examiner.com— White House Chief of Staff (a congressman at the time), in a speech to the Brady Campaign in 2007, calls for suspension of gun rights of people not convicted, nor indicted, nor even charged with any crimes.
Feb 9, 2009View in Crawl 4
@ jgzmanDo you really want Fred Phelps to be able to own a nuclear weapon?How about someone like Timothy McVeigh? Before he blew up the OKFed building, there was no reason to forbid him to own a nuclear weapon, by your criteria. So much for Oklahoma City, instead of just the Federal Building.Your proposal has a very critical exception weakness.Phrenzy is applying an overly simplistic reducto ad absurdum, but he's got a valid point. If you accept the idea that there are indeed some reasonable limitations on even "foundational" rights, the argument then becomes where is the reasonable limitation line drawn.
The problem is that people are overly partisan. Anything their group does is automatically right, and vice versa. Then ad-hoc "logic" is created to justify the position from so-called principles. This kind of unthinking loyalty has only grown in recent years.
Personally, I think the right-wing pro-gun interests, are pushing gun ownership because they want minorities to use them in gang warfare, so they kill each other, so they dont have to pay for them to go to prisonOh BTW States with the highest rates of gun ownership also have the highest murder rates. mere coincidence? Also when access to firearms increases so does the suicide rate. (ie what's happening in the Military)
Jpalano, I totally understand your point of view. However, (and maybe rogish can verify), I don't think "Joe Revolver" simply acquires a permit based on a clean background check. I'm pretty sure carry permits (concealed or not) are issued after the completion of some through safety and training courses, that include written and practical testing. Normally, I'd probably just taken your stance, However, it's already legitimate to question whether the general fear of guns, has enabled a little bit of constitutional abuse, with minimal notice. I don't think they can do too much more other than just ban them. Personally, I'd rather see more of my neighbors carry guns, then turn them over to the government, whom is armed at every level.
Elhalf: from what I've read the prisoners at Gitmo have been treated better than American prisoners in American prisons. They have not been tortured for 6+ years, unless you mean being locked up without due process.yardie: Good points. Give government an inch, they kick in your door to take a mile. I still think there are legal black holes concerning these guys, though, and I'm not too happy about paying for their legal representation and court costs.
@david76, I'm sure you defended Clinton when he fired all 93 Justice Department prosecutors.It's the same wheel, just turning and turning, every administration. Stop defending the politicians, and focus on defending the ideals (whatever yours may be). As cool as you think Obama may be, he's still just a personality. Politicians will fail us, and usually do, so don't put your stock in them.
censormagnetFeb 11, 2009
no no no.. your wrong, why is it so hard for you to understandif we let you own guns youll be able to defend yourself.. now we cant have that
blacklabelsarFeb 11, 2009
"The only issue is that you can get on the no-fly list without due process."Welcome to the topic being discussed. It's even in the title.
maz2331Feb 12, 2009
Rahm isn't exactly my favorite political figure - but don't be an ass.
padraic2112Feb 12, 2009
@ jgzmanDo you really want Fred Phelps to be able to own a nuclear weapon?How about someone like Timothy McVeigh? Before he blew up the OKFed building, there was no reason to forbid him to own a nuclear weapon, by your criteria. So much for Oklahoma City, instead of just the Federal Building.Your proposal has a very critical exception weakness.Phrenzy is applying an overly simplistic reducto ad absurdum, but he's got a valid point. If you accept the idea that there are indeed some reasonable limitations on even "foundational" rights, the argument then becomes where is the reasonable limitation line drawn.
elhafFeb 13, 2009
The problem is that people are overly partisan. Anything their group does is automatically right, and vice versa. Then ad-hoc "logic" is created to justify the position from so-called principles. This kind of unthinking loyalty has only grown in recent years.
msukateFeb 13, 2009
Personally, I think the right-wing pro-gun interests, are pushing gun ownership because they want minorities to use them in gang warfare, so they kill each other, so they dont have to pay for them to go to prisonOh BTW States with the highest rates of gun ownership also have the highest murder rates. mere coincidence? Also when access to firearms increases so does the suicide rate. (ie what's happening in the Military)
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2009
Jpalano, I totally understand your point of view. However, (and maybe rogish can verify), I don't think "Joe Revolver" simply acquires a permit based on a clean background check. I'm pretty sure carry permits (concealed or not) are issued after the completion of some through safety and training courses, that include written and practical testing. Normally, I'd probably just taken your stance, However, it's already legitimate to question whether the general fear of guns, has enabled a little bit of constitutional abuse, with minimal notice. I don't think they can do too much more other than just ban them. Personally, I'd rather see more of my neighbors carry guns, then turn them over to the government, whom is armed at every level.
oatlordFeb 14, 2009
Elhalf: from what I've read the prisoners at Gitmo have been treated better than American prisoners in American prisons. They have not been tortured for 6+ years, unless you mean being locked up without due process.yardie: Good points. Give government an inch, they kick in your door to take a mile. I still think there are legal black holes concerning these guys, though, and I'm not too happy about paying for their legal representation and court costs.
pbarneyNov 14, 2009
@david76, I'm sure you defended Clinton when he fired all 93 Justice Department prosecutors.It's the same wheel, just turning and turning, every administration. Stop defending the politicians, and focus on defending the ideals (whatever yours may be). As cool as you think Obama may be, he's still just a personality. Politicians will fail us, and usually do, so don't put your stock in them.