Americans' greatest fears

[rmt]

Here are the top 10 fears of 2016:

Corruption of government officials (same top fear as 2015) — 60.6%
Terrorist attacks — 41%
Not having enough money for the future — 39.9%
Being a victim of terror — 38.5%
Government restrictions on firearms and ammunition — 38.5%
People I love dying — 38.1%
Economic or financial collapse — 37.5%
Identity theft — 37.1%
People I love becoming seriously ill — 35.9%
The Affordable Health Care Act/”Obamacare” — 35.5%

http://www.kare11.com/news/nation-now/survey-reveals-americans-greatest-fears/334829565

If you go by this list, Trump should win :lol

[boutons_deux]

If you go by the list of Trash mental disorders, crimes, business record, political record, honesty record, Trash should never win (and he won';t).

[Winehole23]

In the contest where people vote their fears and candidates pander to them, HRC is beating Trump handily.

[pgardn]

In the contest where people vote their fears and candidates pander to them, HRC is beating Trump handily.

Because the biggest fear by far is the utter incompetence, lying, and wild mood swings of one of the candidates. That's the top of the list.

And to the idiots who claim the press is smearing one of the candidates... try suicide.

[baseline bum]

My biggest fear in the election is Trump winning and giving power to the far right house to write horrible laws knowing they'll get signed. The Kochs' takeover of the country would be complete with all of congress, the president, and another Scalia on the supreme court.

[pgardn]

Here are the top 10 fears of 2016:

Corruption of government officials (same top fear as 2015) — 60.6%
Terrorist attacks — 41%
Not having enough money for the future — 39.9%
Being a victim of terror — 38.5%
Government restrictions on firearms and ammunition — 38.5%
People I love dying — 38.1%
Economic or financial collapse — 37.5%
Identity theft — 37.1%
People I love becoming seriously ill — 35.9%
The Affordable Health Care Act/”Obamacare” — 35.5%

http://www.kare11.com/news/nation-now/survey-reveals-americans-greatest-fears/334829565

If you go by this list, Trump should win :lol

One candidate has made himself THE top fear. He wanted attention by being different. He got it. You make yourself the center of everything, you are asking to be vetted thoroughly. Then go ahead and commit suicide by saying and acting like an erratic megalomaniac. Acting would be too kind actually.

[boutons_deux]

Corruption of govt officials, but red/slave states keep re-electing the same astroturf/BigCorp/darkmoney ideological extremists.

The only Repugs at risk this election are moderates. Replaced by more ideological rightwing assholes or by Dems?

The next Congress will be as gridlocked as ever, nothing will get done, no problems solved, no progress.

The economy will remain as rigged as ever, which is the whole point of ideological strict obstructionism.

Racist, misogynist Repugs hate/obstruct a women Pres as much has they hate a black Pres.

[Splits]

Interesting. I'm not afraid of any of those things.

[ElNono]

#1 would likely be an indictment to the GOP, actually. After all, they control 2 branches of the federal government and 31 governorship (vs 18 for democrats + 1 independent).

[DMC]

Because the biggest fear by far is the utter incompetence, lying, and wild mood swings of one of the candidates. That's the top of the list.

And to the idiots who claim the press is smearing one of the candidates... try suicide.
Yeah that's a rational position to hold, just kill yourself if you don't agree.

I can't decide which candidate you're referring to in your first line however. One has a proven track record of incompetence and the other is a buffoon, a clown.. basically a joke that went on too long. The evidence is that the entire system needs to be overhauled, it's rigged from top to bottom. I'd say congress needs to clean house but it's all a big fucking reality TV show with a huge price tag.

[FromWayDowntown]

My guess is that a Trump presidency would re-calibrate that list.

[pgardn]

Yeah that's a rational position to hold, just kill yourself if you don't agree.

I can't decide which candidate you're referring to in your first line however. One has a proven track record of incompetence and the other is a buffoon, a clown.. basically a joke that went on too long. The evidence is that the entire system needs to be overhauled, it's rigged from top to bottom. I'd say congress needs to clean house but it's all a big fucking reality TV show with a huge price tag.

The suicide was referring to what Trump did to himself.

So you are telling me because Clinton has screwed up on some things that Trump is the obvious choice on competence. He literally has no Fkn clue what he is talking about, especially in foreign affairs. And it's perfectly silly to be duped by things are so bad we need change, make America great again. When do you think America was great? And when did this fall of the empire occur? And what plan does Trump have to change anything so it will obviously become better. So let's take One thing both candidates agree on, the need to upgrade infrastructure. One has a plan and another does not. Go figure.

There are clearly problems that are exacerbated by the money big players use to buy influence. The difference is the party's disagree on how to fix it. And it's not entirely clear either really want to. And this country is not Venezuela or Russia. People who think it's bad here have no clue what bad is.

[Spurminator]

If you go by this list, Trump should win :lol

If you go by this, a lot of people are afraid of bullshit.

[Xevious]

Here are the top 10 fears of 2016:

Corruption of government officials (same top fear as 2015) — 60.6%
Terrorist attacks — 41%
Not having enough money for the future — 39.9%
Being a victim of terror — 38.5%
Government restrictions on firearms and ammunition — 38.5%
People I love dying — 38.1%
Economic or financial collapse — 37.5%
Identity theft — 37.1%
People I love becoming seriously ill — 35.9%
The Affordable Health Care Act/”Obamacare” — 35.5%

http://www.kare11.com/news/nation-now/survey-reveals-americans-greatest-fears/334829565

If you go by this list, Trump should win :lol
And this list proves how stupid people are. Anybody depending on the government for their financial future deserves to be broke. The chances of dying from a terrorist attack are astronomically low. And guns... it boggles my mind why this actually sways votes (besides the fact that the NRA spends a lot of money to make sure it does). The second amendment is there, the gubment isn't going to steal our guns.

[rmt]

And this list proves how stupid people are. Anybody depending on the government for their financial future deserves to be broke. The chances of dying from a terrorist attack are astronomically low. And guns... it boggles my mind why this actually sways votes (besides the fact that the NRA spends a lot of money to make sure it does). The second amendment is there, the gubment isn't going to steal our guns.

It doesn't say that the government is going to steal our guns - it say government restrictions on firearms and ammunition - which could be likely depending on who is on the Supreme Court (possibly 4 new Justices).

For me, people I love dying is a recent experience and just leaves a huge hole in my life :-(

[Th'Pusher]

For me, people I love dying is a recent experience and just leaves a huge hole in my life :-(

Thanks Obama

[Reck]

Government restrictions on firearms and ammunition — 38.5%


LOL worrying about a phantom fear.

Republicans have perfected the art of paranoia.

[rmt]

LOL worrying about a phantom fear.

Republicans have perfected the art of paranoia.

Reck, this survey is mixed - it's not just Republicans. What surprises me is that such a high percentage (over 60) name corruption of government officials.

