[Assail]

worrywort, on 25 February 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

Once again, it is not illegal (or against the 2nd Amendment) to regulate guns or restrict gun ownership, or to propose a bill that does so. All states already do this to one degree or another, as does the federal government. This state legislator literally proposed a bill that would criminalize as a felon anyone who proposes any bill along these lines, whether it's reasonable or not. It's not a matter of perspective, he already did this, and my original post links to the language of the bill. You're taking a hypothetical stance on an actual, real world event that requires no guesswork or speculation.

And to answer your question, no, proposing a bill that is unconstitutional is not against the law. Your bill either passes or it doesn't, and if it does, then its constitutionality gets sussed out by the judicial system. You aren't guilty of any crime for proposing that bill. Except this particular legislator feels that you should be.

The general outcry from anti-gun lobbyists isn't just talking about reducing magazine size, or "assault weapons", they're talking about abolishing the second amendment (http://progreso-week...02009&Itemid=60 Just one of many articles found easily). I'm not denying that states don't regulate guns, or even that the federal government doesn't impose regulations upon guns, but the issue isn't the standing regulations--it's the outcry to restrict even more, or abolish the 2nd amendment outright. That's the nature of the representative's proposal, at least as I see it. And since when did a proposed bill stop being open to perspective? Obviously I understand a different facet of this proposal than you do, thus our argument.

I can agree to your last statement, and can agree that proposing something unconstitutional isn't deserving of a felony charge; however, like I said earlier, his proposed bill is targeting those who seek to circumvent a Constitutional law. It's not a bill proposing that they be charged as felons for legislators proposing bills to increase gun regulation, but bills that inhibit the allowance to bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment.

It's a very fine line, and I understand that. Mainly because at what point would challenging the Constitution be seen as an attempt to inhibit Constitutional rights?

I agree with the spirit of his proposal, if not his method.

Obdigore, on 25 February 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

fact that public pools kill more individuals than guns.

This is a straight up lie. I would imagine they are taking this Op-Ed out of context, as the whole gun-rights lobby is doing.

http://scienceblogs....ittpoolsvsguns/

Welcome to taking shit out of context.

Moot point. There isn't a side of any argument that doesn't take things out of context in order to further their own point. I could go ahead and pull up all the bullshit debate on the Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 and show you how the whole gun-control lobby is taking context and shitting on it.

Just saying though

[HoosierDaddy]

Assail, on 25 February 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

worrywort, on 25 February 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

Once again, it is not illegal (or against the 2nd Amendment) to regulate guns or restrict gun ownership, or to propose a bill that does so. All states already do this to one degree or another, as does the federal government. This state legislator literally proposed a bill that would criminalize as a felon anyone who proposes any bill along these lines, whether it's reasonable or not. It's not a matter of perspective, he already did this, and my original post links to the language of the bill. You're taking a hypothetical stance on an actual, real world event that requires no guesswork or speculation.

And to answer your question, no, proposing a bill that is unconstitutional is not against the law. Your bill either passes or it doesn't, and if it does, then its constitutionality gets sussed out by the judicial system. You aren't guilty of any crime for proposing that bill. Except this particular legislator feels that you should be.

The general outcry from anti-gun lobbyists isn't just talking about reducing magazine size, or "assault weapons", they're talking about abolishing the second amendment (http://progreso-week...02009&Itemid=60 Just one of many articles found easily). I'm not denying that states don't regulate guns, or even that the federal government doesn't impose regulations upon guns, but the issue isn't the standing regulations--it's the outcry to restrict even more, or abolish the 2nd amendment outright. That's the nature of the representative's proposal, at least as I see it. And since when did a proposed bill stop being open to perspective? Obviously I understand a different facet of this proposal than you do, thus our argument.

I can agree to your last statement, and can agree that proposing something unconstitutional isn't deserving of a felony charge; however, like I said earlier, his proposed bill is targeting those who seek to circumvent a Constitutional law. It's not a bill proposing that they be charged as felons for legislators proposing bills to increase gun regulation, but bills that inhibit the allowance to bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment.

It's a very fine line, and I understand that. Mainly because at what point would challenging the Constitution be seen as an attempt to inhibit Constitutional rights?

I agree with the spirit of his proposal, if not his method.

Obdigore, on 25 February 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

fact that public pools kill more individuals than guns.

This is a straight up lie. I would imagine they are taking this Op-Ed out of context, as the whole gun-rights lobby is doing.

http://scienceblogs....ittpoolsvsguns/

Welcome to taking shit out of context.

Moot point. There isn't a side of any argument that doesn't take things out of context in order to further their own point. I could go ahead and pull up all the bullshit debate on the Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 and show you how the whole gun-control lobby is taking context and shitting on it.

Just saying though

Dude, what in the actual fuck point are you trying to get across?

It's an attempt to criminalize the MOST IMPORTANT FOUNDATION OF THE CONSTITUTION: THAT IT CAN BE AMENDED.

[Obdigore]

Assail, on 25 February 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Moot point. There isn't a side of any argument that doesn't take things out of context in order to further their own point. I could go ahead and pull up all the bullshit debate on the Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 and show you how the whole gun-control lobby is taking context and shitting on it.

