Dems introduce HR Bill 5717 severely attacking 2nd Amendment rights

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
you are way in over your head! From the sound of your whimpering it sounds like you did not understand what you claim to have read!
Also for your information -- there is nothing unconstitutional about redefining what 2A actually means!
You can`t be against people needing a license to carry or own a gun....that is just common sense! After all in order to drive a car you need to be licensed!
I think what you are doing in criminal by crying foul when there is nothing to cry foul about....
Driving a car is not a constitutional right.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
The bill does much of that. How would you feel if voting booths could be sued out of production? It's not a ban in any way. Keep what we have and no alternatives allowed.

It wouldn't be a very smart bill if the goal was to ban voting.
But voting makes society better and guns make it worse.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
you can't directly kill anyone with a vote but you can kill dozens with a single assault rifle.

apples and oranges, this thread is garbage.
This being the case, enough people ought to be willing to amend the constitution. Therefore get started, but as it stands a lot of that stuff is unconstitutional.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
This being the case, enough people ought to be willing to amend the constitution. Therefore get started, but as it stands a lot of that stuff is unconstitutional.
Meh, the courts determine what is constitutional. They overturned decades of precedent by making it an individual right, that too can be overturned and reverted back to its long understood meaning.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
Driving a car is not a constitutional right.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." "The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law.
"Means of transportation", sounds like a car could be that.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
Oh good we needed a thread full of whining about muh guns to distract us from the looming deaths of thousands of our fellow citizens. You know like guns cause every year in this country.

Over/under for total words posted by the OP in this thread? I am going with 100k.
To me this is more than just a thread about guns. This is a thread about logic and reasoning. I can't understand why a lot of you can't understand that rights are equal and should be treated as such. And if you really don't agree with them, then set out to get a constitutional amendment which is designed to change constitutional rights. :rolleyes:
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
OP, I haven't read the bill, but I could probably be ok with Title II with a 3 day waiting period and Title IX.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
But voting makes society better and guns make it worse.

And there goes the Constitution. If I like something it should be protected by the Constitution. If I do not then screw everyone else's opinion and subvert to make an amendment moot.

The point is that rights in the Constitution are there for all and not subject to "your" approval and never should be. Rember the Constitution did not apply to Trump? Don't be a Trump.

This is why I don't trust partisan politics because they'll dispose or subvert for their own likes and dislikes. Yes both sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackangst1

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
Infringed means to be unreasonably restricted. It was made vague on purpose so the definition of that would change over time.
Exactly and that's why we have courts to decide what 'unreasonably restricted' is. I (as well as anyone) can offer my opinion as to what is but ultimately it's the courts until (wait for it) we have a constitutional amendment to change the game.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,671
28,824
136
This is why I've never understood first, why it's controversial, and second, why it's necessary. My impression was that you always have to present an ID when voting. I certainly always have to.
Because of places like Texas. Conceal carry, cool. Student ID, get outta here hippie.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
And there goes the Constitution. If I like something it should be protected by the Constitution. If I do not then screw everyone else's opinion and subvert to make an amendment moot.

The point is that rights in the Constitution are there for all and not subject to "your" approval and never should be. Rember the Constitution did not apply to Trump? Don't be a Trump.

This is why I don't trust partisan politics because they'll dispose or subvert for their own likes and dislikes. Yes both sides.
I would argue that in fact the constitution is designed to protect 'unpopular' rights. I mean do we really have to protect speech that everybody likes to hear?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atreus21

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
They probably are! The difference is if someone has negative feelings and doesn’t have a gun they do way less damage than someone who does.
My point is that the issue of mental health will never be addressed because the depth of the problem extends to the whole human race. This is why we will always look to blame things like guns, other people's guns rather than our own mental illness, as the source of the problem. We may say it's a mental health issue, other people's mental health issue, but we won't act to fix the real issue, that we won't see our own illness because to do so would threaten to bring to conscious awareness the feeling we are the worst in the world. It's our catch 22. This fact is illustrated in mythology by the Hero's journey, the slaying of the Medusa, the sight of which turns us to stone, and that can be defeated only with a sword AND a mirror.

Just my luck! Why does this always happen to me?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,750
2,524
126
We are currently operating under a very perverse view and distortion of the clear language of the Second Amendment regarding re "gun rights" that began in the 1990s. This perversion of the right to maintain a well organized militia has led directly to a rapid increase in both the frequency and severity of mass shootings in the USA since then.

