More gun control ideas from CA (proposed)

[sqlbullet]

I am not sure what a couple of you are arguing about since clear assertions haven't been made.  I am gonna make a couple.

Correlation is not causation.  Looking at the suicide rates by state I could make a pretty strong correlation between states with mountains and suicide rates.  Doesn't mean mountains cause suicide.

Here is a thought.  Suicide is the result of very complex societal pressures combined with mental disorders in individuals.  While access to lethal means is often an evaluated environmental factor, there is rarely the ability to attribute actual causation to these factors.

Wolfie, while I absolutely agree that modern safety features, including seat belts, save lives, I still don't understand how society gets a say in whether or not I wear a seatbelt.

And that gets to a core philosophical debate.  Governments govern by force or threat of force.  There needs to be a coherent philosophical statement that defines the governments source of authority to legitimately use that force, at least in a free society.

The common man responds to this challenge by citing democratic process.  But that is, put plainly, idiocy.  Pure democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper.  We can't vote to roast the Earl o Sammich for dinner, no matter how hungry his username makes me.

We exercise our republican democracy to enact laws with regard to specific areas that our government has been given authority from the people.  We the people.....

Since we the people are giving the authority to the government, it stands that we have given an authority that we ourselves inherently possess.  The Declaration says that my each of us has a right to life, liberty and property.  And, by extension, we have the right to protect our life liberty and property.  If I can't act to defend my life, liberty or property, I don't really possess them.  Also, if I can't dispose of my life, liberty or property as I see fit, with the limit that such disposition cannot directly and maliciously compromise another's rights to same, I don't really possess them.

Here then is the source of our governments power.  I can delegate to the government the authority to enact and enforce laws that protect my life, liberty and property.

And here then is the rub.  Seatbelt laws fall outside that delegation.  If you choose not to wear your seatbelt, you do not endanger my life, liberty or property.  Therefore I have no authority to force you to wear the seatbelt.  Speed limits...Yep.  Vehicle safety standards such as functioning brakes, steering, lights, etc...Yep.  Licensure requirements to ensure you have a minimum understanding of safe operation....Debatable, but I will give you a yep there too.  But padded dashboards?  Gonna call out a nope there.  Padded dashboards don't protect some else life, liberty or property.

Guns, similarly, fall outside that delegation.  Not only that, but guns are further called out as a fundamental right in the bill of rights.  In a right that is incorporated, meaning it applies to each of us individually, regardless of state boundries.  And a right that is subject to strict scrutiny.  Which means that in order to legitimately subrogate this right for a broader right, the government must show it has a legitimate government interest (maintaining peace and safety..Ok), that the law is as narrowly crafted as needed to meet the governments needs (these would be use laws, or restrictions on what I can do with a gun, not what guns I can have or what features the guns can have.), and that the law can be shown to actually achieve the governmental intent (which is where all the regulatory nonsense on what stuff we can have falls apart.)

[Wolfie]

Operating a car is a privilege not a right. The government can do whatever it wants. When they raised the drinking age, Reagan used his power to get the states to comply.

[sqlbullet]

Operating a car is a privilege not a right.

Please provide a citation of case law, as well as full history, and construction of a rational argument justifying this statement.  Please note that I am not saying you won't find any, but I am not going to do your work for you.  Further, you won't find any case law on this older than the 1930's when Roosevelt stacked the court. 

The government can do whatever it wants.

And, I am done.  You are either a troll interested in picking fights just to entertain yourself, or you have no real concept of what the great american experiment is or what it means to participate in said experiment.

[Pablo]

Wolfie - by the things you type, you folded. You are a subject.

[The Earl o Sammich]

sqlbullet;

It's that lack of cognitive reasoning thing.

Sammich

P.S.  I'm pretty sure I would be very high in cholesterol and not good for you.  ...not to mention I'm well past my prime and would probably taste quite gamey.

[Wolfie]

Folded what Pablo?

I have a bet on the table?

I know the law and American history very well.

As for cognitive reasoning, yes I do not watch FOX 24-7 so I must lack that.

And YES when it comes to driving the government can do what it wants.

[The Earl o Sammich]

Folded what Pablo?

I have a bet on the table?

I know the law and American history very well.

As for cognitive reasoning, yes I do not watch FOX 24-7 so I must lack that.

And YES when it comes to driving the government can do what it wants.

You don't even know what cognitive reasoning is do you?

I'm sure you are Googleing it up right now to figure it out.

For instance, explain why you would think I need anything from the comments or postings I made?  Your reply/remark about the skittles and 100 round magazine just shows your lack of cognitive reasoning and a weak attempt to divert a "reasoned" argument. 

As I said earlier needs have nothing to do with rights.

Do you understand that?

Also, do you think it is possible to legislate mankind's way into utopia?

Do you think mankind can legislate away tragedy?

You do not know American History very well or you would know the true intent and purpose of The Second Amendment. Do you know what that is/was?   If you did you would understand that it's purpose, as declared by the founding fathers of this Republic, was to give us a means to defend against a tyrannical and oppressive government.    It is exactly counter to your position in these arguments.

But you don't even see that, do you?

As mentioned, you are a troll, neither providing intelligent discourse or relevant discussion and, not only are ignorant, but lacking intelligence, stating you know certain things like history but present or support position that directly contradicts what you claim to know.

And this is not the first time.  I remember you taking the position that a valid ID should not be required to vote but that it should be to have a concealed weapons permit, or drivers license?

Of course you don't.  I doubt you can remember what happened ten minutes ago.

[Wolfie]

Earl, how do you get a Concealed permit without ID?

Show me the section of the US Constitution that calls for photo ID to vote.

You are beginning to talk in circles.

[The Earl o Sammich]

No Wolfie.   That was you that was talking in circles.  Go back and read the part about you probably don't remember what happened ten minutes ago.

Your arguing that there shouldn't be a need for voter ID, that it would disenfranchise voters and cost them to be able to perform basic human right, but you hold that a permit issued by the government to exercise another basic human right, exercising your 2nd Amendment Rights, was/is justified.

Show me in the Constitution where it says I need an ID to bare arms!

Can you say hypocrite?

[Wolfie]

I will stand by the Founding Fathers and agree with them that no ID is needed to vote.

Is that clear enough?

If you live in a state that does not require a license to carry thats fine with me.

Hope that clears things up.

[The Earl o Sammich]

Clear as mud and more evidence of your lack of comprehension and understanding of logic.

Where do the founding fathers say anything about not requiring ID for voting?

The Second amendment does say, "shall not be infringed" you know.

Can you explain what infringement means?

[Pablo]

Folded what Pablo?

I have a bet on the table?

I know the law and American history very well.

You've just given up. Given in. OR you like it. You like the Mother and Father Government.

[Wolfie]

I like government that works for all the people.

[Pablo]

I like government that works for all the people.

Me too.

Roads. Sane law, border and international aggression enforcement. Agreement of some standards. Common space exploration. Maybe a few other things. That's about it.

Then get out of my way.  Leave me and my family ALONE.

[Geeman]

I like government that works for all the people.

I like government that remains within constitutional bounds.

Greg