Trump releases policy paper on Second Amendment...

[LiveLife]

So ... Trump releases policy paper on Second Amendment ...

< trying to come back on topic >

 

[danez71]

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.

So you acknowledge that your 2A rights are substantially reduced in ~40% of the country.


If you're OK with that, then I see why its not important to you.


For me, I believe that the 2A doesn't end, nor should be substantially reduced, at a states border.

I'm constantly going between AZ and CA and deal with this issue often. There are a lot of people that live in AZ and work in CA - tons more people in the east have similar work/living scenario.


(I just saw Nom replied before hitting the submit button...)

To repeat Nom

A National Right to Carry Law does not require you to surrender all those rights.

 

[Sam1911]

A National Right to Carry Law does not require you to surrender all those rights

There is simply much disagreement, much confusion, much concern, and maybe even a touch of misunderstanding about what a "National Right to Carry" law might look like. Or what it is likely to look like if one is ever actually floated through Congress.

The very most optimistic of gun rights folks believe it would simply say, "All states must recognize a gun carry permit issued by any other state." This would be exactly like the law that doesn't exist which makes all states recognize each others' drivers' licenses.

The very most pessimistic of gun rights folks believe it would encourage or somehow force states to put into place a federally mandated set of gun carry rules, checks, restrictions, etc. if their citizens were to be authorized to carry out of their own state. In other words, if your state's carry license process and laws are less restrictive than, say, New York's, you can't enjoy the privilege.

Others say this is a states' rights issue and sticking the federal government's nose into it is unacceptably bad (continuance of current) precedent.

It is extremely easy to be "for" national right-to-carry, but a lot harder to explain exactly what it WILL look like.

 

[danez71]

It is extremely easy to be "for" national right-to-carry, but a lot harder to explain exactly what it WILL look like.

Agreed. And that why I said a few times that the devil is in the details.


Unrestricted of permits etc national OC and documented (not 'permitted') CC is what I envision as being an obtainable pipe dream.

 

[Praxidike]

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.

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.

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?

UB checks aren't even a barging chip anyway. They could have push that through in 2012 IMHO. The only reason they haven't gotten it yet is because they get greedy and optimistic by drumming up political pressure and public support via Trojan Horse tatics aftet a mass shooting has occurred. The antis also dont exclusively push UB checks through congress because its their front. Its how theyre going to sneek other much more so hotly contested bans and restrictions through. They lead with UB checks, but hide assult weapon bans, magazine limits, and other more controversial issues in the fine print. If not for that, they'd have or would have had the votes to push it through. They don't have to bargin with us.

 

[Nom de Forum]

It is extremely easy to be "for" national right-to-carry, but a lot harder to explain exactly what it WILL look like.

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.

 

[danez71]

<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>.

Depends on how the law would be written. Criminal prosecution for not following it would go a long way to prevent that. I think Florida has something like that for politicians.

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.

I haven't seen examples of having contingency plans being a bad thing.


Having said that, and given the other thread about it, it appears THR &/or many members, aren't conducive to having that discussion.

 

[Praxidike]

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.

 

[Sam1911]

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.

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.


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.


At least, I THINK we can agree on that, but some days I'm not even sure of that!

 

[Praxidike]

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.

 

[danez71]

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.

15 U.S. Code § 260 has been relatively trouble free and hasn't become "extremely restrictive or morf into something that it was not originally intended to be".

But I recognize that this topic isn't as easy

 

[Nom de Forum]

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.

 

[Frank Ettin]

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.

And that's wrong?

• As an individual we each decide what we want to do to serve our needs and wants, and those of our families. We then look for appropriate means to accomplish those things. Here deciding on "appropriate" means would include consideration of our abilities and what is legal.
  
  
• If you are a business you're interested in making money. You look for appropriate means to do that. Here deciding on "appropriate" means would include consideration of customer needs and desires, available resources and abilities, and what is legal.
  
  
• If you are an elected member of the legislative or executive branch of government your job is to represent the public interest as your understanding of the public interest is shaped by (1) the platform and policies upon the strength of which you were elected; and (2) input from your constituency. You try to do that job using appropriate means. Here deciding on "appropriate" means would include consideration of constituent expectations, the constitutional limitations on your powers, and what is legal.

