Gabriel Giffords open to gun confiscation

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First, I assume that I am the primary person on the left to whom you are referring. Let's assume that is correct.

Second, I can't believe how incorrect many of your statements are.

I have always made such a statement about a politician proposing a law banning handguns in the U.S., not among a small subset of the population in a single state.

Here is what is being proposed in Washington:

"The orders — “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” — would be similar to California’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders, inasmuch as they would allow “family or household members” to petition a judge to order the temporary confiscation of firearms from another family member or person living in the household."

Yes, very subjective. But you have overlooked in my opinion, the exact wording in the proposed protective order. It is important to point out that this would be a "protective order" which would be brought about by "family or household members", not simply a person outside the home but someone who is very familiar with the situation, and the confiscation would be "temporary".

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this protective order. Subjective yes, but since the determination of whether or not the person in question is "irresponsible or unreliable" is being done by someone very close to the person in question, and the protective order is being approved or denied by a judge, and the confiscation would be temporary, I am fine with it.

JD, people like you have been consistently making statements that guns should not be banned but they should be kept out of the hands of people who are more likely to commit crimes. This protective order would attempt to do just that, on a temporary basis.

An addition -- a woman in the family lives in Austin and most definitely owns a handgun. Over the years her mental health has declined to the point where no one in the family would trust her with a gun. So shouldn't concerned family members, hoping to protect the woman from hurting either herself or others, try to confiscate the handgun(s)? She is now in a home for people with mental problems.

You assume wrongly, I thought you told us that you were NOT a left winger. I'm so surprised... anyway, I am talking about the radical left wingers who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. You do have some good points once in a while.

The point is that everytime this gets going again, someone from the left (is that you?) makes the claim that NO ONE wants to ban guns which we know is an absurd argument to make. So then a retreat happens, it becomes NO ONE in power wants to ban guns and we find a quote from some democrat (never a republican) politician who says that they want to ban guns. The retreat continues, NO ONE wants to ban ALL guns which was never really the argument but okay. If you can ban one type of firearm then you've set the course for banning other types of guns. We all know how much the left (was that you?) wants to ban magazines, semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and what they love to call "assault weapons".

So wherre does that leave us? We on the right claim that SOME politicians, spokesmen, and activists have the goal of a total ban on guns by means of creeping legislation and judicial activism. We on the right feel that if you want to ban yourselves from owning guns, good for you. We support you on this. However, if you want to at some later date want to obtain your own firearm for whatever reason that you first must atone for your sin. I suggest that you be forced to walk naked down the steps of Independence Hall while the people pelt you with feces and rotten fruit. We'll hose you off afterwards and invite you to the gun show/party.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You're right about that. Hillary Clinton is crazier than a shit house rat. If she becomes president nobody is going to listen to her, lol.


Jim

I only wish that was true. She has a hard core of Salinsky/Trotsky/Stalinists who worship the ground she walks on. They will do whatever she wants up to and including sacrificing themselves on the sword of Clintonism.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I only wish that was true. She has a hard core of Salinsky/Trotsky/Stalinists who worship the ground she walks on. They will do whatever she wants up to and including sacrificing themselves on the sword of Clintonism.

Well there's always going to be that handful of submissive slaves. There are a lot of people that will give her a hard time. If she wins she won't be a good president and just like Obama she will toy with the constitution and play on the emotions of the citizens of this country. Nothing she will do will benefit us, nothing.

Jim

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You're right about that. Hillary Clinton is crazier than a shit house rat. If she becomes president nobody is going to listen to her, lol. Jim

Trump is already starting to poke at her!

5-6 months of the drip, drip, drip will put her over the edge!

I think her "head problems" have put her on a short fuse without meds.

Hide and Watch the Clinton's throw some more subordinates under the bus.

This time it will be the FBI-Bus.

[Yssup Rider]

You should have to pass a urine test to even apply for gun ownership.

That means if you can get through a conversation like this without pissing yourself, then you can continue to the next step of the background check.

None of you idiots would qualify.

The story is the worst kind of Breitbart spin and JDrunk is the worst kind of fear monger. The story really doesn't lay out a definite position, just a lot of "mays" and "coulds."

When Gaby comes for your gun, just piss your pants like you're doing now.

Or you could just surrender your weapons to the Supreme Soviet.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You should have to pass a urine test to even apply for gun ownership.

That means if you can get through a conversation like this without pissing yourself, then you can continue to the next step of the background check.

None of you idiots would qualify.

The story is the worst kind of Breitbart spin and JDrunk is the worst kind of fear monger. The story really doesn't lay out a definite position, just a lot of "mays" and "coulds."

When Gaby comes for your gun, just piss your pants like you're doing now.