[RD2191]

If you go by the list of Trash mental disorders, crimes, business record, political record, honesty record, Trash should never win (and he won';t).

Lol OP destroyed in first post.

[RD2191]

Yeah, the guy who hasn't paid taxes in nearly two decades isn't corrupt. :lol

[rmt]

Thanks Obama

I would like to thank Reck for his words of sympathy on the passing of my aunt and also, Bonnerific, for deleting his post.

Th'Pusher, here's something my kids learned when they were very young: you don't hit someone when they're down - you pick them up.

[rmt]

Yeah, the guy who hasn't paid taxes in nearly two decades isn't corrupt. :lol

Trump, if he hasn't paid taxes in nearly two decades, has not done so illegally. I must have missed where Trump is a government official.

[ElNono]

Reck, this survey is mixed - it's not just Republicans. What surprises me is that such a high percentage (over 60) name corruption of government officials.

It makes a lot of sense. Isn't Congress approval rating like at an all time low and has been for a while? Half the population think they're useless do-nothing idiots too dangerous to actually do something, the other half thinks they're establishment/RINO. Even those pretending not to be married to the party, like Cruz, burned that bridge in this election.

[rmt]

It makes a lot of sense. Isn't Congress approval rating like at an all time low and has been for a while? Half the population think they're useless do-nothing idiots too dangerous to actually do something, the other half thinks they're establishment/RINO. Even those pretending not to be married to the party, like Cruz, burned that bridge in this election.

Half the population thinks that it's not just Congress - that it's pervasive - IRS, DOJ, and now FBI too.

Roasted brussell sprouts - deelicious (and so easy).

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/67952/roasted-brussels-sprouts/

[ElNono]

Half the population thinks that it's not just Congress - that it's pervasive - IRS, DOJ, and now FBI too.

You have any numbers to back that up? AFAIK, at least the DOJ is part of the Executive, and Barry is walking away with an approval rating hovering a bit over 50%...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Congress tho...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

[ElNono]

And FWIW, it's not about defending the DOJ or the FBI, I'm merely pointing out that the hate for Congress is pretty much universal, regardless of party. Which is, IMO, a good indicator of why people are frustrated with the political class.

[rmt]

You have any numbers to back that up? AFAIK, at least the DOJ is part of the Executive, and Barry is walking away with an approval rating hovering a bit over 50%...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Congress tho...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

Nope - but the Bill/Lynch meeting, immunity deals with nothing in return, the whole email/server issue have cast suspicious doubts on both FBI/DOJ.

[rmt]

And FWIW, it's not about defending the DOJ or the FBI, I'm merely pointing out that the hate for Congress is pretty much universal, regardless of party. Which is, IMO, a good indicator of why people are frustrated with the political class.

Oh, I agree. I wish we could just throw out the whole lot and start over with term limits.

[Reck]

Let's be honest here.

A minority of people..mostly right wingers are the ones saying the FBI is corrupt solely because they didn't indict Hillary.

Before that point, Comey was a godsend.

[DMC]

Let's be honest here.

A minority of people..mostly right wingers are the ones saying the FBI is corrupt solely because they didn't indict Hillary.

Before that point, Comey was a godsend.
You shot your honor wad already. You're dead in this town.

[Reck]

You shot your honor wad already. You're dead in this town.

Says who? Someone who wasn't even here when the bet was made?

[ducks]

My guess is that a Trump presidency would re-calibrate that list.

Do u always guess or do u know something

[DMC]

Says who? Someone who wasn't even here when the bet was made?

Prove I wasn't on here then.

[Xevious]

It doesn't say that the government is going to steal our guns - it say government restrictions on firearms and ammunition - which could be likely depending on who is on the Supreme Court (possibly 4 new Justices).
I realize that... but the majority of people who claim to be scared about restrictions probably have a stockpile of guns and ammo anyway. And I've not read any propositions that would keep people from doing so in the future as long as you are a law abiding citizen.

[ElNono]

Nope - but the Bill/Lynch meeting, immunity deals with nothing in return, the whole email/server issue have cast suspicious doubts on both FBI/DOJ.

Let's take registered voters that identify as Republican (aka red-team base), the most likely sample to unequivocally feel that way. Then we're talking around 29% of registered voters... a bit of a far cry from half the population, tbh

(based on: http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/the-parties-on-the-eve-of-the-2016-election-two-coalitions-moving-further-apart/)

[rmt]

Let's take registered voters that identify as Republican (aka red-team base), the most likely sample to unequivocally feel that way. Then we're talking around 29% of registered voters... a bit of a far cry from half the population, tbh

(based on: http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/the-parties-on-the-eve-of-the-2016-election-two-coalitions-moving-further-apart/)

A majority (56%) of Americans disapproves of the FBI's recommendation not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime over her handling of email while Secretary of State ... Yet Democrats don't back Clinton up on the issue nearly as much as Republicans criticize her, and independents side more with Republicans.

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1144a58Clintonemails.pdf

[CosmicCowboy]

I realize that... but the majority of people who claim to be scared about restrictions probably have a stockpile of guns and ammo anyway. And I've not read any propositions that would keep people from doing so in the future as long as you are a law abiding citizen.

the "gun show loophole" has already been closed. All dealers at gun shows do background checks. What they are trying to do is make the occasional aisle sale/trade between individuals illegal. They will then extend that language to all sales having to go through an FFL. Joe wants to sell Fred his quail gun. Dad wants to give his son his deer rifle. Those are the kinds of transactions between law abiding citizens the government wants to track. The additional laws won't do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals because by definition they break the law.

[CosmicCowboy]

And this list proves how stupid people are. Anybody depending on the government for their financial future deserves to be broke. The chances of dying from a terrorist attack are astronomically low. And guns... it boggles my mind why this actually sways votes (besides the fact that the NRA spends a lot of money to make sure it does). The second amendment is there, the gubment isn't going to steal our guns.

Is anyone paying attention to Hillary's plan to 'make gun manufacturers responsible for gun deaths?" That in itself is a killer to the gun industry. Making Smith and Wesson or Ruger financially liable for a gun death where the product doesn't malfunction and works exactly as designed is absolutely disgusting. A Cop shoots a robber and Glock has to pay damages? An Islamic terrorist shoots up a gay bar and Colt is financially responsible to the victims? That is the kind of anti gun shit Hillary has SAID she will do. That's her PUBLIC position. one can only assume her private position is even more draconian.

[baseline bum]

That is the kind of anti gun shit Hillary has SAID she will do. That's her PUBLIC position. one can only assume her private position is even more draconian.

I think it's the opposite. That kind of rhetoric plays well with the Democrat base just like her free college proposal and might help her get elected, but I doubt she believes in either.

[Spurminator]

Those are the kinds of transactions between law abiding citizens the government wants to track. The additional laws won't do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals because by definition they break the law.

