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

[Jazzhead]

"Just as the pro-abortionists are convinced the true goal of the pro-life movement isn't regulation but abolishment of the abortion right,"

@Jazzhead   By the way, you still haven't addressed why Dick's shouldn't be forced to sell semiautomatic weapons. If bakers can be forced to sell cakes or face punishment, Dick's should be forced to sell guns or be punished.

I haven't addressed it because the analogy is stupid.   The baker advertised he sold wedding cakes,  but refused to sell a wedding cake to his gay customer.  He broke his word because of his bigotry.   Dick's advertises that it sells some guns but not "assault" rifles - and presumably abides by the same policy with respect to both gay and straight customers.   

[goodwithagun]

If you had the ability to go back in time, would you rather have Cruz incarcerated prior to the shooting or aborted prior to birth?

Here's another one for @Jazzhead : If aborted babies were killed with guns instead of chemicals and scalpels, would he be antiabortion and progun?

[goodwithagun]

I haven't addressed it because the analogy is stupid.   The baker advertised he sold wedding cakes,  but refused to sell a wedding cake to his gay customer.  He broke his word because of his bigotry.   Dick's advertises that it sells some guns but not "assault" rifles - and presumably abides by the same policy with respect to both gay and straight customers.

So if a gay customer wanted to buy a semiauto from Dicks and they refused then Dick's would be guilty of something, but if a straight customer wanted to buy a semiauto and were denied Dicks is innocent of any wrongdoing?

[Jazzhead]

1. There was never any denial from the prolife movement that we want an end to infanticide.

2. There is no "natural right of a woman to decide for herself whether to reproduce." It literally doesn't exist.

3. Why are you against the "confiscation" of a manmade "right" women have had for over 40 years, yet you are perfectly fine the confiscation of a natural right that we have had for over 200 years?

 Of course we all have the natural rights to privacy, and to decide what to do with our lives.  And I do not support "confiscation" of guns.   Indeed, my purpose in commenting on this thread is to point out that the Constitution's protection of your natural right to individual self-defense is as fragile as the abortion right, and needs to be codified.   The natural right is not addressed by the 2A - its protection derives from Heller.     

[goodwithagun]

Of course we all have the natural rights to privacy, and to decide what to do with our lives.  And I do not support "confiscation" of guns.   Indeed, my purpose in commenting on this thread is to point out that the Constitution's protection of your natural right to individual self-defense is as fragile as the abortion right, and needs to be codified.   The natural right is not addressed by the 2A - its protection derives from Heller.   

Where do we have the natural right to privacy, and what does privacy have to do with infanticide?

[Jazzhead]

So if a gay customer wanted to buy a semiauto from Dicks and they refused then Dick's would be guilty of something, but if a straight customer wanted to buy a semiauto and were denied Dicks is innocent of any wrongdoing?

No.     Dick's doesn't sell semi -autos to anyone - that's its choice.   The baker could likewise choose to not sell wedding cakes.  But he does - and by advertising such service is obliged to conform to the community's requirement that he not discriminate.   

[edpc]

No.     Dick's doesn't sell semi -autos to anyone - that's its choice.   The baker could likewise choose to not sell wedding cakes.  But he does - and by advertising such service is obliged to conform to the community's requirement that he not discriminate.

What about the decision Walmart made to sell rifles and ammo to people 21 and over, when the law says you can purchase certain items at 18?

[SZonian]

What in your view are appropriate and practical due process protections that you would find acceptable in a GVRO bill?   Are there any current examples of current or proposed GVRO legislation that you would recommend as models?   

Let's look at Nikolas Cruz.   Police are tipped regarding his statements on social media, and have other knowledge of past violent incidents where police had to come to the door.   The police bring the complaint,  backed up by the foregoing evidence.  Cruz is permitted to defend himself before the judge.   The judge then rules, and strips him of his guns for, say, 90 days subject to a rehearing and reconsideration.   17 lives are saved.   Is the foregoing sufficient due process for you?

Still going on about how the government is capable of doing its damned job?

There are many other problems that need correcting before this...such as the egregious agreement the school had that prevented/encouraged them from notifying the police about troubled kids due to their skin color.

Shit man, the evidence of their failures is there for all to see...and you still propose that government is the solution.  SMDH

[Jazzhead]

What about the decision Walmart made to sell rifles and ammo to people 21 and over, when the law says you can purchase certain items at 18?

The law says you can purchase a rifle at 18; it doesn't forbid a seller from imposing a more stringent age requirement.   Age in this context isn't a protected characteristic like race, gender and (in some places) sexual orientation.   Walmart could lawfully, believe it or not, refuse to sell guns to liberals.  Political ideology likewise isn't a protected characteristic.   

[Jazzhead]

Still going on about how the government is capable of doing its damned job?

There are many other problems that need correcting before this...such as the egregious agreement the school had that prevented/encouraged them from notifying the police about troubled kids due to their skin color.

Shit man, the evidence of their failures is there for all to see...and you still propose that government is the solution.  SMDH

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.   

[thackney]

What about the decision Walmart made to sell rifles and ammo to people 21 and over, when the law says you can purchase certain items at 18?

Interesting if someone will take it up as an age discrimination case.

If they decide in general folks over 70 tend to have reduced mental judgment and ban selling the same products to them, would it be viewed differently?

[GrouchoTex]

What about the decision Walmart made to sell rifles and ammo to people 21 and over, when the law says you can purchase certain items at 18?