Or you could just surrender your weapons to the Supreme Soviet.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!

You failed to show any constitutional provision protecting the right to own and operate an automobile that is comparable to the Second Amendment which guarantees the right of a citizen to own and bear arms, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You assume wrongly, I thought you told us that you were NOT a left winger. I'm so surprised... anyway, I am talking about the radical left wingers who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. You do have some good points once in a while.

The point is that everytime this gets going again, someone from the left (is that you?) makes the claim that NO ONE wants to ban guns which we know is an absurd argument to make. So then a retreat happens, it becomes NO ONE in power wants to ban guns and we find a quote from some democrat (never a republican) politician who says that they want to ban guns. The retreat continues, NO ONE wants to ban ALL guns which was never really the argument but okay. If you can ban one type of firearm then you've set the course for banning other types of guns. We all know how much the left (was that you?) wants to ban magazines, semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and what they love to call "assault weapons".

So wherre does that leave us? We on the right claim that SOME politicians, spokesmen, and activists have the goal of a total ban on guns by means of creeping legislation and judicial activism. We on the right feel that if you want to ban yourselves from owning guns, good for you. We support you on this. However, if you want to at some later date want to obtain your own firearm for whatever reason that you first must atone for your sin. I suggest that you be forced to walk naked down the steps of Independence Hall while the people pelt you with feces and rotten fruit. We'll hose you off afterwards and invite you to the gun show/party.

You have COMPLETELY changed the subject of your post which started this discussion.

BTW. I describe myself as SLIGHTLY left of center on many issues, although I admit I don't know what the center is on many issues, such as gun control.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You have COMPLETELY changed the subject of your post which started this discussion.

BTW. I describe myself as SLIGHTLY left of center on many issues, although I admit I don't know what the center is on many issues, such as gun control.

The problem with gun control is the constitution, and the type of political bargaining done in this country.

In an ideal world, hopefully the one Mr. Trump would introduce if he wins his longshot bid to become our President, there is bargaining on several issues. The way it is done now, no one can back off because they make every issue a moral crusade.

Take gun control - I'd be for it if I could trust the government and the constitution didn't make it an almost absolute right. I don't trust the government, of course, but I really don't think they care too much about me as long as I pay my taxes and don't start an armed insurrection. Even if they came for me, I wouldn't want to harm the agent (unless it was Assup, who I would gladly punch in the face)

I'm not going to die for the right to own a gun.

We need to bring back bargaining. I would say to the left, let's trade.

You get gun control, we get the elimination of affirmative action, and we change immigration to a merit based system, the chief merit being wealth, health, education and skills.

You want more money for schools - fine, you can have it, but let's take the money away from one of your other programs.

As for the armed forces, you want a huge standing armed forces that costs 601 billion per year? Get the fuckers we protect to pay for it, or cut the size way down.

You seem like a reasonable centrist, what do you think?

(BTW, does your handle attempt to combine speed racer and racer x?)

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by DSK

The problem with gun control is the constitution, and the type of political bargaining done in this country.

In an ideal world, hopefully the one Mr. Trump would introduce if he wins his longshot bid to become our President, there is bargaining on several issues. The way it is done now, no one can back off because they make every issue a moral crusade.

Take gun control - I'd be for it if I could trust the government and the constitution didn't make it an almost absolute right. I don't trust the government, of course, but I really don't think they care too much about me as long as I pay my taxes and don't start an armed insurrection. Even if they came for me, I wouldn't want to harm the agent (unless it was Assup, who I would gladly punch in the face)

I'm not going to die for the right to own a gun.

We need to bring back bargaining. I would say to the left, let's trade.

You get gun control, we get the elimination of affirmative action, and we change immigration to a merit based system, the chief merit being wealth, health, education and skills.

You want more money for schools - fine, you can have it, but let's take the money away from one of your other programs.

As for the armed forces, you want a huge standing armed forces that costs 601 billion per year? Get the fuckers we protect to pay for it, or cut the size way down.

You seem like a reasonable centrist, what do you think?

(BTW, does your handle attempt to combine speed racer and racer x?)

First, when we moved from ASPD to ECCIE I decided for no good reason to change my handle. SpeedRacer, my first choice, was taken so rather than try a multitude of unique handles, I simply added xxx.

First, on gun control. As I said, I do not know what being in the middle on gun control is. Far right means, to me, no gun control at all. Far left, to me, means no guns at all. The middle, to me, is a gray area.

Bargaining? I think it is done all the time in government. Let's say I'm on the left bargaining with you on the right. I pretty much have all the gun control I need, but if I wanted more I agree that trading a liberal agenda item for a conservative agenda item is a fine idea. As you alluded to, the problem is that no one on either side wants to budge.