Could make a seller think twice about who he's selling it to when it's registered to him. A dad giving his son a gun shouldn't be any more difficult than transferring his car title to him.

[CosmicCowboy]

Could make a seller think twice about who he's selling it to when it's registered to him. A dad giving his son a gun shouldn't be any more difficult than transferring his car title to him.

Please reference the section of the constitution that addresses cars.

[Spurminator]

Please reference the section of the constitution that addresses cars.

:lol How is that relevant? Please explain how transferring gun ownership infringes the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[Spurminator]

Y'all want Voter ID laws but you can't fill out a damn form to give a gun to your kid?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol How is that relevant? Please explain how transferring gun ownership infringes the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.

It comes down to whether the federal government has a right to maintain a registry of all legal gun owners.

Throughout history in other countries this has been the initial step ultimately leading to confiscation.

[Spurminator]

It comes down to whether the federal government has a right to maintain a registry of all gun owners.

You can still keep and bear your registered arms. We've been through the registry argument. It's the same slippery slope bullshit.

Until the government comes for your guns, the 2nd Amendment has not been infringed upon.

[CosmicCowboy]

You will simply make the vast majority of otherwise law abiding gun owners criminals because unlike you, they clearly recognize the slippery slope.

[Th'Pusher]

It comes down to whether the federal government has a right to maintain a registry of all legal gun owners.

Throughout history in other countries this has been the initial step ultimately leading to confiscation.

Did those countries grant citizens the right to keep arms in their constitutions?

[CosmicCowboy]

Did those countries grant the to keep arms written into their constitution?

The constitution is apparently subject to be rewritten by future courts. We already have four existing justices that interpret the second amendment to only apply to standing militias.


The dissents — written by Justices Breyer and John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — held that the Second Amendment affirms the right of the people to “keep and bear arms” as part of a “well-regulated militia,” but not an absolute individual right to own a gun.Dec 22, 2010

[Th'Pusher]

The constitution is apparently subject to be rewritten by future courts. We already have four existing justices that interpret the second amendment to only apply to standing militias.

Ok. Go buy some more guns. :rolleyes

[CosmicCowboy]

Ok. Go buy some more guns. :rolleyes

what guns? I don't have any guns.

[Xevious]

I think it's the opposite. That kind of rhetoric plays well with the Democrat base just like her free college proposal and might help her get elected, but I doubt she believes in either.
Whether she believes it or not, neither issue will come to pass.

[ElNono]

A majority (56%) of Americans disapproves of the FBI's recommendation not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime over her handling of email while Secretary of State ... Yet Democrats don't back Clinton up on the issue nearly as much as Republicans criticize her, and independents side more with Republicans.

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1144a58Clintonemails.pdf

That's a particular decision, and most people won't even change their vote over it (per the same poll). Difficult to argue that's what the 'fear' is about.

But, look, fair enough. I don't want this to sound like I'm defending Shillary or anything like that, and I already said what I thought about that FBI decision.

[ElNono]

Is anyone paying attention to Hillary's plan to 'make gun manufacturers responsible for gun deaths?" That in itself is a killer to the gun industry. Making Smith and Wesson or Ruger financially liable for a gun death where the product doesn't malfunction and works exactly as designed is absolutely disgusting. A Cop shoots a robber and Glock has to pay damages? An Islamic terrorist shoots up a gay bar and Colt is financially responsible to the victims? That is the kind of anti gun shit Hillary has SAID she will do. That's her PUBLIC position. one can only assume her private position is even more draconian.

Not defending it, but it's a tried and true strategy that a lot of red states have attempted with abortion (ie: Texas restricting doctors with ridiculous requirements to curb abortion because they simply can't outright outlaw it). I just don't remember the outrage from conservatives back then when a different constitutional right was being patently violated. It would be nice to hold all right over the partisan BS, but c'est la vie.

[ElNono]

It comes down to whether the federal government has a right to maintain a registry of all legal gun owners.

Throughout history in other countries this has been the initial step ultimately leading to confiscation.

The SCOTUS (and that's with Scalia) was already on record in the DC case that the 2nd amendment is not beyond regulation. That's why gun-free zones are legal, why the 4th amendment doesn't apply to certain areas close to the country's borders, why yelling 'bomb' in a public place isn't considered speech protected by the 1st amendment, and we can go down the list of regulations to a lot of rights. This isn't new. It might be new to the 2nd amendment, but overall, it's not new at all.

[Spurminator]

You will simply make the vast majority of otherwise law abiding gun owners criminals because unlike you, they clearly recognize the slippery slope.

:lol NRA hyperbole. A vast majority of gun owners would abide by the law, and those that don't because of irrational paranoia deserve the penalty.

[DMC]

You can still keep and bear your registered arms. We've been through the registry argument. It's the same slippery slope bullshit.

Until the government comes for your guns, the 2nd Amendment has not been infringed upon.
This is a huge fallacy. You don't have to register for free speech, or for freedom of the press, or to peacefully assemble or for due process. Why should you have to register and get approval for a constitutional right?

[DMC]

The SCOTUS (and that's with Scalia) was already on record in the DC case that the 2nd amendment is not beyond regulation. That's why gun-free zones are legal, why the 4th amendment doesn't apply to certain areas close to the country's borders, why yelling 'bomb' in a public place isn't considered speech protected by the 1st amendment, and we can go down the list of regulations to a lot of rights. This isn't new. It might be new to the 2nd amendment, but overall, it's not new at all.

What you're saying is akin to saying that requiring registration for a car is the same thing as saying you cannot drive your car across the football field at the local HS during a game. One is a requirement for ownership and the other is a restriction of use.

[ElNono]

What you're saying is akin to saying that requiring registration for a car is the same thing as saying you cannot drive your car across the football field at the local HS during a game. One is a requirement for ownership and the other is a restriction of use.

It's more towards the fact that certain constitutional rights are not absolute, much to the dismay of some people. At least looking at precedent, it's not difficult to understand certain amount of regulation in the name of, say, "public safety".

That said, such regulation has largely come from Congress, which is why how Shillary feels about this shouldn't really matter. Some will point out a potential lefty SCOTUS could be an enabler, but frankly, if that's the case, a gun owner registry should be the least of your concerns.

[DMC]

It's more towards the fact that certain constitutional rights are not absolute, much to the dismay of some people. At least looking at precedent, it's not difficult to understand certain amount of regulation in the name of, say, "public safety".

That said, such regulation has largely come from Congress, which is why how Shillary feels about this shouldn't really matter. Some will point out a potential lefty SCOTUS could be an enabler, but frankly, if that's the case, a gun owner registry should be the least of your concerns.

Rights are indeed absolute. That doesn't mean they won't be infringed upon by governments. If they weren't absolute they wouldn't be rights, just permissions. The 2nd Amendment didn't give people the right to bear arms. It restricted government from infringing upon what was considered to be basic rights.

