said that?
We have discussed this issue for years and I don’t recall you ever going after Governments.
Just denying this right against good, hard-working, law-abiding citizens.
Because that is WHO we are talking about here that newsom is going after. The good law-abiding citizens of the US.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

No, there are God-given rights. Many of them. It is called Natural Law. The right to carry a gun around wherever you choose is not one of them.

Are you talking about Governments or law-abiding citizens here?

See my edit above

 

[Cathoholic]

Therefore different nations can and do decide this issue differently.

No LeafByNiggle. ALL nations ASSUME for themselves the self-evident right to guns.

WHY do you think they do this?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Therefore different nations can and do decide this issue differently.

No LeafByNiggle. ALL nations ASSUME for themselves the self-evident right to guns.

WHY do you think they do this?

For the same reason that all people ASSUME for themselves the right to guns. They are both wrong. That, however, does not mean that guns are wrong to have. Can you understand this nuance?

 

[JonNC]

You can call them rights. That does not make them rights. It is just a legalistic ploy.

With all respect to you, of which I have much, the denial of individual rights leaves just a short step to tyranny.

 

[JonNC]

globalist only see rights as what their global leaders allow

Correct. It is the rebirth of divine right of kings, minus the title of nobility.

One should keep in mind their denial of rights when they claim that (government dictated) healthcare is a right. It will be a “right” until they say it is not.

 

[JonNC]

Law-abiding citizens, of all people, should understand the need to protect society from excesses of all kinds, and not only the excesses of government.

Again, will it be okay when government says too much free speech is a detriment?
How about too much free press? Too much due process? Too much protection from cruel and unusual punishment? Too much religious free exercise?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You can call them rights. That does not make them rights. It is just a legalistic ploy.

With all respect to you, of which I have much, the denial of individual rights leaves just a short step to tyranny.

You can’t lump all individual rights together. Some are proper rights. Some are not. Your argument suffers from oversimplification.