Just saying though

False equivalence ahoy!

[Assail]

Ohhhh, thus trivializing any attempt to deny the Second amendment to citizens?

I understand what you're saying, but how is it any less of a deal than people pushing for the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment besides the fact that he has the opportunity to present it as a bill?

Is that in the actual fuck the point you're trying to get across? That one is worse than the other? I don't think that's how it works.

[Assail]

Obdigore, on 25 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Assail, on 25 February 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Moot point. There isn't a side of any argument that doesn't take things out of context in order to further their own point. I could go ahead and pull up all the bullshit debate on the Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 and show you how the whole gun-control lobby is taking context and shitting on it.

Just saying though

False equivalence ahoy!

How's that chart treating you? I'll bet you 1+ rep that it's your desktop background

[Obdigore]

Assail, on 25 February 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 25 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Assail, on 25 February 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Moot point. There isn't a side of any argument that doesn't take things out of context in order to further their own point. I could go ahead and pull up all the bullshit debate on the Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 and show you how the whole gun-control lobby is taking context and shitting on it.

Just saying though

False equivalence ahoy!

How's that chart treating you? I'll bet you 1+ rep that it's your desktop background

You would lose that bet. My work background is from The IT Crowd. My home background is alien and predator playing chess. Good attempt at dodging the point, though.

[worry]

The SPIRIT of his proposal is that legislators who disagree with him on this issue and want to do something about it at the Missouri state level should be convicted of a Class D Felony. That's why it's 45 words long and demands only that one thing. We don't understand different facets of this bill...I am factually correct and you are factually incorrect. I understand you have a POV on this overall debate and I hope you present it -- for as you say, you've come late and have much to say -- but grafting that on this man's overt attempt to suppress an opposing view is only going to hurt your case.

[worry]

Assail, on 25 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I understand what you're saying, but how is it any less of a deal than people pushing for the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment besides the fact that he has the opportunity to present it as a bill?

A state legislator cannot amend the U.S. Constitution nor abolish an existing amendment. It is literally impossible for that to be the reasoning for this bill unless this elected state official has no grasp of the branches of government or federal/state/etc. levels.

[Assail]

Obdigore, on 25 February 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Assail, on 25 February 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 25 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Assail, on 25 February 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Moot point. There isn't a side of any argument that doesn't take things out of context in order to further their own point. I could go ahead and pull up all the bullshit debate on the Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 and show you how the whole gun-control lobby is taking context and shitting on it.

Just saying though

False equivalence ahoy!

How's that chart treating you? I'll bet you 1+ rep that it's your desktop background

You would lose that bet. My work background is from The IT Crowd. My home background is alien and predator playing chess. Good attempt at dodging the point, though.

I don't believe you. Okay, I'll bite. False equivalence is used when ones rhetorical position is compromised and one hasn't thought it through completely, or if one needs to rally support from people whose views are only expressed through talking points or who can't come to a logical conclusion on their own.

I came to a logical conclusion. One that encompasses telling you that your point is moot. I then alluded to my example... which I offered to pull up, which I'm sure you're expecting me to do so.

If I cared enough, I'd go read your chart and look for the term that encompasses "throwing out rhetorical terminology in place of actual argument because I have nothing to offer up to the thread", and tell you what it is. But at the end of the day, it's just a waste of my time lol.

[worry]

I don't want to assume anything, but in case you just skimmed the original article I posted I want to clarify: this isn't a US representative from Missouri, it's a state representative in Missouri. There is literally zero threat that one of his peers can affect the 2nd Amendment.

[Assail]

worrywort, on 25 February 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

The SPIRIT of his proposal is that legislators who disagree with him on this issue and want to do something about it at the Missouri state level should be convicted of a Class D Felony. That's why it's 45 words long and demands only that one thing. We don't understand different facets of this bill...I am factually correct and you are factually incorrect. I understand you have a POV on this overall debate and I hope you present it -- for as you say, you've come late and have much to say -- but grafting that on this man's overt attempt to suppress an opposing view is only going to hurt your case.

That's where I disagree, and I'm not going to type out for the third time my idea of what he's trying to get across in the bill. It's a matter of perception in regards to whatever you think the man is up to.

As for my overall POV, I figured I'd wait for a better segue into it instead of just sticking it right out there, but it seems the more I go on the less likely that is. Probably tomorrow I'll go over my view on gun control and the second amendment, as that's what this thread is about overall.

I'm not grafting anything onto his point, I'm merely stating that I agree with what I perceive to be the spirit of his bill/endeavor.

worrywort, on 25 February 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Assail, on 25 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I understand what you're saying, but how is it any less of a deal than people pushing for the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment besides the fact that he has the opportunity to present it as a bill?

A state legislator cannot amend the U.S. Constitution nor abolish an existing amendment. It is literally impossible for that to be the reasoning for this bill unless this elected state official has no grasp of the branches of government or federal/state/etc. levels.