In other words, if you were elected to office promising universal health care and gun control, and if the people who elected you want universal health care and gun control, and if you want to keep your job, you will need to try to find legal and constitutional ways to implement universal health care and gun control.

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 active, mostly successfully, in the commercial and political world of the time. Many were lawyers. A few were judges. Almost all were very well educated. They were generally politically savvy. Many were members at various times of their home colonial assemblies or were otherwise active in local government or administration.

Remember also that at the time of the Revolution, the Thirteen Colonies were in their own rights significant economic and political entities, and they had been for some time. Each was substantially self governing, subject to the oversight of the Crown. Each had its public administration infrastructure.

The independent economic prosperity of the Colonies in fact laid the foundation for the Revolution. England wanted money, and the economic prosperity of the Colonies made them an attractive revenue source. And so England started to increase its economic demands (in the form of taxes and control of commercial activities) to the point that many of the more successful colonists, like many of our Founding Fathers, were motivated to resist the English attempts at stifling colonial prosperity. And colonial resistance to English economic policies led to English political constraints. And so we broke with England.

Indeed, the Revolution was not so much a Revolution as it was a war of secession. We weren't interested in toppling the government of England. We wanted to cast off its political yoke and go our own way. We simply wanted to secede. And after the Revolution, the government of England continued on as it had before -- except without us.

And we continued on about our business with our existing, indigenous political and public institutions. And working through our existing political institutions we by political process began to remake the former colonies into a loose union under the Articles of Confederation. And when those Articles of Confederation proved a disappointment, we again turned to politics to fashion a new basis for an amalgamation under a new Constitution of the former colonies.

The fact that our Revolution preserved our political and public infrastructures functionally is why our Revolution was successful.

 

[Nom de Forum]

....... 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......

Great review and analysis of history Frank. Except for one thing. I did not post that the Founding Fathers were random people. Nor did I post that random people talking in taverns and meeting halls were the sole influence of the people (Founding Fathers) who created the written tools that resulted in a new model of country. I didn’t even post that random people were a major influence on the Founding Fathers. I merely posted that random people discussed random ideas that influenced the people (Founding Fathers) who etcetera.....

I think you overreacted a little due to failure to pay attention to important small details.

 

[Old Dog]

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.

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.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I merely posted that random people discussed random ideas that influenced the people (Founding Fathers) who etcetera....

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:

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.

 

[danez71]

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.

Really?

So they didn't agree with the Declaration of Independence when they signed it? Or is it that they thought that "all men" didn't really 'all men'.....?

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..........

(possibly some of the later did exist at the time but its a stretch to say they didn't care at all about them)
But again.... off topic and thread drift.....

 

[X-Rap]

Regardless of their status, the founders all put their head on the chopping block for an idea they believed in and followed through to the extent that some lost fortunes that were never recovered.
It's hard to compare those times to now since what is said today goes viral in minutes while prior to telegraph communication hadn't changed much throughout history.
I wonder if policy statements made by the founders could have sunk the whole effort with modern communication.
At any rate I find the open, defiant attitude that Trump, Carson and Cruz have toward the media pundits refreshing and forcing topics that otherwise wouldn't be mainstream will hopefully bring those issues into the sunlight.
The same thing was happening with the McCain Palin ticket until the handlers shut Palin down. I think there was a clear turning point in the polls following that.

 

[Nom de Forum]

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.

I do believe the Founding Fathers did look after the "interests" of non-wealthy landowners, merchants, and tradesmen they realized were the economic and social foundation supporting of the nation. I don't believe happenstance is an accurate description of why average citizens enjoy the freedoms they do today.

Trump's policy paper has meaning because it has people talking about things we on THR want.

 

[Nom de Forum]

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. BTW, the word "random" does not designate a quantity. What proof do you have the Founding Fathers were not influenced by what random common people were discussing? You and Sam appear to have a disturbing propensity for dismissing the influence of grass roots influence on political issues. I have seen you both do it in other threads. The only meaningful difference between 1770 and 2015 in how the common people influenced leaders is the speed at which it can occur.