[Th'Pusher]

Rights are indeed absolute. That doesn't mean they won't be infringed upon by governments. If they weren't absolute they wouldn't be rights, just permissions. The 2nd Amendment didn't give people the right to bear arms. It restricted government from infringing upon what was considered to be basic rights.

In practice there are no rights without a government to enforce their protection through law.

[ElNono]

Rights are indeed absolute. That doesn't mean they won't be infringed upon by governments. If they weren't absolute they wouldn't be rights, just permissions. The 2nd Amendment didn't give people the right to bear arms. It restricted government from infringing upon what was considered to be basic rights.

They're inherently permissions. The creation of the government that granted some of those rights unequivocally provided said government with rules to remove some of those rights under certain conditions. Just a brief read of the Third or Fifth Amendment gives you the idea that there's plenty of room for caveat emptors in some of these rights, and, at the very least some, were intentionally designed that way.

And it's not just government either. Government is certainly the ultimate enabler, but I've heard good arguments about, for example, arbitration running afoul of the fifth amendment (the whole 'deprived of ... property, without due process of law'). And people give that up routinely. But if they truly are 'inalienable', in the full meaning of the word, they wouldn't be able to.

[DMC]

They're inherently permissions. The creation of the government that granted some of those rights unequivocally provided said government with rules to remove some of those rights under certain conditions. Just a brief read of the Third or Fifth Amendment gives you the idea that there's plenty of room for caveat emptors in some of these rights, and, at the very least some, were intentionally designed that way.

And it's not just government either. Government is certainly the ultimate enabler, but I've heard good arguments about, for example, arbitration running afoul of the fifth amendment (the whole 'deprived of ... property, without due process of law'). And people give that up routinely. But if they truly are 'inalienable', in the full meaning of the word, they wouldn't be able to.

So if I can steal your money, it's not rightfully yours because I am only permitting you to have it if I don't steal it? The government didn't grant rights. The rights are assumed "self evident". Even voting rights are assumed to be corrections to injustices, not charitable relinquishing of rights. What person has the ability to issue rights? All they can do is honor them, but even if they don't, it doesn't mean the rights don't exist. Only you can relinquish your rights, and that's what the caveats propose you do in certain situations. You aren't required to be in a crowded theater, nor are you required to be in a place where more than half of their income is derived by sale of liquor for consumption on premises. Those are some of your options, but to make those options you know that you give up your legal permission to carry a firearm, or to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and incite panic. If a court of law found you were within your constitutional right to do these things even if it was against the law, the law would have to be changed. The 5th Amendment is about self incrimination. The 4th is about unlawful search and seizure.

The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed upon". Becoming a prisoner has always caused you to give up your ability to exercise your rights. Joining the military does something very similar. In those cases you aren't giving up your rights nor are they taken from you. You still have the rights, you just cannot exercise them. Permission has always been the roadblock to rights, but that doesn't mean rights don't exist. You wouldn't say people don't have basic human rights simply because they aren't being afforded the decency of them by some dictatorship like PRNK.

The purpose of the BoR is to tell government what they cannot do, not to tell people what they can do. The rights list isn't exhaustive.

[DMC]

In practice there are no rights without a government to enforce their protection through law.
Unless you want to decay into a solipsism, there are rights regardless who enforces them, otherwise there can be no rights violations in situations where no one was around to act as a controlling agent against tyranny.

[Spurminator]

This is a huge fallacy. You don't have to register for free speech, or for freedom of the press, or to peacefully assemble or for due process. Why should you have to register and get approval for a constitutional right?

First of all, there's a key Constitutional right that you DO have to register for. I'll let you come up with it yourself.

Second, the firearm registration example we're discussing wouldn't necessarily be a part of an approval process to acquire the firearm. Background checks that you passed to acquire said firearm would still be valid. This just ensures that every firearm is assigned to an individual at all times. Transfer should be logged.

[Th'Pusher]

Unless you want to decay into a solipsism, there are rights regardless who enforces them, otherwise there can be no rights violations in situations where no one was around to act as a controlling agent against tyranny.

You're conflating basic human rights with rights granted through a government contract (I.e. The BoR). Regardless, it's all emotional prattle. In reality, if you do not have a government to enforce said rights, they cannot be exercised.

[DMC]

You're conflating basic human rights with rights granted through a government contract (I.e. The BoR). Regardless, it's all emotional prattle. In reality, if you do not have a government to enforce said rights, they cannot be exercised.
You need to read Plato, natural law theory and learn the legal term "negative pregnant". Rights aren't granted. They are protected. By stating which rights are protected they are, in effect, allowing the other aspects on the fringe to be molested. It's like me saying "you can't sit there" but then you can sit anywhere else, you assume, if I am the sole authority of where you can sit (not just where you cannot).

[Th'Pusher]

You need to read Plato, natural law theory and learn the legal term "negative pregnant". Rights aren't granted. They are protected. By stating which rights are protected they are, in effect, allowing the other aspects on the fringe to be molested. It's like me saying "you can't sit there" but then you can sit anywhere else, you assume, if I am the sole authority of where you can sit (not just where you cannot).

By whom are rights protected?

[DMC]

First of all, there's a key Constitutional right that you DO have to register for. I'll let you come up with it yourself.

Second, the firearm registration example we're discussing wouldn't necessarily be a part of an approval process to acquire the firearm. Background checks that you passed to acquire said firearm would still be valid. This just ensures that every firearm is assigned to an individual at all times. Transfer should be logged.

Do tell.

[DMC]

By whom are rights protected?

So if your property isn't protected you don't have property? Aren't you painting yourself into a corner with this paradox? No rights without protection, nothing to protect without rights?

[ElNono]

So if I can steal your money, it's not rightfully yours because I am only permitting you to have it if I don't steal it? The government didn't grant rights. The rights are assumed "self evident". Even voting rights are assumed to be corrections to injustices, not charitable relinquishing of rights. What person has the ability to issue rights? All they can do is honor them, but even if they don't, it doesn't mean the rights don't exist. Only you can relinquish your rights, and that's what the caveats propose you do in certain situations. You aren't required to be in a crowded theater, nor are you required to be in a place where more than half of their income is derived by sale of liquor for consumption on premises. Those are some of your options, but to make those options you know that you give up your legal permission to carry a firearm, or to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and incite panic. If a court of law found you were within your constitutional right to do these things even if it was against the law, the law would have to be changed. The 5th Amendment is about self incrimination. The 4th is about unlawful search and seizure.

The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed upon". Becoming a prisoner has always caused you to give up your ability to exercise your rights. Joining the military does something very similar. In those cases you aren't giving up your rights nor are they taken from you. You still have the rights, you just cannot exercise them. Permission has always been the roadblock to rights, but that doesn't mean rights don't exist. You wouldn't say people don't have basic human rights simply because they aren't being afforded the decency of them by some dictatorship like PRNK.

