LiveLife
Member
So ... Trump releases policy paper on Second Amendment ...
< trying to come back on topic >
< trying to come back on topic >
For whom?
I have the right to open and conceal carry without a license.
I have the right to transport a loaded or unloaded firearm openly or concealed in my motor vehicle.
I have the right to carry in businesses that are not posted.
I have the right to carry in government offices that do not have security posted at the entrances of the building.
Ignoring posted no guns allowed signage is a civil offense.
The law is very specific about the type of legal signage and where and how it must be posted. No signs hidden behind a scrub or written on a piece of cardboard.
There are no restrictions on ammunition
There are no restrictions on magazine capacity.
No waiting period for firearms purchases.
No background check for private purchases.
NFA approved firearms are legal.
The State of Kansas will recognize all “valid” concealed carry licenses (or permits, cards, etc.) that are issued by another State or the District of Columbia.
I have the right to carry in over 30 States.
I am a free person and have the freedom to choose where I live and travel.
Kansans fought a long hard battle to change our anti-gun laws from a couple of decades ago.
I am not sympathetic to gun owners in restrictive states like Caiifornia but tell me why Kansans should surrender any of these hard one rights and victories because of them?
I will repeat again that I do not want to live in a nanny state where I have to have Big Daddy's permission before making a gun purchases or to carry a firearm.
A National Right to Carry Law does not require you to surrender all those rights.
A National Right to Carry Law does not require you to surrender all those rights
It is extremely easy to be "for" national right-to-carry, but a lot harder to explain exactly what it WILL look like.
Lol... The only barging they want is for civilians to be barred from owning firearms. Once and if they get UB checks (not even sure that they can Constitutionally force such a thing), they'll turn their attention to nipping away and restricting other 2nd amendment rights until the right is so restrictive that it'll amount to a de facto ban. Just look at the states that already have UB as an example of an never ending legislative one small win at a time assult on our Rights.You are in error. My impression is you think the mere mention of a National Universal Background Check is an endorsement. I still think it is an inevitability, not a desirability, that could be used as a political bargaining chip in a manner that makes it the least onerous it can be and increases other freedoms for firearms usage.
It is extremely easy to be "for" national right-to-carry, but a lot harder to explain exactly what it WILL look like.
<snip>
Seriously, even if we did strike a federal carry deal/compromise. Do you honestly believe that antigun Liberal states won't renege via de facto legislation once they get UB checks under their belts while progun states would have gained nothing new other than UB checks?
<snip>.
Which is exactly why we should be discussing what it should look like, and the political tactics and compromises that may be required to achieve enactment of a National Right to Carry Law. These tactics and possible compromises should be discussed and well understood long before the probability becomes high that such a law could be enacted. Done at the last minute the resulting law could be far from optimal.
Which is exactly why we should be discussing what it should look like, and the political tactics and compromises that may be required to achieve enactment of a National Right to Carry Law. These tactics and possible compromises should be discussed and well understood long before the probability becomes high that such a law could be enacted. Done at the last minute the resulting law could be far from optimal.
Name a time or program that we gave the federal government power over where it did not become extremely restrictive or morf into something that it was not originally intended to be?
I believe states should have rights all we'd be doing is handing over carry rights to the ATF and the federal government and neighther are known to want minimum power or control. We'd be opening Pandoras box. With DMV licensing reciprocity come a slew of government fees, fines, red tape, restrictions, etc.
Unfortunately, that's a little like a bunch of shade tree mechanic folks scattered across the country mailing random car parts to some dude in Omaha to assemble into some sort of quasi-functional car-shaped object in his garage -- and saying this affects how GM builds their new model line.
THR reminds me of another type of place where random folks scattered across a large geographic area discussed random ideas about how to assemble a quasi-functional object. That place would be the taverns and meeting halls of colonial America that random folks discussed the random ideas that influenced the individuals who designed the written tools that resulted in a new model of country.
About all we can consistently agree on is that a National Carry law COULD be a good thing, and that Universal Background Checks ARE a very bad thing, and that any trade off of one for the other is b-b-b-b-b-bad to the bone.
Inconsistency in agreement often leads to compromises that result in the greater good.
And that's wrong?Praxidike said:We've seen it time and time again in anti states that regardless how a law is written, they'll simply will find another legal way to get their way. Just as they cleverly found a way to constitutionally force universal healthcare down our throats by making it a tax whereas another implementation would have been found unconstitutionally.