I doubt the present makeup of the Supreme Court would support a return to rationality in Constitutional interpretation. But just like the GOP is obsessed with eliminating the right to privacy and restricting abortion, many of the rest of us long for a return to sane gun regulation. I want to be able to go to the library or grocery store without encountering some paramilitary wanna-be more heavily armed than a company of Revolutionary War soldiers.

I've never understood the obsession and fascination with guns that certain insecure young males have.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
And there goes the Constitution. If I like something it should be protected by the Constitution. If I do not then screw everyone else's opinion and subvert to make an amendment moot.

The point is that rights in the Constitution are there for all and not subject to "your" approval and never should be. Rember the Constitution did not apply to Trump? Don't be a Trump.

This is why I don't trust partisan politics because they'll dispose or subvert for their own likes and dislikes. Yes both sides.

Oh give the hysterics a rest. I think guns should be banned because that’s common sense, it doesn’t mean I think we should eliminate the bill of rights to do it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Oh give the hysterics a rest. I think guns should be banned because that’s common sense, it doesn’t mean I think we should eliminate the bill of rights to do it.

Stop the deception. You think one thing that suits your common sense and others need to accept your perspective. Well there are a lot of perspectives with "common sense" in the eye of the beholder and yours dismisses mine. What you think is fine. What people insist on happening is my business as well. Just remember that what people propose to do by subverting a right will be done to you. It's common sense to profile. It's common sense to ban immigrants, it's common sense to stop and frisk and if you ask those people who support it they can find examples where these worked. But it's not right to subvert to get these as "get rid of guns" people sometimes do.

The same methods are approved, just about different things. No the method shouldn't be approved, and this law is subversion with supporters.

It's hard for me to believe that most Americans, especially the partisan hacks aren't too foolish to be trusted. I can't stop them from voting and as their vote causes demonstrable harm, then allow voting by machines which are not allowed to be replaced. For the greater good of course. This isn't hysterics, this is an objection, which might be hysterics if one is not a true believer in whatever.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
Its baffling how a certain core group of Americans think that gun rights are somehow meaningful in any way in the 21st century, get all riled up about it, yet ignore the real right-in-front-of-your face issues we still need to address. Right up there with abortion. If guns were banned tomorrow the most significant impact would be a trend downward in gun related violence.

At least we're (mostly) no longer arguing about marriage rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Stop the deception. You think one thing that suits your common sense and others need to accept your perspective. Well there are a lot of perspectives with "common sense" in the eye of the beholder and yours dismisses mine. What you think is fine. What people insist on happening is my business as well. Just remember that what people propose to do by subverting a right will be done to you. It's common sense to profile. It's common sense to ban immigrants, it's common sense to stop and frisk and if you ask those people who support it they can find examples where these worked. But it's not right to subvert to get these as "get rid of guns" people sometimes do.

The same methods are approved, just about different things. No the method shouldn't be approved, and this law is subversion with supporters.

It's hard for me to believe that most Americans, especially the partisan hacks aren't too foolish to be trusted. I can't stop them from voting and as their vote causes demonstrable harm, then allow voting by machines which are not allowed to be replaced. For the greater good of course. This isn't hysterics, this is an objection, which might be hysterics if one is not a true believer in whatever.

This is hysterics and you're being ridiculous. It was a simple offhand comment and now you're falling all over your fainting couch for the Constitution. Just stop.

As far as common sense mine is based on empirical evidence, if you want to supply empirical evidence that either one of those things you mentioned is a net positive I'm open to hearing it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Stop the deception. You think one thing that suits your common sense and others need to accept your perspective. Well there are a lot of perspectives with "common sense" in the eye of the beholder and yours dismisses mine. What you think is fine. What people insist on happening is my business as well. Just remember that what people propose to do by subverting a right will be done to you. It's common sense to profile. It's common sense to ban immigrants, it's common sense to stop and frisk and if you ask those people who support it they can find examples where these worked. But it's not right to subvert to get these as "get rid of guns" people sometimes do.

The same methods are approved, just about different things. No the method shouldn't be approved, and this law is subversion with supporters.

