Bill Gates challenging the NRA and will use his money to promote background checks

[fskimospy]

What is your justification for regulating this right differently (apart from you being afraid of firearms)?

Didn't we have this discussion already? Why on earth would I be afraid of firearms? That's just a sad attempt to de-legitimize opinions you don't like. To turn it around, why do you want such unrestricted access to guns? Is it because you cower in fear from others all the time?

See how silly that is?

Again, why not background checks for automotive purchases? Or any other dangerous object that could be used somehow to create mass terror / casualties?

Because guns and cars aren't the same thing as cars are a far more integral part of our society. As with all regulations there is a balance to be struck, and the idea that the balance for a car and the balance for a gun would be the same is nonsensical.

 

[Knowing]

One can interpret the well regulated militia language to mean registration.

That would be intellectually disingenuous and the people doing it would be wrong.

registration is the low hanging fruit in the gun debate and most reasoned adults can have guns and wouldnt mind registering them.

I see no pressing reason to give "gun control" advocates anything.

wtf are you guys so afraid of? People knowing you have 400 guns in your basement? Me thinks thats a SMALL percentage of this debate that gets WAY too much attention.

What should I be afraid of? I'm a law abiding citizen.

I have six guns and I dont see a problem with this.

I have none, and I do. Feel free to register your guns with whomever you wish, but please stop assuming that just because you jump off the bridge I will feel moved to follow.

Seems to me the people who are afraid of this have something to hide.

I thought we moved past this rhetoric when everyone decided that the USA PATRIOT act was a bad idea.

 

[spidey07]

I love my free state of Kentucky. Walk into gun store, pick out multiple weapons, fill out 4473 form, walk out with my toys.

No background check is performed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps we should create a special class of Hillbillies, Hicks, and Red Necks that can register as such with the government and can own gun, buy and sell guns within that class without registering them, but City Slickers will have to register and pass background checks to do so. To maintain ones class status as a unregistered legal gun owner, perhaps you need only live work or own land in a classified rural area, i.e. not in a city limit.

 

[TerryMathews]

Perhaps we should create a special class of Hillbillies, Hicks, and Red Necks that can register as such with the government and can own gun, buy and sell guns within that class without registering them, but City Slickers will have to register and pass background checks to do so. To maintain ones class status as a unregistered legal gun owner, perhaps you need only live work or own land in a classified rural area, i.e. not in a city limit.

We've tried that. What ends up happening is the city slickers move out I to the country and try to transform it into liberal utopia. Just look at Colorado.

 

[dphantom]

Her right to privacy and abortion comes solely from the constitution

It is "derived" from the constitution. The USSC holds there is no compelling interest in the State to restrict abortion hence it can be allowed.

But it is not an enumerated right which may be where Terry is coming from.

 

[fskimospy]

It is "derived" from the constitution. The USSC holds there is no compelling interest in the State to restrict abortion hence it can be allowed.

But it is not an enumerated right which may be where Terry is coming from.

I'm not aware of any legal standard by which derived rights are treated any differently than enumerated rights. Isn't that the whole point of the 9th amendment?

The right to abortion is 100% as protected as the right to bear arms.

 

[TerryMathews]

It is "derived" from the constitution. The USSC holds there is no compelling interest in the State to restrict abortion hence it can be allowed.

But it is not an enumerated right which may be where Terry is coming from.

Yep

 

[senseamp]

gates and liberals hate the 2nd amendment. got it.

ps idiot liberals.

NRA is a collective of gun right supporters

Gates is a singular man trying to impose his utopia on you.

How is he trying to impose it? He is running paying for ads advocating his point of view. You are free to ignore them.

 

[Sattern]

I don't get why there has to be background checks...

It's my right to purchase a gun and I probably won't be able to retain ownership if this gets passed.

 

[dphantom]

I'm not aware of any legal standard by which derived rights are treated any differently than enumerated rights.

I did not say they were.

The right to abortion is 100% as protected as the right to bear arms.

Yes, today it is except the USSC derived the abortion right whereas the 2nd amendment explicitly defines a right.

At some other point in a future time, it may occur the USSC derives the right of an unborn child supersedes the right of the mother and changes that. Or for any other derived right.

I don't want to get caught up in abortion rights, as derived rights are treated exactly the same as any explicit right today.

 

[code65536]

Not liberal but independent. However, I wouldn't have a problem at all with Gates throwing down on the opposing side of the NRA for two reasons: He represents the majority will of the population, and it's about time the NRA has finally gotten a worthy adversary to deal with instead of the scattered disorganized opposition it's been able to easily stifle up to this point.

What Gates represents is a solid rallying point for the majority pro background check advocates. I think he's really on to something that's got real legs to stand on.

Huh? I thought that Bloomberg with his 30+ billion was the pro-sensibility banner in the gun debate? At least he has political experience, unlike Gates.

 

[fskimospy]

I did not say they were.

Yes, today it is except the USSC derived the abortion right whereas the 2nd amendment explicitly defines a right.

At some other point in a future time, it may occur the USSC derives the right of an unborn child supersedes the right of the mother and changes that. Or for any other derived right.