Except that didn't happen that way. The Founding Fathers, those who led and guided the founding of the United States, were not "random folk." They were some of the political and economic leaders of Colonial America.Nom de Forum said:THR reminds me of another type of place where random folks scattered across a large geographic area discussed random ideas about how to assemble a quasi-functional object. That place would be the taverns and meeting halls of colonial America that random folks discussed the random ideas that influenced the individuals who designed the written tools that resulted in a new model of country.
....... Except that didn't happen that way. The Founding Fathers, those who led and guided the founding of the United States, were not "random folk." They were some of the political and economic leaders of Colonial America......
They were the privileged, white, wealthy land-owners whose sole interest was in ensuring their own economic and political stature be maintained. Does anyone here really believe that they were looking after the "interests" of the poor (but free) families living off the land out in the wilderness boundaries? Certainly, none of the founding fathers were looking after the interests of the slaves or indentured servants.The Founding Fathers, those who led and guided the founding of the United States, were not "random folk." They were some of the political and economic leaders of Colonial America.
If that's what you meant to say, what evidence do you have that it actually happened like that?Nom de Forum said:...I merely posted that random people discussed random ideas that influenced the people (Founding Fathers) who etcetera....
Sam1911 said:Unfortunately, that's a little like a bunch of shade tree mechanic folks scattered across the country mailing random car parts to some dude in Omaha to assemble into some sort of quasi-functional car-shaped object in his garage -- and saying this affects how GM builds their new model line.
They were the privileged, white, wealthy land-owners whose sole interest was in ensuring their own economic and political stature be maintained. Does anyone here really believe that they were looking after the "interests" of the poor (but free) families living off the land out in the wilderness boundaries? Certainly, none of the founding fathers were looking after the interests of the slaves or indentured servants.
It is sheer happenstance that many of the ideals of the so-called founding fathers went a long way in ensuring that some of our freedoms were maintained. However, most of these freedoms have steadily eroded due to the fact the our system evolved into a political dung-heap that only ensures that the rights of the majority are not protected.
Sadly, we are NOT, and have not, been represented in our capitals for some time.
The fact that another wealthy, privileged member (who happens to be un-electable) of our society has released a "policy paper" noting his support of our Second Amendment rights is, in my view, somewhat meaningless at this time as it's pure pandering to a portion of the constituency this candidate wishes to keep in his corner.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..........
They were the privileged, white, wealthy land-owners whose sole interest was in ensuring their own economic and political stature be maintained. Does anyone here really believe that they were looking after the "interests" of the poor (but free) families living off the land out in the wilderness boundaries? Certainly, none of the founding fathers were looking after the interests of the slaves or indentured servants.
It is sheer happenstance that many of the ideals of the so-called founding fathers went a long way in ensuring that some of our freedoms were maintained. However, most of these freedoms have steadily eroded due to the fact the our system evolved into a political dung-heap that only ensures that the rights of the majority are not protected.
Sadly, we are NOT, and have not, been represented in our capitals for some time.
The fact that another wealthy, privileged member (who happens to be un-electable) of our society has released a "policy paper" noting his support of our Second Amendment rights is, in my view, somewhat meaningless at this time as it's pure pandering to a portion of the constituency this candidate wishes to keep in his corner.
If that's what you meant to say, what evidence do you have that it actually happened like that?
So some random folks talked about something over a couple of beers. So what? It's quite a stretch to get from that private conversation to that discussion actually coming to the knowledge of others who then are influenced by that conversation to do something.
That conversation of some random folks over a couple of beers had nothing to do with what Hamilton, et al, were doing -- just as, as Sam pointed out:
I would think the fact that the issue is near-universally called "broken mental health system" --those four exact words-- every time it comes up should make it clear enough. It's not just the groups you mention doing the propagandizing, various gun groups seeking to deflect misplaced blame are doing a good chunk of it as well. Half the time it's just tossed out there without any further explanation (like, what's actually broken, let alone how whatever being pitched would fix it)
And in a world with no electronic media or sophisticated communication systems, limited and unreliable mail service, and few newspapers.If that's what you meant to say, what evidence do you have that it actually happened like that?
So some random folks talked about something over a couple of beers. So what? It's quite a stretch to get from that private conversation to that discussion actually coming to the knowledge of others who then are influenced by that conversation to do something.