The purpose of the BoR is to tell government what they cannot do, not to tell people what they can do. The rights list isn't exhaustive.

We're specifically discussing constitutional rights. Those were granted by the government to it's citizens upon the creation of said government and thereafter. We're not discussing vienna convention rights, human rights, moral rights, etc.

Nobody claimed the rights cease to exist. But, as you plainly state, they're permissive by nature. Thus, since there are conditions involved, they're not absolute. Perhaps this is a communication problem and 'absolute' is the wrong word here? I just don't know how to state it more plainly, in that they're permissive in nature and subject to certain conditions. Those conditions can and have varied through the years. They've been codified in law and such.

Under that premise, the government requiring a gun owner registry, for example, is unlikely to impinge on anybody's 2nd amendment right. Government confiscating certain weapons, on the other hand, might.

IIRC, in the DC case the issue was the government trying to bar the sale of certain types of weapons and the discussion centered around whether some weapons were very popular for home defense (a certain type of shotgun, IIRC). It wasn't an outright 'no, you can't do that', it was more along the lines of 'not those weapons, since a lot of people use it for home defense'. That's what I was pointing out, that even the SCOTUS, with Scalia, wasn't necessarily completely dismissive to attempts to regulate that right (or change the conditions), but there's obviously a limit on how much those conditions can change.

[Winehole23]

The constitution is apparently subject to be rewritten by future courts. We already have four existing justices that interpret the second amendment to only apply to standing militias.that was the gloss until Heller, which rewrote 225 years of case law to find a novel individual right to bear arms.

Heller was the novelty; the liberal justices gloss would restore the law to the status quo ante.

[Th'Pusher]

So if your property isn't protected you don't have property? Aren't you painting yourself into a corner with this paradox? No rights without protection, nothing to protect without rights?

I never implied that rights don't exist without protection. Your second amendment right is both granted and protected by the federal government. That right could be removed by repealing the 2nd amendment. It is in no way an absolute right.

[DMC]

In practice there are no rights without a government to enforce their protection through law.


I never implied that rights don't exist without protection. Your second amendment right is both granted and protected by the federal government. That right could be removed by repealing the 2nd amendment. It is in no way an absolute right.
:nope

[DMC]

So what other right do you have to register for?

[Winehole23]

The right to arms and the duty of the government to regulate them was there at the founding.

Men had to register their weapons, possession was mandated, not optional, and government inspectors would come by to check the weapons.

Free blacks and slaves were prohibited to own guns. How is that not gun control?

[Th'Pusher]

:nope

As you notice, I qualified my statement with 'in practice', which is absolutely correct. The right exists, but without a government entity to protect the right through law, it's all theoretical.

[Th'Pusher]

So what other right do you have to register for?

The right to vote

[DMC]

The right to vote
There's no constitutional right to vote.

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33"

Bush v Gore

[CosmicCowboy]

The right to arms and the duty of the government to regulate them was there at the founding.

Men had to register their weapons, possession was mandated, not optional, and government inspectors would come by to check the weapons.

Free blacks and slaves were prohibited to own guns. How is that not gun control?

They also required every able bodied free man to own a "military style" gun. You conveniently forgot that one.

[DMC]

^Also, the BoR is the first 10 Amendments.

[FromWayDowntown]

They also required every able bodied man to own a "military style" gun. You conveniently forgot that one.

But that's also regulation. And that's the point. To say that the Constitution prohibits regulation of firearms is textually infirm and historically not captured by notions of originalism.

We can delve into the philosophical moorings of Constitutional rights, but in point of fact, our social compact has for centuries accepted regulation of all of our rights to some degree or another.

[Winehole23]

They also required every able bodied free man to own a "military style" gun. You conveniently forgot that one.Please reread --that's what I meant by mandated possession.

[DMC]

As you notice, I qualified my statement with 'in practice', which is absolutely correct. The right exists, but without a government entity to protect the right through law, it's all theoretical.

No, it's contradictory. The two statements directly contradict one another. One implies there are no rights without protection. The other says that is not implied. "in practice" is just another word for "in reality". Your second statement doesn't mention practice or theory.

[Th'Pusher]

No, it's contradictory. The two statements directly contradict one another. One implies there are no rights without protection. The other says that is not implied. "in practice" is just another word for "in reality". Your second statement doesn't mention practice or theory.

At this point, your argument has devolved into semantics. As has been pointed out by me and others, your original argument, that your second amendment rights is absolute and unfettered by regulation, has been totally discredited.

[DMC]

At this point, your argument has devolved into semantics. As has been pointed out by me and others, your original argument, that your second amendment rights is absolute and unfettered by regulation, has been totally discredited.

You're saying rights don't exist unless someone is there to enforce them. You're also saying the BoR granted rights. Both statements are wrong. It's not an argument on semantics. You made two statements that contradict each other. Which position would you like to abandon?

Also, show me in the BoR where the right to vote is spelled out.

[Th'Pusher]

You're saying rights don't exist unless someone is there to enforce them. You're also saying the BoR granted rights. Both statements are wrong. It's not an argument on semantics. You made two statements that contradict each other. Which position would you like to abandon?

Also, show me in the BoR where the right to vote is spelled out.

Meh. Not interested. You've skipped over about 19 posts of various individuls dismantling your original argument to focus in on whether the BoR grants rights and whether rights exist absent an enforcing entity. It's obvious you have no intention of defending your original argument.

[DMC]

Meh. Not interested. You've skipped over about 19 posts of various individuls dismantling your original argument to focus in on whether the BoR grants rights and whether rights exist absent an enforcing entity. It's obvious you have no intention of defending your original argument.

So now you want to abandon the "right to vote" argument? Why are you arguing about the BoR when you don't even know what's contained within?

When you're defeated you pretend you're tired of arguing.

I haven't skipped over anything. El is the only one I haven't responded to and that's because he states he was referring to something entirely different than I was commenting on. I don't agree with some of the statements he made but that discussion is already taking place here.

[Th'Pusher]

So now you want to abandon the "right to vote" argument?

When you're defeated you pretend you're tired of arguing.

I haven't skipped over anything. El is the only one I haven't responded to and that's because he states he was referring to something entirely different than I was commenting on. I don't agree with some of the statements he made but that discussion is already taking place here.

Yep. Abandoning the right to vote argument as it wasn't really mine. I was simply answering your question on behalf of Spuminator, as that's what I thought he was referencing.

You've also ignored salient points from WH and FWD on the subject of gun control.

[DMC]

Yep. Abandoning the right to vote argument as it wasn't really mine. I was simply answering your question on behalf of Spuminator, as that's what I thought he was referencing.

You've also ignored salient points from WH and FWD on the subject of gun control.
Neither of those posters were talking to me. Neither quoted me.