I understand this, and completely realize the futility of such actions, but that's not the point we're talking about here right? I'm wondering why people find it so absolutely abhorrent that this legislator is pushing for a bill that is in almost direct defiance of what the Constitution stands for, but turn around and can find the idea of reducing the allowances of the second amendment to be something completely acceptable.

[Obdigore]

Assail, on 25 February 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

I understand this, and completely realize the futility of such actions, but that's not the point we're talking about here right? I'm wondering why people find it so absolutely abhorrent that this legislator is pushing for a bill that is in almost direct defiance of what the Constitution stands for, but turn around and can find the idea of reducing the allowances of the second amendment to be something completely acceptable.

So your stance is that

1) The second amendment allows any citizen to have any weapon at any time?
and
2) The second amendment applies to states as well as just the Federal Government?

[LinearPhilosopher]

Obdigore, on 25 February 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

fact that public pools kill more individuals than guns.

This is a straight up lie. I would imagine they are taking this Op-Ed out of context, as the whole gun-rights lobby is doing.

http://scienceblogs....ittpoolsvsguns/

Welcome to taking shit out of context.

I forgot to specify children, inattention to detail, it happens.

[Gnaw]

The fucktards's bill has zero chance of becoming law.
It criminalizes speech.

[D'rek]

@Assail - there's no inherent ultimate defense of the constitution or any of its amendments. The 18th amendment was repealed, so obviously a whole lot of people had to think it was a bad amendment to have at that time. The same conversation is going on now about whether the 2nd amendment is any good or not. Statesmen proposing new laws and bills is a part of that conversation.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

From an outsider's point of view, what I see is continued discussion and debate on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, not talk of abolishing it. The inclusion or exclusion of the "well regulated militia" portion of the text and what it means has been debated for years and debates will likely continue in that vein for many more years. Both the federal and state governments will continue to enact and repeal laws restricting the sale, use etc. of certain weapons and every once in a while the Supreme Court will weigh in and say "no, you can't stop someone from owning/doing that." Most of which will depend on which party is in power and/or has appointed the judges who are sitting in the Supreme Court.

Introducing a bill that violates both federal and state constitutions (not even counting free speech), when there has been no discussion or conversation regarding repealing the rights you are now trying to make criminal, is just plain bad form.

And seriously, control your guns. Criminals ship them here and we don't want them.

[Obdigore]

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 25 February 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

fact that public pools kill more individuals than guns.

This is a straight up lie. I would imagine they are taking this Op-Ed out of context, as the whole gun-rights lobby is doing.

http://scienceblogs....ittpoolsvsguns/

Welcome to taking shit out of context.

I forgot to specify children, inattention to detail, it happens.

Pools kill more children under 10 than guns do. Is that really the 'rallying cry' that guns aren't dangerous? Aren't there laws in place requiring things like fences around pools and lifeguards at public pools? Anything in place like that for firearms? Y/N?.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Obdigore, on 26 February 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 25 February 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

fact that public pools kill more individuals than guns.

This is a straight up lie. I would imagine they are taking this Op-Ed out of context, as the whole gun-rights lobby is doing.

http://scienceblogs....ittpoolsvsguns/

Welcome to taking shit out of context.

I forgot to specify children, inattention to detail, it happens.

Pools kill more children under 10 than guns do. Is that really the 'rallying cry' that guns aren't dangerous? Aren't there laws in place requiring things like fences around pools and lifeguards at public pools? Anything in place like that for firearms? Y/N?.

Did you even listen to the clip? There's no rallying cry around it.

[Obdigore]

BalrogLord, on 26 February 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 26 February 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 25 February 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

fact that public pools kill more individuals than guns.

This is a straight up lie. I would imagine they are taking this Op-Ed out of context, as the whole gun-rights lobby is doing.

http://scienceblogs....ittpoolsvsguns/

Welcome to taking shit out of context.

I forgot to specify children, inattention to detail, it happens.

Pools kill more children under 10 than guns do. Is that really the 'rallying cry' that guns aren't dangerous? Aren't there laws in place requiring things like fences around pools and lifeguards at public pools? Anything in place like that for firearms? Y/N?.

Did you even listen to the clip? There's no rallying cry around it.

Do you keep trying to throw other random information out there to cloud the real issue?

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 26 February 2013 - 01:29 PM

[LinearPhilosopher]

Obdigore, on 26 February 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 26 February 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 26 February 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 25 February 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

fact that public pools kill more individuals than guns.

This is a straight up lie. I would imagine they are taking this Op-Ed out of context, as the whole gun-rights lobby is doing.

http://scienceblogs....ittpoolsvsguns/

Welcome to taking shit out of context.

I forgot to specify children, inattention to detail, it happens.

Pools kill more children under 10 than guns do. Is that really the 'rallying cry' that guns aren't dangerous? Aren't there laws in place requiring things like fences around pools and lifeguards at public pools? Anything in place like that for firearms? Y/N?.

Did you even listen to the clip? There's no rallying cry around it.

Do you keep trying to throw other random information out there to cloud the real issue?

no i plan on throwing information to improve the quality of discussion by increasing the relevance of the information provided. It's not a question of clouding the issue, it's providing more information for better decisions/reasoning.