Skip to main content

View Diary: Eliminationists leave daughters without fathers (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So you claim that a pardon shoudn't be sufficient (0+ / 0-)

    ..to grant one back a recognized civil right?
    Keep in mind that SCOTUS has recognized that the second amendment is an individual right.

    I hope you don't hold that same view WRT restoration of voting rights when it comes to pardoned felons.

    As for the rest of it, sure I agree that there are areas in the law that need to be clarified concerning mental illness, gun rights, and background checks.

    I suspect that the difference between us lies in the fact that I expect the government to prove that I shouldn't own a firearm instead of having to prove to them that I should be allowed to own one.

    •  The difference is facts vs ranting (0+ / 0-)

      I haven't expressed an opinion about pardoned felons. You make assumptions and erect straw men rather than addressing substance. You seek to score points, and when you are refuted, you ignore it and seek new hit points. That is not a reasonable way to debate.

      The difference between us is that I view individual membership in society as involving responsibilities as well as rights, and you seem to seek only rights.

      I seek reasonable balance between individual freedom and public safety, and you care only for individual freedom (yours, even if it infringes on my freedom to be safe and enjoy the benefits of belonging to a society).

      As a progressive civil libertarian, I affirm the positive regulatory role my government plays in providing for the common good on my behalf, while you seem to preach a libertarian view of the government as an inherent evil.

      You talk about agreeing to clarifications in the law, yet I don't see you supporting any laws that restrict a gun owner's rights for any reason.

      Can you enumerate gun control measures of which you approve?

      The difference is that I believe that whatever policies we decide upon, they must be determined by a review of the facts - not by starting with blind ideology and cherry picking facts to suit, and ignoring those that don't.

      The difference is that you spew personal insults, while I try to get us to stick to the facts.

      One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

      by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 02:00:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps its simply rhetoric and.. (0+ / 0-)

        ..the approach we take separating us.

        I believe the way I do because I honestly believe the second amendment is an individual right.
        That said, I also do not believe that the 2A also confers a right to carry a firearm concealed.

        IMHO, that debate is best left to the individual states.
        My state's supreme court has ruled that our state constitution protects RKBA because it is both a liberty right and a property right inherent in our state constitution.

        I can accept reasonable restrictions on RKBA, just as I accept reasonable restrictions WRT free speech.

        If the restrictions on either become unreasonable, let's just say that you'll pry my cold dead hands from around the hot smoking barrel.

        •  Name "reasonable" restrictions you support. (0+ / 0-)

          One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 02:30:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Reasonable restrictions on ownership... (0+ / 0-)

            include prohibiting access to those who have been adjudicated as mentally deficient, those convicted of federal or state felonies who haven't been pardoned of such by either POTUS or their state's Governor.

            There may be others that I haven't thought of right now, but I am open to reasonable discussion.

            Reasonable CCW (as opposed to simple ownership)  restrictions include meeting objective criteria WRT marksmanship, safe gun handling, and legal knowledge of when it is appropriate to use a firearm in self defense.

            My problem with jurisdictions that use 'subjective' criteria in issuing licenses is that all too often the only people who 'meet the standard' are the rich, famous, and politically well connected.

    •  Despite the spin in your reply... (0+ / 0-)

      I've already proven this statement of yours is simply bullshit.

      Also, it is NOT against federal law for either convicted felons or people with mental health problems to own guns.

      We can argue what 'is' means all day long, but the simple truth is that it's already against Federal law for convicted felons to own guns unless the felon has been legally granted relief from the prohibition.

      Granted, the 'mental health problems' rules are more complex and have competing rights at issue.

      My personal inclination is to deny firearm rights to anyone who has demonstrated cause to do so after a hearing from a magistrate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site