[Th'Pusher]

Neither of those posters were talking to me. Neither quoted me.

So?

[DMC]

So?

So why would I respond? They weren't making a counterpoint against something I claimed. The argument doesn't need to have parallel conversations.

Please highlight the 19 posts I have ignored.

[Th'Pusher]

So why would I respond? They weren't making a counterpoint against something I claimed. The argument doesn't need to have parallel conversations.

They absolutely made counterpoints to something you claimed.

It's cool though. It's election season so your rooting around in the political forum looking to argue.

Have fun.

[DMC]

They absolutely made counterpoints to something you claimed.

It's cool though. It's election season so your rooting around in the political forum looking to argue.

Have fun.

So you came along, flung a few common misconceptions about the BoR like you typically do and when I showed you you were wrong, you once again play the "not worth my time" card.

I'm still waiting for those 19 posts. Or are you going to abandon that claim as well?

[Th'Pusher]

So you came along, flung a few common misconceptions about the BoR like you typically do and when I showed you you were wrong, you once again play the "not worth my time" card.

I'm still waiting for those 19 posts. Or are you going to abandon that claim as well?

Yep. I'll abandon this as well.

[Spurminator]

There's no constitutional right to vote.

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33"

Bush v Gore

That's one interpretation that probably wouldn't have held up twenty years before, or twenty years after. It's also not really the point of the argument, so if it makes you feel better I'll withdraw it.

There are real-life conditions on every right in the Bill of Rights, and it's not unreasonable to have registration of firearms as a condition to 2nd Amendment rights.

[DMC]

That's one interpretation that probably wouldn't have held up twenty years before, or twenty years after. It's also not really the point of the argument, so if it makes you feel better I'll withdraw it.

There are real-life conditions on every right in the Bill of Rights, and it's not unreasonable to have registration of firearms as a condition to 2nd Amendment rights.
It has nothing to do with how I feel. If the states have power over deciding whether to even hold a public election, that means voting isn't a right. The non-BoR amendments that pertain to voting are negative pregnant statements. They simply say that a person cannot be denied because of X. It doesn't say they cannot be denied because of Y.

It will hold up. It's USSC case law.

The second part of your statement was a non sequitur.

[Spurminator]

It has nothing to do with how I feel. If the states have power over deciding whether to even hold a public election, that means voting isn't a right. The non-BoR amendments that pertain to voting are negative pregnant statements. They simply say that a person cannot be denied because of X. It doesn't say they cannot be denied because of Y.

If a state decided to select its electors without a public vote, they would likely lose the case to the USSC at almost any point in this nation's recent history. The opinion you quoted likely would have been the dissent under a Rehnquist, Warren, and the likely future court. That court would also likely permit a federal gun registry. That's how the Judiciary go.

[DMC]

If a state decided to select its electors without a public vote, they would likely lose the case to the USSC at almost any point in this nation's recent history. The opinion you quoted likely would have been the dissent under a Rehnquist, Warren, and the likely future court. That court would also likely permit a federal gun registry. That's how the Judiciary go.
They wouldn't need the approval of the USSC to exercise their constitutional powers. They wouldn't be popular with the folks, but they have that right. You could argue any USSC case would be different under different judges. What's the point? It is what it is. The USSC decision didn't create the state's voting rights.

[FromWayDowntown]

The second part of your statement was a non sequitur.

How is it a non-sequitur? Because you've decided to limit yourself to the narrow issue of enshrining the franchise as a constitutional right vel non?

That statement is certainly not false. Aside from perhaps the Third Amendment, we live in a society where we've accepted that every right addressed by the Bill of Rights is subject to limitation in some manner, precisely as Spurminator suggested.

[DMC]

How is it a non-sequitur? Because you've decided to limit yourself to the narrow issue of enshrining the franchise as a constitutional right vel non?

That statement is certainly not false. Aside from perhaps the Third Amendment, we live in a society where we've accepted that every right addressed by the Bill of Rights is subject to limitation in some manner, precisely as Spurminator suggested.

Because there are indeed real life conditions on every right doesn't mean the gun registry idea isn't unreasonable. In fact it does nothing to even support the notion.

There are already limitations on gun ownership. Pretending a gun registry is bringing the 2nd Amendment in line with other rights is misleading.

[FromWayDowntown]

Because there are indeed real life conditions on every right doesn't mean the gun registry idea isn't unreasonable. In fact it does nothing to even support the notion.

Oh? We're now defining reasonableness categorically? If so, where do you draw the bright line that separates what is and is not a categorically reasonable real life condition on the Second Amendment?

For my own sake, I agree that a registry isn't unreasonable; it might not be effective and it may be intrusive, but it doesn't actually infringe the rights protected by the Second Amendment -- any person who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights would continue to have that prerogative, only with the precondition of registration which is arguably a valid exercise of the police power with respect to the broader society.

I'm still struck by the absolutist notion of a Second Amendment from people who, by and large, don't seem to place much nearly as much value on the unconditional protection of other fundamental rights.

[CosmicCowboy]

The argument could be made that gun registration laws would discriminate against minorities in the same way the crack laws did. How can you make the argument that voter registration laws discriminate against minorities and gun registration wouldn't?

[FromWayDowntown]

The argument could be made that gun registration laws would discriminate against minorities in the same way the crack laws did. How can you make the argument that voter registration laws discriminate against minorities and gun registration wouldn't?

Well, for one thing, I don't have a problem with voter registration laws. I have a problem with racially disparate voter id laws that limit the right to vote to those who've been able to obtain an ID, which empirically has a disproportionately negative impact upon the rights of minorities in the exercise of a fundamental right.

As for your hypothetical, you can allow a person to register at the time they purchase the gun. If you allowed people to obtain a valid ID at the time that they voted, you'd have something resembling an apples-to-apples comparison.

For the record, the registry idea isn't actually mine. I do think a registry is a reasonable regulation of the Second Amendment, but I'm not sure that a registry would be my preferred choice for regulation. I'm not really here to argue the merits of any particular approach; I'm here to argue that regulation of Second Amendment rights doesn't threaten those rights. By way of examples, exceptions to the warrant requirements don't wholly jeopardize the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements and limits on speech that would threaten public safety don't wholly jeopardize the First Amendment's Free Speech clause.

Second Amendment absolutism is simply a matter of preferring that right to others and not a principled approach to applying the Constitution to our society (in my view).

[DMC]

Oh? We're now defining reasonableness categorically? If so, where do you draw the bright line that separates what is and is not a categorically reasonable real life condition on the Second Amendment?
I don't need to draw any line since I wasn't the one who tied "not unreasonable" with "real life conditions". Instead, it has to be shown why it's not unreasonable and how, because other rights have instances where some regulation is happening, the reasonableness of a gun registry becomes apparent.


