End Game: "It’s Time For Gun Abolition. We Need To Ban All Civilian Guns."

[roamer_1]

We can't know with certainty.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn from it and try to plug the gaps in the system that might have prevented the murders.   A GVRO is a useful tool, same as a gun itself.

Riight. Because thought police. No actual crime committed. Not enough evidence to prove intent. But an accusation and a shrink, and they can take all your crap.

Yeah. That won't be abused.
 

[musiclady]

Come on, ML.  I've said time and again that I believe abortion is morally wrong.  But I haven't the right or the authority, and neither does the government, to impose my morality on another.

Persuasion, not coercion, is the answer. 

Why are you so insecure in your beliefs to think that persuasion can't work?   

A person who actually believes that abortion is morally wrong doesn't spend so much time defending an imaginary "right" for a mother to slaughter her baby.

What you regurgitate over and over on this thread is leftist tripe, leftist lies, fed to you by the left.

They have concocted the faux argument that "I am against abortion, but support a woman's right to it" and you have fallen for it.

Come on Jazzhead.  Try being honest with yourself for once.  My beliefs are very secure.  Yours are imaginary and distorted beyond human reason.

You believe it's wrong to kill babies, but argue ad nauseam that killing babies is a "right"????

NO one with a functioning brain cell falls for your garbage arguments.

But nice hijack from INVAR's thread topic.   

[txradioguy]

A GVRO is a tool that has substantial merit provided an accused has appropriate due process protections.  It could well have prevented the Parkland murders.   

Go figure an attorney would defend such crap.

Your precious GVOR does absolutely nothing if the law enforcement officers who hand it out fail to enforce it.

There were something like 49 different complaints about Cruz filed to include with the FBI.  The school knew he was dangerous and forbid him to carry a backpack on campus because last year they found him carrying bullets on campus.

There were multiple times law enforcement could have stepped in and prevented what happened in Florida and they failed.

And yet your magic solution is a police issued GVRO.

 

[txradioguy]

Riight. Because thought police. No actual crime committed. Not enough evidence to prove intent. But an accusation and a shrink, and they can take all your crap.

Yeah. That won't be abused.
 

@roamer_1 I guess he's never heard of "Swatting"...this would be swatting on steroids.

[Jazzhead]

If you are correct, you haven't the right to stop or the authority,to  curtail, legislate, regulate, license, ban, etc., to do anything, about ANY THING.
So why are firearms so heavy on your radar screen?

I feel the more or less the same way with respect to the gun right and the abortion right.  Each is subject to reasonable regulation.   For example, I support a ban on partial birth abortions.  And while I don't support a ban on "assault" weapons,  if you acknowledge that a ban on partial birth abortions is constitutional, than it is likewise constitutional to ban certain classes of firearms.  You can regulate the right, so long as you don't effectively deny it. 

[driftdiver]

I feel the more or less the same way with respect to the gun right and the abortion right.  Each is subject to reasonable regulation.   For example, I support a ban on partial birth abortions.  And while I don't support a ban on "assault" weapons,  if you acknowledge that a ban on partial birth abortions is constitutional, than it is likewise constitutional to ban certain classes of firearms.  You can regulate the right, so long as you don't effectively deny it.

@Jazzhead
Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the Federal Government restricted from regulating or prohibiting abortions?

Whereas the 'shall not infringe' of firearms is clearly stated.

Why do you persist in making these false analogies?

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1 I guess he's never heard of "Swatting"...this would be swatting on steroids.

@txradioguy

All I can think of is my rather fractious divorce, and my ex trying every damn trick in the book to destroy me. I mean literally destroy me. I know for a near fact that she would have taken full advantage of this sort of thing.  Hell, she might take advantage of it even yet. 

[thackney]

Come on, ML.  I've said time and again that I believe abortion is morally wrong.  But I haven't the right or the authority, and neither does the government, to impose my morality on another.

Persuasion, not coercion, is the answer. 

Why are you so insecure in your beliefs to think that persuasion can't work? 