It's hard for me to believe that most Americans, especially the partisan hacks aren't too foolish to be trusted. I can't stop them from voting and as their vote causes demonstrable harm, then allow voting by machines which are not allowed to be replaced. For the greater good of course. This isn't hysterics, this is an objection, which might be hysterics if one is not a true believer in whatever.
I think you have moral concerns that he as a more liberal liberal doesn't understand. His points make perfect logical sense to me and yours make perfect moral sense to me also.

For me guns are an issue in a sick world because they are the methodology by which that illness manifests. I see guns as a symptom and we often treat symptoms. My effort is to expose what the real sickness is. Were we to deal with that issue the gun issue would not exist. Right now we are dealing with what is the best way to deal with the issue that arises from the fact we won't deal with the real problem. We are not going to deal with that so do we or do we not deal with the symptoms and how do we do that if so. Rationally, we generally try to shoot for some sort of compromise, I would think. Emotionally, compromise feels like death.
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
25,067
4,509
136
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." "The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law."

The 5th amendment says zero about "the right to travel" That's sovereign citizen BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
This is hysterics and you're being ridiculous. It was a simple offhand comment and now you're falling all over your fainting couch for the Constitution. Just stop.

As far as common sense mine is based on empirical evidence, if you want to supply empirical evidence that either one of those things you mentioned is a net positive I'm open to hearing it.

Your empirical evidence is that which you filter and select from to justify your position be legally binding regardless of the intent in regards to the Amendments.

For example, I want to have a handgun. Me. Now what?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Your empirical evidence is that which you filter and select from to justify your position be legally binding regardless of the intent in regards to the Amendments.

For example, I want to have a handgun. Me. Now what?
You can go buy one?

And no, my empirical evidence constitutes the general consensus of the research on the topic.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I think you have moral concerns that he as a more liberal liberal doesn't understand. His points make perfect logical sense to me and yours make perfect moral sense to me also.

For me guns are an issue in a sick world because they are the methodology by which that illness manifests. I see guns as a symptom and we often treat symptoms. My effort is to expose what the real sickness is. Were we to deal with that issue the gun issue would not exist. Right now we are dealing with what is the best way to deal with the issue that arises from the fact we won't deal with the real problem. We are not going to deal with that so do we or do we not deal with the symptoms and how do we do that if so. Rationally, we generally try to shoot for some sort of compromise, I would think. Emotionally, compromise feels like death.

Sometimes people get so involved that there is no balance nor compromise possible.

"We won't take your rights, just make it impossible to avail yourself thereof. Why? Because I'm the best judge of what is best for you and everyone else and you must be "encouraged" to become... well, me".


My perspective is that there are moral questions within moral questions. Rights must be limited when they are abused for harm, but one side says "None for you" and the other says "All for me" which is pretty much the same thing.

As I understand the meaning of maturity it includes people having the ability to have the right to do things I would rather not. That requires a compromise and the "righteous" on both extremes, in this case, don't want that. They wants their Precious, and that is never shared. No one has a middle ground. Someone wants to sneak in a killer into legislation and so it goes on.

There could be a compromise but letting people who are criminals or are serious proven threats should be part of it. So is due process in determining whether emergency actions were justified. Careful checks on sales? Sure. Mandatory training in usage on a repeat basis (I don't mean just marksmanship) to carry? Yep. Something that people can't pass because it's easy. I'm for that. But then we shouldn't have such restrictions or we shouldn't have guns and screw everyone else and their rights or considerations.

So I present empirical evidence for my prior argument about voting. People voted Trump into power by the means laid out in our voting methods. People voted in trash through all of the history of elections. It's empirical and factual.

But voting is a right so banning it outright can't happen. Therefore based on the facts of disastrous choices, we restrict voting to machines and sue the companies who make the machines if a bad choice results. We sue them out of business to make sure negative consequences don't happen again.

I'm sure that if people look at what I say they'll see the countless factual examples. I mean if people don't abuse their vote to pick poor leaders then machines will still be made. Wait, people use that vote responsibility? I expect so, but the facts support that voting can be harmful and we can't take that chance.

Just something to toss around.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
You can go buy one?

And no, my empirical evidence constitutes the general consensus of the research on the topic.

Not if there's none made.

So the research dictates all?

So how do I buy a gun of people aren't selling what they have (because there are no more) and none are made. How do I exercise my rights?

Personally I would be safer although I don't feel the need to go around with a firearm.