 

[TimSr]

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)

I submit that our side is more guitly than the other side od using "the broken mental health system" as a new scapegoat to deflect blame for our being unjustly scapegoated and simply diverting it to somebody else who does not deserve it. Remember when it was "violent video games"? The fact that every dangerous sick person has not been found, diagnosed, and been locked up and forced into treatment does not mean the mental health system is broken. I'm sure it could be improved, but in country of well over 300,000,000 people, I think its realistic to accept that fact that there will always be a few whack jobs that are ticking time bombs that we won't know about until they go off. When a criminal with a long history of violent offenses kills somebody we are at a loss as to how it could have been prevented, and in many cases the "judicial system is broken" yet we don't know how to fix it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

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....

And in a world with no electronic media or sophisticated communication systems, limited and unreliable mail service, and few newspapers.

...What proof do you have the Founding Fathers were not influenced by what random common people were discussing?...

Nope, it's your claim that they were, so it's your burden of proof.

...You and Sam appear to have a disturbing propensity for dismissing the influence of grass roots influence on political issues....

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."

...The only meaningful difference between 1770 and 2015 in how the common people influenced leaders is the speed at which it can occur.

And that is another claim I will not accept without evidence. In fact, it's almost certainly not true.

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.

 

[barnbwt]

"I wrote we may have to accept or may have to be prepared to accept a National Universal Background Check to get a National Right to Carry Law."

You know what, you're right; we may be forced to accept background checks, but we're darn sure not gonna have much say in the process (we didn't before, we don't now, wherever these laws are floated, let alone passed). How about we cross that bridge when we get to it, instead of building it ourselves.

I'm not sure what the proper grammatical name for the uber-passive, indirect sentence structure of the quoted passage above is, but it is a distinct feature of so-called 'concern trolling.' I know Nom is not intending it as such (obviously), but it's a very accurate term for the tendency of those among us to float immediately counter-productive measures in pursuit of potentially productive results. Now, if there was any history of grand bargains on this (or to be frank, any) issue, which actually resulted in armistice rather than temporary cease-fire, or even in cease-fire rather than a demonstrable retreat, I could entertain such ideas of negotiation. But there isn't. Even the '86 FOPA, which is the closest thing there's been to a 'compromise' where both sides get some benefit, was not only negotiated in bad faith (Hughes Amendment) but has had all sorts of terrible repercussions for gun owners--meanwhile, the protections it promised us all too often go ignored in the same states as ever.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"Depends on how the law would be written. Criminal prosecution for not following it would go a long way to prevent that"
I'll believe the feds would enforce provisions against states' enforcement abuse when they stop being abusive enforcers themselves (and on gun issues specifically, no less)

"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...Many were members at various times of their home colonial assemblies or were otherwise active in local government or administration."
Can't be overstated enough; guys like Jefferson were the closest thing to 'government insiders' there was despite not being tight with the king (more a symptom of being colonial rather than British born, I'm sure). They fought their whole careers through a terrible, corrupt, and unresponsive remote government, and that's why they had such an understanding of what was needed for a functional republic, and why.

"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."
I suggest you do some reading of the actual founders' journals and publications. Their ideals are actually quite cohesive, if ultimately unsupportable to those who deny the concept of 'natural law.' Agree with them or not, there's no 'happenstance' about which concepts were highly influential in our founding documents and principles. As for the rights of slaves/etc, despite what your revisionist teachers have told you, there was actually tremendous worry and concern for their status in the new nation.

So much, that fears of dissolution won out, and a 'compromise' was made early on, which proved expedient in forming the young nation, but sowed the seeds of the Civil War that broke it; the relation between states and federal was irreparably altered as a result.

TCB

 

[Nom de Forum]

Frank,

It is never more interesting during a THR thread than when it is derailed by excessive off-topic discussion due to the postings of a moderator instead of a member.

Just to recap what has resulted in this derailment and your demands for evidence of what I claim, here is a synopsis:

I commented that the talk of random numbers of common people influenced the Founding Fathers

You decided I was asserting they were a major influence on the Founding Fathers and proceeded to “school” me.

I pointed out how you distorted what I commented on by failing to pay attention to important small details and had exaggerated the amount of influence I claimed the talk of common people had on the Founding Fathers. The result being that just like the five attorneys I deal with on and off almost every week, anytime anyone points out they have committed an attention to detail error, especially if it is a non-attorney doing it, you got really P.O.ed. P.O.ed enough to really derail this thread over a minor point of disagreement. Read further and I will grant your request for evidence even if it will not be very satisfying for you.

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?