For my own sake, I agree that a registry isn't unreasonable; it might not be effective and it may be intrusive, but it doesn't actually infringe the rights protected by the Second Amendment -- any person who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights would continue to have that prerogative, only with the precondition of registration which is arguably a valid exercise of the police power with respect to the broader society.

Sure, any part of the slippery slope seems reasonable individually, but the registry historically is a precursor to confiscation. Knowing that, how can anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment think initiating that precursor is reasonable? Knowing that 2nd Amendment rights folks know that, how can you expect them to think initiating the precursor is reasonable?


I'm still struck by the absolutist notion of a Second Amendment from people who, by and large, don't seem to place much nearly as much value on the unconditional protection of other fundamental rights.
Ok, let's attack your right to be secure in your person. We are going to get DNA databases going on your children. Don't worry, we're not going to do anything with it. We also want to put a tracker on them so we can know where they are, for their own safety of course.

[DMC]

Well, for one thing, I don't have a problem with voter registration laws. I have a problem with racially disparate voter id laws that limit the right to vote to those who've been able to obtain an ID, which empirically has a disproportionately negative impact upon the rights of minorities in the exercise of a fundamental right.

As for your hypothetical, you can allow a person to register at the time they purchase the gun. If you allowed people to obtain a valid ID at the time that they voted, you'd have something resembling an apples-to-apples comparison.

For the record, the registry idea isn't actually mine. I do think a registry is a reasonable regulation of the Second Amendment, but I'm not sure that a registry would be my preferred choice for regulation. I'm not really here to argue the merits of any particular approach; I'm here to argue that regulation of Second Amendment rights doesn't threaten those rights. By way of examples, exceptions to the warrant requirements don't wholly jeopardize the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements and limits on speech that would threaten public safety don't wholly jeopardize the First Amendment's Free Speech clause.

Second Amendment absolutism is simply a matter of preferring that right to others and not a principled approach to applying the Constitution to our society (in my view).
How can the minority sans ID purchase a gun?

Since you want the transaction to include registration, it has to be registered to someone. If you cannot identify who you're selling to, then you have to take their word that "John Smith" is buying a gun. So you close the gunshow loophole and now everyone gets a background check. That requires an ID. Now you've created a situation where a disproportionate number of minorities will be unable to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

As for your final sentence, the 2nd Amendment is maybe the only one in the Bill of Rights that doesn't apparently apply to everyone, since a lot of people have never owned a gun and don't want to. They don't see it as relevant to modern times. I don't see anyone trying to repeal the 1st Amendment, or the 3rd, or the 5th. We all use those and rely on them. So someone says "the 2nd Amendment doesn't really even apply today" to which I could respond with "then neither does the 1st" and of course their response would be "but we still use that one".

If it seems like 2nd Amendment folks don't care about the BoR you've not been around enough of them. In fact, how many 1st Amendment folks are there? Never heard of one because no one is trying to infringe on it officially.

[ElNono]

Sure, any part of the slippery slope seems reasonable individually, but the registry historically is a precursor to confiscation. Knowing that, how can anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment think initiating that precursor is reasonable? Knowing that 2nd Amendment rights folks know that, how can you expect them to think initiating the precursor is reasonable?

On a personal note, I don't expect them to find it reasonable. That doesn't mean that applying such regulation would necessarily be illegal though. The opinion that you would or wouldn't like that to happen is certainly respectable.

In addition, I can certainly vouch there's a few 1st amendment guys here, especially when it comes to the topic of secret gag orders from national security letters. I know I'm one, and I believe we've touched on that before with, at least, Winehole23.

[DMC]

On a personal note, I don't expect them to find it reasonable. That doesn't mean that applying such regulation would necessarily be illegal though. The opinion that you would or wouldn't like that to happen is certainly respectable.

In addition, I can certainly vouch there's a few 1st amendment guys here, especially when it comes to the topic of secret gag orders from national security letters. I know I'm one, and I believe we've touched on that before with, at least, Winehole23 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14613).

You'll find everyone gets upset when an attempt is made to stifle their protests. Imagine 2nd Amendment folks got up in arms (pun) because one type of gun was only being sold to government and police admins.. oh wait, that happens already. Now imagine your 1st Amendment rights as a whole are being challenged, saying it's too dangerous to allow folks to say anything they like, or to print and distribute things from people like Assange. Imagine folks start going to prison for doing so.

If by "legal" you mean constitutional, perhaps. However the same could be said regarding other rights. The Patriot Act comes to mind. Do you think the Patriot Act is a precursor to losing constitutional rights? I do.

When someone parks on the curb in front of your home, they have a legal right to be there. It doesn't make you comfortable knowing they are there, because perhaps you've been robbed a few times. Many 2nd Amendment folks do not trust the government, either side. History has shown it's not a good idea to let your guard down and that's what the framers of the BoR had in mind with the 2nd Amendment. Could we do anything about a military law order where doors are being kicked in? Probably not, but don't you think they'd like to take the guns first?

Now I don't think any of that is going to happen, and I don't consider myself a gun rights person. I own a few guns and have a CHL but rarely carry and have never open carried even though I have the legal right. I just know that those who are ignorant of existing gun laws seem the most concerned with enacting new ones.

[ElNono]

You'll find everyone gets upset when an attempt is made to stifle their protests. Imagine 2nd Amendment folks got up in arms (pun) because one type of gun was only being sold to government and police admins.. oh wait, that happens already. Now imagine your 1st Amendment rights as a whole are being challenged, saying it's too dangerous to allow folks to say anything they like, or to print and distribute things from people like Assange. Imagine folks start going to prison for doing so.

If by "legal" you mean constitutional, perhaps. However the same could be said regarding other rights. The Patriot Act comes to mind. Do you think the Patriot Act is a precursor to losing constitutional rights? I do.

When someone parks on the curb in front of your home, they have a legal right to be there. It doesn't make you comfortable knowing they are there, because perhaps you've been robbed a few times. Many 2nd Amendment folks do not trust the government, either side. History has shown it's not a good idea to let your guard down and that's what the framers of the BoR had in mind with the 2nd Amendment. Could we do anything about a military law order where doors are being kicked in? Probably not, but don't you think they'd like to take the guns first?

Now I don't think any of that is going to happen, and I don't consider myself a gun rights person. I own a few guns and have a CHL but rarely carry and have never open carried even though I have the legal right. I just know that those who are ignorant of existing gun laws seem the most concerned with enacting new ones.

I completely concur. My admission that I know full well that such regulations are largely legal and there's a long precedent for them, doesn't automatically make me a fan of them (in all cases anyways).

This whole conversation was triggered over this comment: "It comes down to whether the federal government has a right to maintain a registry of all legal gun owners."

The government unequivocally has that right, and has exercised it throughout history with many rights granted by constitutional amendments. Agreeing or disagreeing if we like this or that regulation is a different matter altogether, and certainly a valid opinion either way.

