Universal background checks Dems' top priority

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Charity requires that we assume noble motives for all.

I think Feinstein and Obama have very noble intentions. They want to “SAVE THE BABIES” by removing as many firearms as possible.

Same with the (German/Russian/Chinese/Cuban/etc ad nauseum) bureaucrats who registered, and then rounded up, the firearms in many different countries in the past…

…continued uncharitable demonization. This does not promote dialog.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

And we compromised with the increase in public carry and concealed carry laws as well as in the Heller decision.

Those weren’t compromises, those were vehemently opposed in general by Democrats with cries that there would be blood in the streets and every road rage incident would end in death. Concealed carry was passed by overwhelming Republican majorities, not bipartisan efforts.

Heller just made a ruling, judicial rulings are not compromises. Just an interpretation of the law as written.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And we compromised with the increase in public carry and concealed carry laws as well as in the Heller decision.

Those weren’t compromises, those were vehemently opposed in general by Democrats with cries that there would be blood in the streets and every road rage incident would end in death. Concealed carry was passed by overwhelming Republican majorities, not bipartisan efforts.

Just as the “compromises” you cited were vehemently opposed by gun-rights groups.

 

[MidwestGuy]

And we compromised with the increase in public carry and concealed carry laws as well as in the Heller decision. There has been a history of compromise on both sides. As least listen to the other side with an open mind without demonizing them.

I’m not sure how you call it a compromise when the courts forced upholding the second amendment?

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Not really, up until 93 all the Republicans were all about “common sense” gun reform, and the NRA was involved in crafting most of those federal laws.

It wasn’t until the Assault Weapons ban sunset in 2004 and people decided they’d had enough and started demanding the NRA not support anymore federal legislation unless expanded rights.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Read the Obama reg that Trump rescinded. It is spelled out there.

Link please?

My understanding is it involved vets who gave up their finances to someone else to control. So 90 yo WWII vet who gives his granddaughter control of his finances so she can help him fight through the VA red tape scammeduddenly got his right to own firearms revoked.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

, those were vehemently opposed in general by Democrats with cries that there would be blood in the streets and every road rage incident would end in death.

You forgot to capitalize BLOOD ON THE STREETS!!! And you forgot the histrionic wild west references!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Read the Obama reg that Trump rescinded. It is spelled out there.

Link please?

From the Federal Register:

When used in this part and in forms prescribed under this part, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the singular, and vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The terms “includes” and “including” do not exclude other things not enumerated which are in the same general class or are otherwise within the scope thereof.

  Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.

  Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include—
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and

(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

More background is here.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

(a)(2) is the problem, because it was interpreted to include those who voluntarily gave up their financial decision making. Furthermore, some board or commission at the VA should not have this authority, and there is no due process for appeal.

The rest of that is already law.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

continued uncharitable demonization. This does not promote dialog

Uncharitable how? By saying Obama/Feinstein et al are noble in their endeavors because they really do think disarming America is the best thing to do?

Or uncharitable in pointing out how other people in history have had the same noble goals that didn’t work out so well?

Neither comment is uncharitable.

I realllllly hope you don’t teach history

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

continued uncharitable demonization. This does not promote dialog

Uncharitable how? By saying Obama/Feinstein et al are noble in their endeavors because they really do think disarming America is the best thing to do?

Or uncharitable in pointing out how other people in history have had the same noble goals that didn’t work out so well?

It is uncharitable to imply that all gun control advocates have the same despotic goals as Hitler.

I realllllly hope you don’t teach history

I don’t know where you got the idea that I am a teacher. I did teach undergrad calculus and linear algebra but I have not done that in 40 years.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

(a)(2) is the problem, because it was interpreted to include those who voluntarily gave up their financial decision making.

Not necessarily. One may give up his financial decision making to a relative while technically still of managing his own affairs. The regulation says “lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.” Do you really want someone managing the safety of a firearm if they can’t even manage to see to their own safety?

Furthermore, some board or commission at the VA should not have this authority, and there is no due process for appeal.

I disagree.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Do you really want someone managing the safety of a firearm if they can’t even manage to see to their own safety?