Would you apply the same position to the topic of the thread?  I hate to further the distraction from gun control laws of the thread, but are we not both trying to prevent the slaughter of the innocent?

[driftdiver]

@txradioguy

All I can think of is my rather fractious divorce, and my ex trying every damn trick in the book to destroy me. I mean literally destroy me. I know for a near fact that she would have taken full advantage of this sort of thing.  Hell, she might take advantage of it even yet. 

And lawyers egging them on.

Ripe for abuse which is what the gun banners want.

[roamer_1]

And lawyers egging them on.

Ripe for abuse which is what the gun banners want.

Yep that's right - and not only wrt guns. This sets a horrid precedent.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

All I can think of is my rather fractious divorce, and my ex trying every damn trick in the book to destroy me. I mean literally destroy me. I know for a near fact that she would have taken full advantage of this sort of thing.  Hell, she might take advantage of it even yet. 

BTDT...had my ex falsely accuse me of spousal abuse back in '99.

When it came down to brass tacks I was the one that produced an abuse complaint I'd filed against her and she got proven to be a liar in open court.

But with today's proposals they'd have taken any gun I owned just on her false accusations.

[Suppressed]

Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the Federal Government restricted from regulating or prohibiting abortions?

@driftdiver

Code: [Select]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Every conservative should be aware of that amendment.

[Jazzhead]

Would you apply the same position to the topic of the thread?  I hate to further the distraction from gun control laws of the thread, but are we not both trying to prevent the slaughter of the innocent?

Not sure what you're getting at, thackney.   I think what I've said is consistent - both the gun right and the abortion right is subject to reasonable regulation.   But neither the abortion right nor the gun right can be effectively denied by government.   

The audience here of pro-lifers want abortion banned, period.   To that I say -  don't enlist the government to impose your morality on women faced with a true question of conscience.   If there's anyone here who wants firearms banned,  I'm not aware of it.   But I guess the response would be analogous -  don't enlist the government to impose your view that we don't have the right to defend ourselves with the most appropriate tool available.    If you choose to not own a gun, then solid.  But what's right for you may not be right for your neighbor, and you're not the boss of him.   

[roamer_1]

BTDT...had my ex falsely accuse me of spousal abuse back in '99.

@txradioguy
Same '12. Never laid a bruise on her or any of the kids. I was all stove up in a wheelchair at the time, and literally couldn't throw a punch that would matter.  Turtles moved faster than I could.

Her say-so was all there was, and still that was enough for a restraining order and 6 friggin months with a court appointed shrink, on my dime. Still, after he drug about 2k outta my butt, the shrink finally said the charge was frivolous, which I take it to mean a damn lie. So no fault no foul, right? 

Other than 2 thousand bucks, my time for 2 sessions a week (three to begin with) for six months, a contempt charge (because I wouldn't take the drugs the shrink said I needed early on), a weekend in the can, not seeing my kids for all that time, and only with supervision for two months even after I was cleared (protocols), my ex in the catbird seat for custody issues, and CSED enumerating the charge in filings thereafter, even though I was cleared, to justify a whole bunch more BS.

And people wonder why I don't trust the sonsabiches. 

But with today's proposals they'd have taken any gun I owned just on her false accusations.

Like I said, I am near certain my ex would have done the same.

[Suppressed]

But neither the abortion right nor the gun right can be effectively denied by government.   

Tenth amendment said, "Butt out, Feds...you have no power here...!"

The fourteenth amendment has been a blessing and a curse, eh?

[Jazzhead]

Same '12. Never laid a bruise on her or any of the kids. I was all stove up in a wheelchair at the time, and literally couldn't throw a punch that would matter.  Turtles moved faster than I could.

Her say-so was all there was, and still that was enough for a restraining order and 6 friggin months with a court appointed shrink, on my dime. Still, after he drug about 2k outta my butt, the shrink finally said the charge was frivolous, which I take it to mean a damn lie. So no fault no foul, right? 

