12 dead in Thousand Oaks, Ca bar

[Paddy O Fernature]

So I guess my follow up question would be this: if restricting the rights to buy and sell a product, in this case firearms, is a violation of rights, would restricting who can own firearms, i.e in accordance with things like convicted felons who have not received a pardon, that would include people being treated for mental health issues, would be considered a violation of rights? If there is someone out there who can legally own a gun, and is likely to pose a danger to themselves or to the public, is that a just reason for imposing bans or restrictions?

So again, yes, restricting who can and cannot own firearms is a restriction on people's rights. However, we as a society have agreed that in certain conditions it is acceptable to restrict the rights of others. The easiest example of course is the right to freedom of movement. We as a society have agreed that it is acceptable to restrict that right in circumstances when someone has committed a crime.

Similarly for firearms, if someone has committed a crime and thus demonstrated they are a danger to society, we restrict their right to own firearms.

Doing so before someone has actually committed a crime, in my opinion, constitutes an excessive violation of a person's rights. Namely because it also violates the right to due process of the law. You can't, or rather shouldn't, have your rights taken away if you haven't done anything wrong.

Well said.

[Costa Fierro]

So again, yes, restricting who can and cannot own firearms is a restriction on people's rights. However, we as a society have agreed that in certain conditions it is acceptable to restrict the rights of others. The easiest example of course is the right to freedom of movement. We as a society have agreed that it is acceptable to restrict that right in circumstances when someone has committed a crime.

Similarly for firearms, if someone has committed a crime and thus demonstrated they are a danger to society, we restrict their right to own firearms.

Doing so before someone has actually committed a crime, in my opinion, constitutes an excessive violation of a person's rights. Namely because it also violates the right to due process of the law. You can't, or rather shouldn't, have your rights taken away if you haven't done anything wrong.

I agree you shouldn't have your rights taken away from you if you haven't done anything wrong, but at the same time, I also agree with the idea about being proactive when it comes to public safety. Is there any common ground between protecting one's rights, and instituting measures that addresses the issues surrounding public safety?

[Washington Resistance Army]

So again, yes, restricting who can and cannot own firearms is a restriction on people's rights. However, we as a society have agreed that in certain conditions it is acceptable to restrict the rights of others. The easiest example of course is the right to freedom of movement. We as a society have agreed that it is acceptable to restrict that right in circumstances when someone has committed a crime.

Similarly for firearms, if someone has committed a crime and thus demonstrated they are a danger to society, we restrict their right to own firearms.

Doing so before someone has actually committed a crime, in my opinion, constitutes an excessive violation of a person's rights. Namely because it also violates the right to due process of the law. You can't, or rather shouldn't, have your rights taken away if you haven't done anything wrong.

I agree you shouldn't have your rights taken away from you if you haven't done anything wrong, but at the same time, I also agree with the idea about being proactive when it comes to public safety. Is there any common ground between protecting one's rights, and instituting measures that addresses the issues surrounding public safety?

Not anymore. Appeals to the common ground don't particularly work anymore because our side has come to the middle ground a great many times (NFA, GCA, FOPA, Brady etc) and never really gotten anything for it and thus most of us are staunchly against such things nowadays.

[Len Hyet]

So again, yes, restricting who can and cannot own firearms is a restriction on people's rights. However, we as a society have agreed that in certain conditions it is acceptable to restrict the rights of others. The easiest example of course is the right to freedom of movement. We as a society have agreed that it is acceptable to restrict that right in circumstances when someone has committed a crime.

Similarly for firearms, if someone has committed a crime and thus demonstrated they are a danger to society, we restrict their right to own firearms.

Doing so before someone has actually committed a crime, in my opinion, constitutes an excessive violation of a person's rights. Namely because it also violates the right to due process of the law. You can't, or rather shouldn't, have your rights taken away if you haven't done anything wrong.

I agree you shouldn't have your rights taken away from you if you haven't done anything wrong, but at the same time, I also agree with the idea about being proactive when it comes to public safety. Is there any common ground between protecting one's rights, and instituting measures that addresses the issues surrounding public safety?

Pretty much what WRA said. Around 1994 the gun rights club lost all interest in compromise and finding common ground. Turns out "common ground" means losing more rights for no discernable public safety benefit over and over again.