Correct, which would be age discrimination, which @Jazzhead says is wrong.

[Jazzhead]

Correct, which would be age discrimination, which @Jazzhead says is wrong.

Age discrimination is prescribed with respect to employment ;  I do not believe age is a protected classification with respect to discrimination by a public accommodation.  Even if it is, the protection would extend to older individuals, not younger ones.   Any business can choose to sell its wares only to persons over the age of 21,  I believe. 

If I'm mistaken, I'm sure someone will point that out.   

[roamer_1]

There likely wasn't.   It takes more to incarcerate an individual than pointing to crazy postings on the internet.  But, with due process, a GVRO law could have stripped him of his weapons of mass murder.

You assume far too much.

First, you take his guns and piss him off.
You better take his money too, or he'll just go get another. What then?
And you'd better hope you got all his guns in the first place.  I know you wouldn't get all of mine.  In fact, you wouldn't even get half of mine. more like a quarter, and that's supposing you find em all here, which isn't likely.

And what is there to stop him from waiting the 90 days, getting his guns back,  and doing it ANYWAY? What stops him from targeting another gun owner and stealing his guns? If he is willing to step off and kill 20 people, he'll get it done, by hook or by crook.

You aren't making a damn thing better. In fact you are likely to make it worse.

and in the meantime, the new laws will metastasize, and be used as a weapon against citizens.
Foolish nanny state bastards .

[Jazzhead]

Interesting if someone will take it up as an age discrimination case.

If they decide in general folks over 70 tend to have reduced mental judgment and ban selling the same products to them, would it be viewed differently?

I don't think so,  but I don't claim to be 100% sure.   I believe that age is a protected characteristic with respect to employment, not service by a public accommodation.   

[Jazzhead]

You assume far too much.

First, you take his guns and piss him off.
You better take his money too, or he'll just go get another. What then?
And you'd better hope you got all his guns in the first place.  I know you wouldn't get all of mine.  In fact, you wouldn't even get half of mine. more like a quarter, and that's supposing you find em all here, which isn't likely.

And what is there to stop him from waiting the 90 days, getting his guns back,  and doing it ANYWAY? What stops him from targeting another gun owner and stealing his guns? If he is willing to step off and kill 20 people, he'll get it done, by hook or by crook.

You aren't making a damn thing better. In fact you are likely to make it worse.

and in the meantime, the new laws will metastasize, and be used as a weapon against citizens.
Foolish nanny state bastards .

You assume too much too, roamer.  A GVRO could just as likely have prevented these murders.  Knowing he's under scrutiny, Cruz may well have behaved.   We're not all angry anarchists like you. 

[thackney]

I don't think so,  but I don't claim to be 100% sure.   I believe that age is a protected characteristic with respect to employment, not service by a public accommodation.

I agree no criminal act as it is not employment, but I wonder how it would be viewed by the same folks pushing the 21 requirement.

[roamer_1]

2. There is no "natural right of a woman to decide for herself whether to reproduce." It literally doesn't exist.

Well that isn't entirely true.  I hear that aspirin is a remarkable preventative when held tightly between the knees...

[thackney]

You assume too much too, roamer.  A GVRO could just as likely have prevented these murders.  Knowing he's under scrutiny, Cruz may well have behaved.   We're not all angry anarchists like you.

Like he did after dozens of visits by authorities?

[Free Vulcan]

The law says you can purchase a rifle at 18; it doesn't forbid a seller from imposing a more stringent age requirement.   Age in this context isn't a protected characteristic like race, gender and (in some places) sexual orientation.   Walmart could lawfully, believe it or not, refuse to sell guns to liberals.  Political ideology likewise isn't a protected characteristic.

So in other words, you believe in selective protections under the Constitution, which ones are decided by the FedGov, dividing us into first and second class citizens.

Which is a dodge and shuffle. Just because it's not a 'protected class' doesn't give the right for a business to go beyond the law. No 'protected status' clause for obeying the law exists.

[musiclady]

1. There was never any denial from the prolife movement that we want an end to infanticide.

2. There is no "natural right of a woman to decide for herself whether to reproduce." It literally doesn't exist.

3. Why are you against the "confiscation" of a manmade "right" women have had for over 40 years, yet you are perfectly fine the confiscation of a natural right that we have had for over 200 years?

@goodwithagun

It is fruitless to try to be rational with @Jazzhead about abortion.   He is brainwashed by the left on this topic, and refuses to defend the rights of the helpless babies slaughtered by this made-up 'right' of leftist eugenicists.  Mind-numbed, all the while claiming he is more enlightened than we are.

And be careful......... after a while, he'll start saying you want women to be "chattel" because you want to stop infanticide.

Just wait.... 

[Jazzhead]

Like he did after dozens of visits by authorities?

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.   

[Jazzhead]

@goodwithagun

  He is brainwashed by the left on this topic, and refuses to defend the rights of the helpless babies

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?   

[roamer_1]

You assume too much too, roamer.  A GVRO could just as likely have prevented these murders.  Knowing he's under scrutiny, Cruz may well have behaved.   We're not all angry anarchists like you.

LOL! yeah right. A guy willing to break a whole passel of felony laws and kill a ton of people is going to suddenly straighten up and fly right. Not going to happen. Murder in the soul doesn't just up and quit.

[GrouchoTex]

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?   

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?