Actually, I have no moral crusades on my agenda. I do want, at this point in my life, to protect my income streams, such as they are. When a candidate, such as Clinton or Sanders, wants all these wonderful plans put in place and then state they want to raise my taxes to pay for it, that affects me. And when Trump states he has no plans for an increase in taxes on middle-income people, I hear that loud and clear. I will listen to the candidate's statements on issues such as social security and medicare. That affects me. Since I travel quite a bit, I will listen to what the candidates say about making the world safer for everyone.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by DSK

The problem with gun control is ...


Take gun control - I'd be for it if.....

Before one is "FOR" something it's always helpful to define the focus of the "for"!

This country has "gun control" ... !!! Next topic?

People talking shit about "gun control" is like the same people talking shit about ...

....."climate control"

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You have COMPLETELY changed the subject of your post which started this discussion.

BTW. I describe myself as SLIGHTLY left of center on many issues, although I admit I don't know what the center is on many issues, such as gun control.

Actually I responded to your post and not the OP (which was mine by the way). What is the center for gun control...interesing that you call it "gun control" rather than a constitutional right. Interesting...

Anyway, I expect the center would be to respect the constitutionality of the right to bear arms. That would be centerpiece, we have a RIGHT to possess firearms and anyone who suggests, advocates, or advances anything less is not in keeping with American values. Now starts the argument about the founders didn't have assault weapons (yes, they did by the way), the founders didn't have rocket launchers (they did have cannon which someone could own), and they didn't have nuclear weapons (not exactly a firearm is it and subject to different rules). So which one do you want to start with? Maybe you prefer going back to the OP at this time and admit that some political leaders (on the left) DO WANT TO BAN WEAPONS if they could. Acceptance is the last stage.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You failed to show any constitutional provision protecting the right to own and operate an automobile that is comparable to the Second Amendment which guarantees the right of a citizen to own and bear arms, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

You must understand Assup doesn't know the difference between a constitutional right, which is what the 2nd Amendment is and a privilege enacted by law which operating a motor vehicle happens to fall under. There is a distinct difference and way too many people think they can make that comparison to prove a point.

Jim

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually I responded to your post and not the OP (which was mine by the way). What is the center for gun control...interesing that you call it "gun control" rather than a constitutional right. Interesting...

Anyway, I expect the center would be to respect the constitutionality of the right to bear arms. That would be centerpiece, we have a RIGHT to possess firearms and anyone who suggests, advocates, or advances anything less is not in keeping with American values. Now starts the argument about the founders didn't have assault weapons (yes, they did by the way), the founders didn't have rocket launchers (they did have cannon which someone could own), and they didn't have nuclear weapons (not exactly a firearm is it and subject to different rules). So which one do you want to start with? Maybe you prefer going back to the OP at this time and admit that some political leaders (on the left) DO WANT TO BAN WEAPONS if they could. Acceptance is the last stage.

The OP had NOTHING to do with banning weapons. NOTHING.


It had everything to do with the state of Washington wanting to keep guns out of the hands of people who others close to those people thought could injure themselves or others. Strange how you chose not to respond to my statements concerning that. You opened the discussion and have not returned to it.

We have discussed the issue of "gun control" ad nauseum. YOU do not interpret the 2nd Amendment and neither do I. SCOTUS is the ultimate determiner of what rights are guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. They have repeatedly stated in their rulings that the 2nd Amendment right is NOT unlimited.

Contained in the District of Columbia v Heller decision:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The sooner you accept the FACT that rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment are not absolute, the easier it will be to discuss gun control issues.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The OP had NOTHING to do with banning weapons. NOTHING.


It had everything to do with the state of Washington wanting to keep guns out of the hands of people who others close to those people thought could injure themselves or others. Strange how you chose not to respond to my statements concerning that. You opened the discussion and have not returned to it.

We have discussed the issue of "gun control" ad nauseum. YOU do not interpret the 2nd Amendment and neither do I. SCOTUS is the ultimate determiner of what rights are guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. They have repeatedly stated in their rulings that the 2nd Amendment right is NOT unlimited.

Contained in the District of Columbia v Heller decision:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The sooner you accept the FACT that rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment are not absolute, the easier it will be to discuss gun control issues.

Since I started the OP I think I know what it was about. It was about an opinion maker putting it out there that she would a class of from owning weapons. A class of people who have broken no law and have done no wrong. She wants to set the precedent that government can make these determinations. That was the point of the OP.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You must understand Assup doesn't know the difference between a constitutional right, which is what the 2nd Amendment is and a privilege enacted by law which operating a motor vehicle happens to fall under. There is a distinct difference and way too many people think they can make that comparison to prove a point.

Jim

Not to mention folks were OPEN CARRYING long before driving motor vehicles.