[DMC]

I completely concur. My admission that I know full well that such regulations are largely legal and there's a long precedent for them, doesn't automatically make me a fan of them (in all cases anyways).

This whole conversation was triggered over this comment: "It comes down to whether the federal government has a right to maintain a registry of all legal gun owners."

The government unequivocally has that right, and has exercised it throughout history with many rights granted by constitutional amendments. Agreeing or disagreeing if we like this or that regulation is a different matter altogether, and certainly a valid opinion either way.
How can you say it's legal when the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 specifically prohibits it?

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926#fn002071) authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

This is, of course, a federal regulation that doesn't affect state's rights. Texas is a 2nd Amendment state, and likely will not create a registry.

[ElNono]

How can you say it's legal when the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 specifically prohibits it?

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926#fn002071) authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

This is, of course, a federal regulation that doesn't affect state's rights. Texas is a 2nd Amendment state, and likely will not create a registry.

Because it's a federal law, that overrode aspects of a previous federal law (The Gun Control Act of 1968), and can itself be overridden/amended by Congress.

That's why I said "such regulation has largely come from Congress, which is why how Shillary feels about this shouldn't really matter."

At least with the current composition of Congress, it's unlikely such a law will come to pass.

[DMC]

Because it's a federal law, that overrode aspects of a previous federal law (The Gun Control Act of 1968), and can itself be overridden/amended by Congress.

That's why I said "such regulation has largely come from Congress, which is why how Shillary feels about this shouldn't really matter."

At least with the current composition of Congress, it's unlikely such a law will come to pass.

Your argument is that the government can change anything given the right number of circumstances. Using this reasoning (which I don't disagree with) they have the right to do anything they like if they change the laws to reflect as such. However they currently do not have that right. We were, after all, talking about the federal government.

[Winehole23]

Neither of those posters were talking to me. Neither quoted me.So it's all about you? You don't read through the thread? Just check direct responses?

Posts are short...would cost little time, if you really want to discuss...if not, what are you doing on this bulletin board?

[Winehole23]

They also required every able bodied free man to own a "military style" gun. You conveniently forgot that one.Yeah, except for blacks. you forgot to mention that after I pointed it out for you. The black codes were real.

They still are, except they're unspoken now, and apparently rude to bring up...the police and the justice system might get hurt feelings having to own up to how they still fuck over non-whites and poor people.

[ElNono]

Your argument is that the government can change anything given the right number of circumstances. Using this reasoning (which I don't disagree with) they have the right to do anything they like if they change the laws to reflect as such. However they currently do not have that right. We were, after all, talking about the federal government.

On the bolded, technically speaking, not anything. When it comes to laws, only those that pass the scrutiny of the Judiciary, if challenged.

Congress certainly has the right to enact such regulations, if they choose to do so. Would that involve amending other laws, etc? Sure, that's part of the process, as seen in the Firearm Owners Protection Act, the Patriot Act, etc.

[Winehole23]

The genius of the legal system is that it's vendible...for everyone who can afford it. Helps to be white, too.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, except for blacks. you forgot to mention that after I pointed it out for you. The black codes were real.

They still are, except they're unspoken now, and apparently rude to bring up...the police and the justice system might get hurt feelings having to own up to how they still fuck over non-whites and poor people.

Reading is fundamental.

have you never heard the term "Free Man" in that context? I addressed your unwarranted criticism in the original post.

[boutons_deux]

Fear-mongering is another way the Repugs/VWRC destroy the social fabric, destroy solidarity among citizens. "... divided we fall"

When you are afraid, your only concern is for you own safety, you world is compressed to yourself, and your family.

"Everybody can go get fucked, I'm saving myself and mine."

[DMC]

So it's all about you? You don't read through the thread? Just check direct responses?

Posts are short...would cost little time, if you really want to discuss...if not, what are you doing on this bulletin board?

I read the entire thread. I responded to what I felt compelled to respond to. If someone responded directly to me I answered.

It's my prerogative.

[CosmicCowboy]

Fear-mongering is another way the Repugs/VWRC destroy the social fabric, destroy solidarity among citizens. "... divided we fall"

When you are afraid, your only concern is for you own safety, you world is compressed to yourself, and your family.

"Everybody can go get fucked, I'm saving myself and mine."

Your idea of the "common good" is not necessarily everyone else's idea of the "common good" since yours is so oriented towards taking from others to acquire unearned benefits for yourself.

[DMC]

On the bolded, technically speaking, not anything. When it comes to laws, only those that pass the scrutiny of the Judiciary, if challenged.

Congress certainly has the right to enact such regulations, if they choose to do so. Would that involve amending other laws, etc? Sure, that's part of the process, as seen in the Firearm Owners Protection Act, the Patriot Act, etc.

So back to the FOPA, do you agree that a federal gun registry is currently illegal?

[Th'Pusher]

So back to the FOPA, do you agree that a federal gun registry is currently illegal?

Currently illegal, but not necessarily unconstitutional.

[DMC]

Currently illegal, but not necessarily unconstitutional.

Not saying it cannot happen, but I don't see the FOPA being repealed anytime soon. As long as it's a law, a federal registry can't happen, not officially. They can still take the information from retired FFLs however, since the FFL is the one required to actually document and maintain the records (which gets the feds around the FOPA clause).

[boutons_deux]

"yours is so oriented towards taking from others to acquire unearned benefits for yourself."

You Lie, but you'r a rightwingnut, so it's automatic in your alternative reality of rightwingnuthood.

[Th'Pusher]

Not saying it cannot happen, but I don't see the FOPA being repealed anytime soon. As long as it's a law, a federal registry can't happen, not officially. They can still take the information from retired FFLs however, since the FFL is the one required to actually document and maintain the records (which gets the feds around the FOPA clause).

I don't see it being repealed either. The NRA has a firm grasp within both parties of the legislature. The fact that they were unable to pass the weakest of gun control measures after Sandy Hook is an obvious indication of where we stand from a legislative perspective in appetite to curb gun rights.

[DMC]

I don't see it being repealed either. The NRA has a firm grasp within both parties of the legislature. The fact that they were unable to pass the weakest of gun control measures after Sandy Hook is an obvious indication of where we stand from a legislative perspective in appetite to curb gun rights.
Knee jerk legislation is dangerous. It's a time when Americans are more likely to let go of their rights in exchange for a sense of security. The Patriot Act is a good example of a knee jerk response that infringes on rights. So if we're attacked again, will there be another department created and more freedom fries and more patriotic bullshit naming of rights infringement laws?

[ElNono]

So back to the FOPA, do you agree that a federal gun registry is currently illegal?

Yes. As last amended in 2002, 18 USC 926, makes it illegal for the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement such a registry.

[boutons_deux]

"18 USC 926" written by BigGun and passed by BigGun's Congressional whores.