That conversation of some random folks over a couple of beers had nothing to do with what Hamilton, et al, were doing -- just as, as Sam pointed out:
Do you really believe the Founding Fathers were so out of touch with what average people discussed? The population of the American colonies was approximately 2.5 million and the majority of them were located within 100 miles of the coasts from Massachusetts to Virginia. Not exactly much distance or many individuals separating the Founding Fathers from the speech of those random people I mentioned....
Nope, it's your claim that they were, so it's your burden of proof.Nom de Forum said:...What proof do you have the Founding Fathers were not influenced by what random common people were discussing?...
Nope, we, as well as others, expect evidence. We, as well as others, are unwilling to accept as true pretty sounding assertions just because folks would like them to be true. When and if grass roots influence had a meaningful affect on a political issue, the proponents of such a view should be able to show, with evidence, how and why it did.Nom de Forum said:...You and Sam appear to have a disturbing propensity for dismissing the influence of grass roots influence on political issues....
And that is another claim I will not accept without evidence. In fact, it's almost certainly not true.Nom de Forum said:...The only meaningful difference between 1770 and 2015 in how the common people influenced leaders is the speed at which it can occur.
And in a world with no electronic media or sophisticated communication systems, limited and unreliable mail service, and few newspapers.
...... And in a world much like today where people like to talk, argue, and discuss politics except they did not have all the electronic and other recreational distractions of today so that much of what they did in their spare time was talk, argue, and discuss politics, and give close attention to newspapers and numerous political handbills.
Nope, it's your claim that they were, so it's your burden of proof.
I am sure we will disagree about what the standard is to meet the burden of proof.
Nope, we, as well as others, expect evidence. We, as well as others, are unwilling to accept as true pretty sounding assertions just because folks would like them to be true. When and if grass roots influence had a meaningful affect on a political issue, the proponents of such a view should be able to show, with evidence, how and why it did.
As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Really, my claim is extraordinary? Your threshold for what is extraordinary is extraordinarily low.
And that is another claim I will not accept without evidence. In fact, it's almost certainly not true.
So you don’t believe an email or tweet from an average citizen today can reach the attention of political leaders faster than the letters, political hand bills, and newspapers of 1770.
For years I had clients that employed clipping services. Each day, I and my clients' executives, would receive thick folders from each of these services containing copies of every article from major publications mentioning in any way the client. As the Internet evolved, these folders became electronic files of every mention of the client in various on-line sources. And thus pubic perceptions were considered in making business decisions.
I know for a fact that government agencies and political figures use the same services. And thus businesses, the government and politicians have, in ways unimaginable even 100 years ago, comprehensive information about what the public is saying.
Well of course “businesses, the government and politicians have, in ways unimaginable even 100 years ago, comprehensive information about what the public is saying.” That is irrelevant to the discussion. It does not in anyway indicate political leaders in 1770 were unaware of or not influenced by what common people discussed about politics.
Frank, as I am sure you are aware, finding somewhere a reference to specific influence common people had on the Founding Fathers when crafting the documents that formed our nation is the equivalent of looking for a needle in a haystack. It is not a case that the needle is probably not there, it is that it is difficult to prove it is there. However, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for it to be reasonable to believe what the common people said about politics did influence the Founding Fathers even if minimally. The circumstantial evidence is:
People at all social levels in 1770 liked to talk just as much as people today and liked to attempt to influence their society however small the possibility. If you deny this Frank you to deny a most common belief of what is human nature.
As posted earlier the population was approximately 2.5 million and the location of the majority of residents in a very small portion of the total land area of the colonies. That make it mathematically probable and geographically easy for whatever political thoughts people most talked about were quickly disseminated throughout colonial society. The Founding Fathers were not made of marble demigods living in ivory towers on an American Mount Olympus, they had contact with the common people.
We are discussing the possibility of the Founding Fathers being influenced by many opportunities for the opinions of common people to reach them over a period of decades, not one possible occurrence.
With so much opportunity for the Founding Fathers to be influenced by the common people that should at least meet a burden of proof of substantial possibility if not one of beyond reasonable doubt.
I am going to spend only a minimum of my time attempting to locate historical documentation to prove beyond reasonable doubt the Founding Fathers were influenced by the talk of the common people. It is just not that important to me although I would enjoy showing you some documentation while giving you one of these . You piled it on me over a triviality so I piled it back on you.
Perhaps now we can get back to discussing the ramifications of the Trump firearms policy statement?