MSNBC: Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

[Mass_SkinsFan]

So now your simply not agreeing with a group SIMPLY because they agreement was with Democrats?

I once read a wise man's saying that you ALWAYS treat your enemies as your enemies. You never cut a deal with them. You never treat them as anything other than the enemies they are. Once you do, you have lost the ability to distinguish Right from Wrong.

The ELECTED majorty of the country?

Being elected by some of the most incompetent, immoral, and unknowledgable people on the planet doesn't make you Right in my mind; and the people who voted for the current majority party of the United States Congress (along with the people they elected) fall into all three of those categories so far as I am concerned.

Mass - Why do you Hate America so much?

How about because I don't believe that this country has ANYTHING left in common with what this country was intended to be by the Founding Fathers and/or what I believe it should be. If there was any other place even vaguely close to what I believe a country should be, I would be gone from the USA in a moment. Unfortunately, as pathetic and disgusting as this country is, the rest of the world is even worse.

[Prosperity]

Coooley,

and by getting their name expunged from the check list, these criminals will have easier accessibility to buying fire arms. I think that if no one else should criminals deserve the headaches of checks and bureaucratic delay.

ummm what?

i read that people with expunged criminal records would have their name removed from the list.

not that everyone with a criminal record would be expunged from the list

[TMK9973]

I once read a wise man's saying that you ALWAYS treat your enemies as your enemies. You never cut a deal with them. You never treat them as anything other than the enemies they are. Once you do, you have lost the ability to distinguish Right from Wrong.

Being elected by some of the most incompetent, immoral, and unknowledgable people on the planet doesn't make you Right in my mind; and the people who voted for the current majority party of the United States Congress (along with the people they elected) fall into all three of those categories so far as I am concerned.

How about because I don't believe that this country has ANYTHING left in common with what this country was intended to be by the Founding Fathers and/or what I believe it should be. If there was any other place even vaguely close to what I believe a country should be, I would be gone from the USA in a moment. Unfortunately, as pathetic and disgusting as this country is, the rest of the world is even worse.

Mass - You have gone off the deep end. Please -do us all a favor and go move somewhere else.

I think you would fit in perfectly in Iran.

[AsburySkinsFan]

What god has given YOU the right to bear arms? How do you know?

Ummmm, something in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence gives a pretty clear indication of where our rights come from;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution simply serves to spell out what these unalienable rights.

[PeterMP]

Ummmm, something in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence gives a pretty clear indication of where our rights come from;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution simply serves to spell out what these unalienable rights.

So just to make sure I got this right. You are advocating that God gave a right to men because men said so (none of the founding fathers claimed to be prophets and/or direct messangers from God), and then they don't even include that one when they listed the rights God gave (i.e. your list does not include the right to bear arms). You'd think rights from God would have made it into the Bible somwhere.

In general, you'll note that there are huge differences between what the Constitution guarantess (e.g. press, speech, and arms) to what the Decleration of Independence says you have. Why doesn't Bill of rights just say:

1. You have the right to liberty.

2. You have the right to life.

3. You have the right to pursue happines.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So just to make sure I got this right. You are advocating that God gave a right to men because men said so (none of the founding fathers claimed to be prophets and/or direct messangers from God),

The document simply proves what the founding fathers believed, and where they believed their rights came from.

and then they don't even include that one when they listed the rights God gave (i.e. your list does not include the right to bear arms). You'd think rights from God would have made it into the Bible somwhere.

In general, you'll note that there are huge differences between what the Constitution guarantess (e.g. press, speech, and arms) to what the Decleration of Independence says you have. Why doesn't Bill of rights just say:

1. You have the right to liberty.

2. You have the right to life.

3. You have the right to pursue happines.

Ok, you simply didn't even read the preamble, because even a cursory reading shows the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

A simple read shows that the authors were not attempting to present a comprehensive list of these unalienable rights. They waited until the Bill of rights to do that. So, nice try.