I don't want to get caught up in abortion rights, as derived rights are treated exactly the same as any explicit right today.

True, but at some other point in a future time SCOTUS may decide that gun ownership is a collective right and remove that from individuals, which is exactly what they had determined on numerous cases until recently.

I'm just saying there is no basis for saying one is more protected than the other. They are both subject to the whims of SCOTUS, but while they are on the books they are treated identically.

 

[nehalem256]

How is he trying to impose it? He is running paying for ads advocating his point of view. You are free to ignore them.

Do you say the same thing about the Koch brothers?^_^

 

[dphantom]

True, but at some other point in a future time SCOTUS may decide that gun ownership is a collective right and remove that from individuals, which is exactly what they had determined on numerous cases until recently.

I'm just saying there is no basis for saying one is more protected than the other. They are both subject to the whims of SCOTUS, but while they are on the books they are treated identically.

true as well though the bar is higher for explicit rights - at least in my opinion. Madison's writing's for example in reference to the Bill of Rights is actually quite explicit on the 2nd amendment and the right of the people - not just a "well regulated militia" to keep and bear arms.

Any Court will use legislative writings as well as the law to help the Court determine the intent of the lawmakers if that is necessary.

 

[dphantom]

Do you say the same thing about the Koch brothers?^_^

The Koch's, Bill Gates, Bloomberg, all very wealthy individuals promoting an agenda and should be viewed exactly the same. None are inherently worse than the other.

 

[BoberFett]

This thread is hilarious, and so very typical.

 

[trenchfoot]

Huh? I thought that Bloomberg with his 30+ billion was the pro-sensibility banner in the gun debate? At least he has political experience, unlike Gates.

Good point. IMO, the difference lies in the perceived public personas between the two. As a result, Gates will evoke a different kind of reaction than what Bloomberg experienced; a kind of reaction that, to me, will get more attention, and from Gates' particular point of view, a more positive and much more pro-active and popular reaction.

Anyway, it's just a hunch.

I look forward to how his getting involved plays out win or lose.

 

[fskimospy]

true as well though the bar is higher for explicit rights - at least in my opinion. Madison's writing's for example in reference to the Bill of Rights is actually quite explicit on the 2nd amendment and the right of the people - not just a "well regulated militia" to keep and bear arms.

SCOTUS interpreted the second amendment to be a collective right for far longer than it has interpreted the 2nd to be an individual right. This is a fairly recent development. It certainly seems plausible that it could go back the other way.

Additionally, it's very dangerous to take the views of a single person as representing what the Bill of Rights would mean. This is one of the reasons why I find constitutional originalism so ridiculous. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written by a whole bunch of people, many of whom had very different ideas about what things meant. Attempting to divine a collective intent out of such a group, who have on average been dead a couple centuries, is crazy IMO.


Any Court will use legislative writings as well as the law to help the Court determine the intent of the lawmakers if that is necessary.[/QUOTE]

 

[glenn1]

Didn't we have this discussion already? Why on earth would I be afraid of firearms? That's just a sad attempt to de-legitimize opinions you don't like. To turn it around, why do you want such unrestricted access to guns? Is it because you cower in fear from others all the time?

See how silly that is?

I don't cower in fear from others, which is exactly why I don't have a problem with people owning firearms. You on the other hand irrationally fear firearms owners and want these restrictions. The onus is on the person trying to restrict rights to prove the need for that restriction, not the person asserting the rights to justify them. As a liberal you should know better than anyone that we don't restrict rights just because someone else asserting them makes you feel uncomfortable or irrationally endangered. Gun control is no different than opposition to gay marriage in that respect.

Because guns and cars aren't the same thing as cars are a far more integral part of our society. As with all regulations there is a balance to be struck, and the idea that the balance for a car and the balance for a gun would be the same is nonsensical.

You can't simply assert without basis that guns are less integral to our society because it's true in your personal view. There are lots of places in this country where firearms are more integral to society than are cars. You could use your same logic to essentially ban cars in New York because "no one needs them" (due to mass transit) and your personal opposition to them for emissions or other reasons.

 

[dphantom]

SCOTUS interpreted the second amendment to be a collective right for far longer than it has interpreted the 2nd to be an individual right. This is a fairly recent development. It certainly seems plausible that it could go back the other way.

Perhaps not....

The Supreme Court decided that a slave could not be a citizen because if he were a citizen, he would be entitled to enjoy all the rights which American citizens enjoy by reason of their citizenship, rights which the "courts would be bound to maintain and enforce," including the rights "to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Scott v. Sandford, 1857 60 US 691, 705


"The people's right to bear arms, like the rights of assembly and petition, existed long before the Constitution, and is not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." This ruling also upheld that all able bodied males are members of the militia (one of three such clear rulings).
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876 92 US 542, 553

"All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve militia, and the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to disable the people from performing the (militia) duty to the general government."
Presser v. Illinois, 1886 116 US 252

"Individuals have a right to possess and use firearms for self-defense."
U.S. v. Beard, 1895 158 US 550

 

[fskimospy]

I don't cower in fear from others, which is exactly why I don't have a problem with people owning firearms. You on the other hand irrationally fear firearms owners and want these restrictions. The onus is on the person trying to restrict rights to prove the need for that restriction, not the person asserting the rights to justify them. As a liberal you should know better than anyone that we don't restrict rights just because someone else asserting them makes you feel uncomfortable or irrationally endangered. Gun control is no different than opposition to gay marriage in that respect.