Other than 2 thousand bucks, my time for 2 sessions a week (three to begin with) for six months, a contempt charge (because I wouldn't take the drugs the shrink said I needed early on), a weekend in the can, not seeing my kids for all that time, and only with supervision for two months even after I was cleared (protocols), my ex in the catbird seat for custody issues, and CSED enumerating the charge in filings thereafter, even though I was cleared, to justify a whole bunch more BS.

And people wonder why I don't trust the sonsabiches. 

Like I said, I am near certain my ex would have done the same.

Not all charges of domestic abuse are false.  We all know, my gentle friend who brags of an arsenal large enough to start a small war, that you'd never harm a fly.   But what of your neighbor who beats the crap out of his spouse and kids?   Should he be permitted to possess a firearm?   

[Jazzhead]

Tenth amendment said, "Butt out, Feds...you have no power here...!"

The fourteenth amendment has been a blessing and a curse, eh?

They're not that difficult to reconcile.  States can regulate activities and grant or deny valuable rights and benefits, but not in a way that violates the 14th's guarantee of the equal protection of the law.

[txradioguy]

Not all charges of domestic abuse are false.  We all know, my gentle friend who brags of an arsenal large enough to start a small war, that you'd never harm a fly.   But what of your neighbor who beats the crap out of his spouse and kids?   Should he be permitted to possess a firearm?

First year law hypothetical situations mean squat in the real world.

Something you seem very detached from when it comes to things like this.

[driftdiver]

Not all charges of domestic abuse are false.  We all know, my gentle friend who brags of an arsenal large enough to start a small war, that you'd never harm a fly.   But what of your neighbor who beats the crap out of his spouse and kids?   Should he be permitted to possess a firearm?

@Jazzhead
Perhaps he should be in jail???    Or maybe just maybe his wife should have a gun so she can stop the beatings?

I know thats shocking to a liberal.  Allowing a person to continue harming other people is not a solution.

[driftdiver]

@driftdiver

Code: [Select]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Every conservative should be aware of that amendment.

@Suppressed

Yeah most conservatives are, its the liberals that ignore that one.

But we were talking actions of the feds.

[thackney]

@Jazzhead
Perhaps he should be in jail???    Or maybe just maybe his wife should have a gun so she can stop the beatings?

I know thats shocking to a liberal.  Allowing a person to continue harming other people is not a solution.

Bingo, the gun angle here is just a distraction to the actual problem.  He is causing her harm already.  He is the danger, not the tool he selects each incident.

[roamer_1]

Not all charges of domestic abuse are false.  We all know, my gentle friend who brags of an arsenal large enough to start a small war, that you'd never harm a fly.

I never said any such thing. In fact, I have fewer guns than most around here.   

But what of your neighbor who beats the crap out of his spouse and kids?   Should he be permitted to possess a firearm?

Unless there are felonious charges , OF COURSE. How the hell is he to provide for them without guns?

[INVAR]

And so the red vs. blue divide deepens,  and folks like INVAR call for war.

That is ALL you need to know and understand, being the outright enemy of liberty that you repeatedly demonstrate that you are.

All your insidious arguments and "living Constitution' Bullshit is just battlefield prep for you and your leftist Comrades.   The gun abolition movement is just going to spearhead the Advance columns.  We will not compromise any further with you or them, because the end-game is civilian disarmament, DESPITE whatever stupid cover you want to assign yourself.

Like I warned you before - we're done discussing and reasoning with you people.  When the agents of tyranny you empower come to enforce all these grandiose ideas of yours - you will have bought yourself a war.

Consider yourself warned in advance because evidently you have reasoned away the implicit warning against such efforts in the 2nd Amendment's very existence.

[Jazzhead]

First year law hypothetical situations mean squat in the real world.

Something you seem very detached from when it comes to things like this.

Hypothetical?  In the real world, some folks really do beat the crap out of their wife and kids.   What's the remedy?   Are you so protective of this goon's gun rights that you'd oppose any attempt to take them away?   

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed

Yeah most conservatives are, its the liberals that ignore that one.

But we were talking actions of the feds.

The Feds have no direct business in abortion, by the tenth amendment.  But under the fourteenth, they can step in and say that the states have no right to restrict.

IANAL.