[Burgold]

I pretty much agree with a & b. Practically, I think c is impossible, simply because guns are agents of fear and are meant to be. I'm not sure if gun owners are viewed as pariahs, but I will admit that gun ownership does cause a feeling of group hesitation, fear, and doubt. There's always the question of "why?" If the person was just mugged, robbed, etc. then it's clear. If they just got out of jail, as my concern at the top of this thread indicates, than suspscion (fair or not) is part of the occassion. I don't believe though I know many who have actively avoided association with someone for the sole reason of gun ownership.

Liberty,

I have a feeling the word expunged has confused many. What I simply meant was that the NRA was arguing that criminals with minor (to be defined later) offenses can have their names removed from the check list if their petition is successful. In my view, that's a dubious first group to be advocating for. Although, I have much heavier reservations for removing the name of someone who has been institutionalized for a mental disorder in which they have been declared a danger to themselves and others.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Mass - You have gone off the deep end. Please -do us all a favor and go move somewhere else.

I think you would fit in perfectly in Iran.

I've gone off the deep end? I would suggest that Wayne LaPiere and the other NRA executives are treading water in a pool much deeper than the one I am in. They've gotten into bed with the ENEMY, hoping that ENEMY will do what they say in spite of every bit of history to the contrary.

As I said earlier, if there was any other place I felt was closer to a proper Government and Society, I would already be there. Iran is a Theocracy (something I disagree with) and their policy on the RTKBA is one of the worst in the world; so no thanks.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I pretty much agree with a & b. Practically, I think c is impossible, simply because guns are agents of fear and are meant to be. I'm not sure if gun owners are viewed as pariahs, but I will admit that gun ownership does cause a feeling of group hesitation, fear, and doubt. There's always the question of "why?" If the person was just mugged, robbed, etc. then it's clear. If they just got out of jail, as my concern at the top of this thread indicates, than suspscion (fair or not) is part of the occassion. I don't believe though I know many who have actively avoided association with someone for the sole reason of gun ownership.

"C" used to be the standard philosophy of this country. My father spoke of taking a .22 caliber rifle to school in his youth to go varmint hunting afterwards. Ammunition used to be available in almost every corner store, ON THE SHELVES. The idea that your child was going to spend the night at the home of his best friend, whose father is a gun owner didn't freak out every parent in the country in days gone by.

My bigger question to the gunphobes out there is... "Why not?" Before you ask me why I need a firearm, please tell me why it is that I shouldn't be allowed to have one. Why my CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED right to keep and bear arms should be infringed upon simply because you don't like firearms. Personally, I'd suggest that the gunphobes ought to do what the last group to believe that American citizens shouldn't have firearms ended up doing.... pack up, head back to England, and leave America to the AMERICANS.

[Coooleeey]

I have a feeling the word expunged has confused many. What I simply meant was that the NRA was arguing that criminals with minor (to be defined later) offenses can have their names removed from the check list if their petition is successful. In my view, that's a dubious first group to be advocating for. Although, I have much heavier reservations for removing the name of someone who has been institutionalized for a mental disorder in which they have been declared a danger to themselves and others.

Yeah we are looking at a pretty big grey area as far as who is and isn't going to be removed from the list. When they put that all out it will make a lot more sense. I agree that someone who spent a considerable amount of time (maybe more than two weeks?) in a mental institution shouldn't be allowed a concealed permit. But there are two sides to every situation and not all people who were mentally ill still are. A 20 something year old might lose his parents and go off the deep end, 20 years later when fully mentally stable I think they should be able to bear arms.

All I'm trying to say is lets not put the hammer down on everyone so quickly

[Burgold]

I was having an unvirtual discussion about this. The reason that I can't quite say, "You shouldn't own a gun" is because I think it's insanity to believe that the US would be a better place if there was a gun prohibition. The good would be constantly preyed on. Now on the other foot, why not is a relatively easy/hard question.

Guns elevate the conflict cycle. Once a gun is pulled, an angry situation becomes a deadly situation. The culture is changing for the worse and I don't know where guns fit in the psychology of that.

Example, when I was in high school. There were fights. The fight was basically over when one guy hit the floor or a teacher appeared. Now, a days fights aren't even over when one guy is unconscious. The "winner" will continue to kick and beat on the helpless "loser" When the fight stops, too often even then the fight is not over because the "loser" will go and return. There is a cycle of escalation and a lack of judgement or self-restraint. Such trivial things rise to the level of life and death all to often these days.