Of course not, but that needs to be decided in a courtroom and with due process, not by a faceless bureaucrat that a person has no recourse against.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

It is uncharitable to imply that all gun control advocates have the same despotic goals as Hitler

That is not at all what I said. I said you, Obama and Feinstein have noble goals, just like the bureaucratical functionaries of the Weimar Republic who registered firearms in Germany in 1929.

The Nazi functionaries thought they were doing a noble act when they ensured no Jews owned firearms…after all they could not be trusted with firearms.

That slippery slope is there whether you like it or not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is uncharitable to imply that all gun control advocates have the same despotic goals as Hitler

That is not at all what I said. I said you, Obama and Feinstein have noble goals, just like the bureaucratical functionaries of the Weimar Republic who registered firearms in Germany in 1929.

First of all, where have I said I wanted to take everyone’s gun away? This is another danger of demonization. It leads one to lump everyone together with Satan. Secondly, I am very distrustful of slippery slope arguments. Not all slopes are slippery. It is faulty logic to assume that they are.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

First of all, where have I said I wanted to take everyone’s gun away?

You have not been as clear as IMachine and others on this issue. So, just to clarify things…what is YOUR perfect world of “gun control”? Is it just taking away the scary looking AR-15? Is it grabbing all of the semi-automatic weapons? Everything but muzzle loaders? Registration??

Where would YOU draw the line? You should be cautious, because if you draw it anywhere before full gun confiscation, leftists like IMachine will accuse you of “HAVING BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS”.

BTW - I doubt the bureaucrats in the Weimar Republic who “assisted” everyone in registering their guns thought it was going to lead to confiscation (starting, of course, with those whom the government deemed “unreliable”).

I don’t remember why I was under the impression you were a teacher. I vaguely remember you saying you worked at a University in Canada, perhaps I am wrong.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

One may give up his financial decision making to a relative while technically still of managing his own affairs. The regulation says “lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.”

But there were cases of people who signed durable powers of attorney (DPOA) to family members, and this was used by the VA as a reason to terminate their gun rights. They signed the DPOA so they could get family member’s help in navigating the DEEP bureaucracy of the VA to get the benefits they deserved…and wound up losing their firearms. Welcome to bureaucracy, a cancer that grows and grows until it chokes the life out of it’s host.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

First of all, where have I said I wanted to take everyone’s gun away?

You have not been as clear as IMachine and others on this issue. So, just to clarify things…what is YOUR perfect world of “gun control”?

My proposals for gun control is irrelevant to the points I am making, which stand on their own and not on my authority.

LeafByNiggle:

One may give up his financial decision making to a relative while technically still of managing his own affairs. The regulation says “lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.”

But there were cases of people who signed durable powers of attorney (DPOA) to family members, and this was used by the VA as a reason to terminate their gun rights. They signed the DPOA so they could get family member’s help in navigating the DEEP bureaucracy of the VA to get the benefits they deserved…and wound up losing their firearms. Welcome to bureaucracy, a cancer that grows and grows until it chokes the life out of it’s host.

The Obama regulation was not due to take effect until December of this year, so I don’t know how there could already be instances of it being applied unfairly. Trump rescinded it long before it became effective.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

My proposals for gun control is irrelevant to the points I am making, which stand on their own and not on my authority.

Agreed. But still, since you are obviously pushing for increased regualtions/restrictions/laws, I am curious if you have a line which you thing is too far. Is full gun confiscation too far.

Would you disagree with the government burning down my house to take my last single-shot .22 caliber rifle that I use for squirrel hunting?

Where would YOU draw the line??

The Obama regulation was not due to take effect until December of this year, so I don’t know how there could already be instances of it being applied unfairly. Trump rescinded it long before it became effective

I have read an account of an older vet who voluntarily signed a DPOA and, after the VA got that, the PD suddenly arrived and removed his firearms. I don’t recall where I read that. Of course, like any story, there is likely to be much more to it than was published.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But first you have to assume what those motives are. That is the uncharitable part.

If one sees an adult burning a child repeatedly with a cigarette, it’s uncharitable to assume the motive is a bad one?