If someone actually wrote a bill that entailed both sides winning? I'd be interested. As it is, I haven't seen anything proposed that in my (professional) opinion would impact crime rates, much less actually give something to the gun rights side.

[Big Jim P]

I agree you shouldn't have your rights taken away from you if you haven't done anything wrong, but at the same time, I also agree with the idea about being proactive when it comes to public safety. Is there any common ground between protecting one's rights, and instituting measures that addresses the issues surrounding public safety?

Pretty much what WRA said. Around 1994 the gun rights club lost all interest in compromise and finding common ground. Turns out "common ground" means losing more rights for no discernable public safety benefit over and over again.

If someone actually wrote a bill that entailed both sides winning? I'd be interested. As it is, I haven't seen anything proposed that in my (professional) opinion would impact crime rates, much less actually give something to the gun rights side.

Indeed. Gun grabbers need to come to us. No more "compromise".

[Paddy O Fernature]

Pretty much what WRA said. Around 1994 the gun rights club lost all interest in compromise and finding common ground. Turns out "common ground" means losing more rights for no discernable public safety benefit over and over again.

If someone actually wrote a bill that entailed both sides winning? I'd be interested. As it is, I haven't seen anything proposed that in my (professional) opinion would impact crime rates, much less actually give something to the gun rights side.

Indeed. Gun grabbers need to come to us. No more "compromise".

Sadly, this will never happen though. The pointless cycle of appeals to emotion and using flat out lies instead of facts to further push the anti's agenda will never cease and actual progress will never happen.

[Big Jim P]

Indeed. Gun grabbers need to come to us. No more "compromise".

Sadly, this will never happen though. The pointless cycle of appeals to emotion and using flat out lies instead of facts to further push the anti's agenda will never cease and actual progress will never happen.

With more and more states going "shall issue" or Constitutional carry and an increase in the number of people owning and carrying, and crime dropping overall, I would say we are making progress. Slowly, but still progressing.

[Sovaal]

I agree you shouldn't have your rights taken away from you if you haven't done anything wrong, but at the same time, I also agree with the idea about being proactive when it comes to public safety. Is there any common ground between protecting one's rights, and instituting measures that addresses the issues surrounding public safety?

Not anymore. Appeals to the common ground don't particularly work anymore because our side has come to the middle ground a great many times (NFA, GCA, FOPA, Brady etc) and never really gotten anything for it and thus most of us are staunchly against such things nowadays.

^

[Telconi]

Not anymore. Appeals to the common ground don't particularly work anymore because our side has come to the middle ground a great many times (NFA, GCA, FOPA, Brady etc) and never really gotten anything for it and thus most of us are staunchly against such things nowadays.

^

Grabbers: "Let's meet in the middle."
Gun folks: *meet in the middle*
Grabbers, while back pedalling: "Come on let's meet in the middle! Why are you so unreasonable?"

[Sovaal]

^

Grabbers: "Let's meet in the middle."
Gun folks: *meet in the middle*
Grabbers, while back pedalling: "Come on let's meet in the middle! Why are you so unreasonable?"

More like the grabbers keep on pushing no matter what. One just has to look at Australia and the UK to see they never stop.

[Telconi]

Grabbers: "Let's meet in the middle."
Gun folks: *meet in the middle*
Grabbers, while back pedalling: "Come on let's meet in the middle! Why are you so unreasonable?"

More like the grabbers keep on pushing no matter what. One just has to look at Australia and the UK to see they never stop.

Or California

The "Bullet Button Loophole" was the absolute last straw for me. They can't be trusted one micron.

[Sovaal]

More like the grabbers keep on pushing no matter what. One just has to look at Australia and the UK to see they never stop.

Or California

The "Bullet Button Loophole" was the absolute last straw for me. They can't be trusted one micron.

Like seriously. Australia had a fucking circus show about the fact that lever action shotguns where a thing.

[Big Jim P]

More like the grabbers keep on pushing no matter what. One just has to look at Australia and the UK to see they never stop.

Or California

The "Bullet Button Loophole" was the absolute last straw for me. They can't be trusted one micron.

That would have certainly driven me there if I hadn't already been there for a long time.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Or California

The "Bullet Button Loophole" was the absolute last straw for me. They can't be trusted one micron.

That would have certainly driven me there if I hadn't already been there for a long time.

Don't forget the "gunshow loophole" fiasco.