I blame everyone for it I suppose. Unenforced laws, bad modeling, bad parenting, poor peer reinforcement, video games, violent movies, Barney. The world hasn't descended into Hell yet and there are still more good people than bad, however...

It's strange that in a world today where you tell me that guns and ammo are less accessible that there is so much more gun violence. Maybe the lack of access is part of the problem, but there are so many pieces to this puzzle that are not being properly addressed. We are leaving so many holes to fill themselves.

[Burgold]

It's become a pet peeve of mine in this thread. I've seen it about six times now... it's the right to BARE arms, not bear arms. How can you trust people with guns who can't even get the homonym right!

[techboy]

The Christian pacifist is arguing that God Himself gave us the right to own guns. Now I've seen everything.

[techboy]

it's the right to BARE arms, not bear arms.

Is someone threatening the right of hairy men from the Bronx to wear a wife-beater? :whoknows:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Guns elevate the conflict cycle. Once a gun is pulled, an angry situation becomes a deadly situation. The culture is changing for the worse and I don't know where guns fit in the psychology of that.

Firearms are a TOOL used as a force multiplier. That's all they are. The person whose mind moves from self-defense to killing will do so, regardless of the weapon(s) they have or don't have at their disposal. The person beaten to death with a shovel is no less dead than the person shot with a firearm. It's the person, not the tool, that does the killing. We need to remember that. Especially since the confiscation of firearms has been one step in the most horrific killing sprees in human history (especially the Holocaust).

I blame everyone for it I suppose. Unenforced laws, bad modeling, bad parenting, poor peer reinforcement, video games, violent movies, Barney. The world hasn't descended into Hell yet and there are still more good people than bad, however....

The blame is mostly on the culture of this country today. We've moved away from the concepts of Right and Wrong and into a morass of moral relativism that believes neither absolute exists anymore. That's the problem.

It's strange that in a world today where you tell me that guns and ammo are less accessible that there is so much more gun violence. Maybe the lack of access is part of the problem, but there are so many pieces to this puzzle that are not being properly addressed. We are leaving so many holes to fill themselves.

Firearms and ammunition are less accessible to law abiding citizens. Nothing is ever denied to those people who are willing to break the law and do whatever is necessary to acquire it.

[PeterMP]

The document simply proves what the founding fathers believed, and where they believed their rights came from.

Ok, you simply didn't even read the preamble, because even a cursory reading shows the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

A simple read shows that the authors were not attempting to present a comprehensive list of these unalienable rights. They waited until the Bill of rights to do that. So, nice try.

1. My original question was what made him think that God gave him the right to bare arms. None of this directly addresses that. The Constitution, where the right to bare arms is mentioned, doesn't mention God. Maybe the Founding Fathers did believe it was a right granted from God and they left it out of the DI. I should also note the Constitution was originally written w/ o the Bill of Rights, and only added after others complained and against the will of others so if the Founding Fathers thought the rights in the Bill of Rights were from God, why weren't they in the original document? More precisely, I was interested in why he thought the right came from God, and it just seems to me that because the Founding Fathers told me so is a poor reason (especially because they didn't explicitly say that and because they also told him he had the right to own slaves based on what was written in the Constitution (or was that also a God given right that was taken away as the right to bare arms is being taken away?)).

2. You completely missed the second point. In the DI they gave a select example of unalienable rights, you'd think they would have used the more important ones. You'd think those more important ones would have directly made it into the Constitution, but the US Constitution does not directly guarantee any of those things. As compared to let's say the state of NJ Constitution which gives:

" 1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."

(From Article I Rights and Privilages of the NJ State Constitution; http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp )

It also directly talks about God:

"We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution."

Why?

We know they believed certain rights came from God, and some them made the DI, but none of those made the Bill of Rights. Why would you believe they believed anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights (that doesn't even mention God) contained any rights from God when it doesn't contain the rights we know they believed came from God (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness)?

And even if you do believe they believed that right came from God, that doesn't really address why HE believes it. I can explain why people believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but that doesn't mean I believe it.