You can't simply assert without basis that I irrationally fear firearms. The only reason you're doing that is because you don't want to address arguments for gun control on the merits. If you change your mind, please write that you acknowledge gun control advocates do not need to irrationally fear firearms in order to support gun control.

If you can't do that, you're simply not in a rational place to discuss the issue.

You can't simply assert without basis that guns are less integral to our society because it's true in your personal view. There are lots of places in this country where firearms are more integral to society than are cars. You could use your same logic to essentially ban cars in New York because "no one needs them" (due to mass transit) and your personal opposition to them for emissions or other reasons.

Have you ever been to NYC? There are cars everywhere.

There are not in fact lots of places in this country where firearms are more integral to society than cars. I'm sure they exist, but the percentage of the population that lives in such areas is vanishingly small.

Look at how often the average American uses a car in their lives, what amount of their lifestyle depends on ownership of a car, the relationship between cars and our economy, etc, etc, etc and then come back and try to tell me with a straight face that the US would suffer less from a lack of ability for individuals to have cars than from a lack of ability for individuals to have guns.

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps not....

The Supreme Court decided that a slave could not be a citizen because if he were a citizen, he would be entitled to enjoy all the rights which American citizens enjoy by reason of their citizenship, rights which the "courts would be bound to maintain and enforce," including the rights "to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Scott v. Sandford, 1857 60 US 691, 705

Non-binding dicta. No holding was made on the second amendment.

"The people's right to bear arms, like the rights of assembly and petition, existed long before the Constitution, and is not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." This ruling also upheld that all able bodied males are members of the militia (one of three such clear rulings).
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876 92 US 542, 553

Non-binding dicta. No holding was made on whether or not the second amendment conferred an individual right to bear arms.

"All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve militia, and the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to disable the people from performing the (militia) duty to the general government."
Presser v. Illinois, 1886 116 US 252

The seventh circuit on Presser:

As we have noted, the parties agree that Presser is controlling, but disagree as to what Presser held. It is difficult to understand how appellants can assert that Presser supports the theory that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right which the state cannot regulate when the Presser decision plainly states that "[t]he Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government . . . " . . . As the district court explained in detail, appellants' claim that Presser supports the proposition that the second amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms is not subject to state restriction is based on dicta quoted out of context... This argument borders on the frivolous and does not warrant any further consideration.

Additionally, to quote DC v. Heller, this is the current controlling SCOTUS opinion on Presser:

Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s
meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent
the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.

"Individuals have a right to possess and use firearms for self-defense."
U.S. v. Beard, 1895 158 US 550

Non-binding dicta. This case dealt with the permissibility of self defense.

When the Supreme Court decides a case, it decides the matter before them. That is the only part of their ruling that truly matters. In the cases before Heller that had to do with the individual right to bear arms, it was only upheld as a collective right.

BTW I support the individual right to bear arms, but we need to have our facts straight.

 

[code65536]

Have you ever been to NYC? There are cars everywhere.

There are not in fact lots of places in this country where firearms are more integral to society than cars. I'm sure they exist, but the percentage of the population that lives in such areas is vanishingly small.

Look at how often the average American uses a car in their lives, what amount of their lifestyle depends on ownership of a car, the relationship between cars and our economy, etc, etc, etc and then come back and try to tell me with a straight face that the US would suffer less from a lack of ability for individuals to have cars than from a lack of ability for individuals to have guns.

Absolutely ridiculous.

The more salient point is that the use of cars is "well-regulated" (hmm, where else have I see those two words?). Licenses, tests, etc. Because, you know, cars can kill.

Somehow, the 2nd Amendment crowd got it into their heads that any form of regulation is a slippery slope that invariably leads to outright prohibition.

There are some countries with very sensible gun laws. Where to own a gun, you must pass not only a background check, but also a licensing test to make sure that you know how to operate it properly and safely. That's not a prohibition. And that's the kind of thing that the NRA used to support, before its leadership was replaced by hardline zealots. There was a time when the NRA was about promoting marksmanship and safety and less about slippery-slope FUD.

 

[fskimospy]

The more salient point is that the use of cars is "well-regulated" (hmm, where else have I see those two words?). Licenses, tests, etc. Because, you know, cars can kill.

Somehow, the 2nd Amendment crowd got it into their heads that any form of regulation is a slippery slope that invariably leads to outright prohibition.

There are some countries with very sensible gun laws. Where to own a gun, you must pass not only a background check, but also a licensing test to make sure that you know how to operate it properly and safely. That's not a prohibition. And that's the kind of thing that the NRA used to support, before its leadership was released by hardline zealots. There was a time when the NRA was about promoting marksmanship and safety and less about slippery-slope FUD.

Very good points!