[Kernen]

So again, yes, restricting who can and cannot own firearms is a restriction on people's rights. However, we as a society have agreed that in certain conditions it is acceptable to restrict the rights of others. The easiest example of course is the right to freedom of movement. We as a society have agreed that it is acceptable to restrict that right in circumstances when someone has committed a crime.

Similarly for firearms, if someone has committed a crime and thus demonstrated they are a danger to society, we restrict their right to own firearms.

Doing so before someone has actually committed a crime, in my opinion, constitutes an excessive violation of a person's rights. Namely because it also violates the right to due process of the law. You can't, or rather shouldn't, have your rights taken away if you haven't done anything wrong.

I agree you shouldn't have your rights taken away from you if you haven't done anything wrong, but at the same time, I also agree with the idea about being proactive when it comes to public safety. Is there any common ground between protecting one's rights, and instituting measures that addresses the issues surrounding public safety?

Punish wrongdoers and leave law abiding gun owners alone. Seems like a reasonable balance to me.

[Petrasylvania]

I agree you shouldn't have your rights taken away from you if you haven't done anything wrong, but at the same time, I also agree with the idea about being proactive when it comes to public safety. Is there any common ground between protecting one's rights, and instituting measures that addresses the issues surrounding public safety?

Punish wrongdoers and leave law abiding gun owners alone. Seems like a reasonable balance to me.

Much easier to wait until a mass shooting occurs and people have died and punish the shooter. Assuming the shooter didnct commit suicide.

[Crysuko]

Maybe if the guy who had the gun had exercised some better self control, we wouldn't be in this situation.

[Kernen]

Punish wrongdoers and leave law abiding gun owners alone. Seems like a reasonable balance to me.

Much easier to wait until a mass shooting occurs and people have died and punish the shooter. Assuming the shooter didnct commit suicide.

It is at that, too. It also doesn't involve government deprivation of rights.

Maybe if the guy who had the gun had exercised some better self control, we wouldn't be in this situation.

The guy who had the gun shouldn't have shot at people without good cause. In this, we can agree.

[Len Hyet]

Punish wrongdoers and leave law abiding gun owners alone. Seems like a reasonable balance to me.

Much easier to wait until a mass shooting occurs and people have died and punish the shooter. Assuming the shooter didnct commit suicide.

Still waiting on that solution you keep insisting exists that'll have an actual impact on crime rates without requiring a total dicking of the Constitution there gauth.

[Valgora]

Punish wrongdoers and leave law abiding gun owners alone. Seems like a reasonable balance to me.

Much easier to wait until a mass shooting occurs and people have died and punish the shooter. Assuming the shooter didnct commit suicide.

It's better to give actual possible solutions rather than resorting to just taking away the rights of millions of Americans.

[Petrasylvania]

Much easier to wait until a mass shooting occurs and people have died and punish the shooter. Assuming the shooter didnct commit suicide.

It is at that, too. It also doesn't involve government deprivation of rights.

So people need to assume that angry coworkers are carrying guns and have to be armed as well. Draw Fast Or Die Faster.

[Len Hyet]

It is at that, too. It also doesn't involve government deprivation of rights.

So people need to assume that angry coworkers are carrying guns and have to be armed as well. Draw Fast Or Die Faster.

That's right buddy you set those strawmen up and knock em down! Give em the old one two!

[Kernen]

It is at that, too. It also doesn't involve government deprivation of rights.

So people need to assume that angry coworkers are carrying guns and have to be armed as well. Draw Fast Or Die Faster.

That assumes the employer permits firearms in the workplace, which is not the case in most jobs. Private employers aren't subject to the same constitutional limitations on enumerated rights.

Some people abuse their rights. That is not a good reason for depriving law abiding citizens of those rights.

[Crysuko]

Much easier to wait until a mass shooting occurs and people have died and punish the shooter. Assuming the shooter didnct commit suicide.

It's better to give actual possible solutions rather than resorting to just taking away the rights of millions of Americans.

Or the government should be more proactive in finding these lunatics, as well as not handing out assault rifles like candy.

[Valgora]

It's better to give actual possible solutions rather than resorting to just taking away the rights of millions of Americans.

Or the government should be more proactive in finding these lunatics, as well as not handing out assault rifles like candy.

The government doesn't hand out assault rifles like candy unless you're in the military.