An objective of the RKBA

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Excessive limits on the RKBA are not in general steps toward tyranny.
Rather it is the maintaining of said rights and freedoms which demonstrate that tyranny is absent.

The RKBA is a demonstration of trust in the individual and I submit that, if individuals can't be trusted with guns, they surely can't be trusted with votes.

[Eleanors38]

1. I agree that the RKBA is an implicit statement of trust in the citizenry, unique in

the world. It is also an indication that the Founders had a strong trust in our constitutional democracy.

[stone space]

2. I don't trust this guy.

The RKBA is a demonstration of trust in the individual and I submit that, if individuals can't be trusted with guns

Are you one of those who wanted him to be allowed to have his guns, and who trusted him with his guns?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. I could be wrong but I believe that guy is jail

If he's in jail, he's there because due process resulted in his conviction and he cannot have any guns.

I trust everyone until I have a reason not to.
The governments have folks in their employ who are in the suspicion business. I trust them a bit less.

My short answer is yes, until a conviction or other reason for prohibition of the NICS list, I support the RKBA for all people in the US subject to federal and state law.

If you feel that he shouldn't have been permitted to acquire firearms, please outline on what that denial should be based.


(Feel free not to answer as 'an inability to actually refute an opponent's argument is a concession that the argument is true.'

[stone space]

6. He's not in jail. He killed himself after engaging in a bloody massacre.

I could be wrong but I believe that guy is jail

He was allowed to keep his guns even after terrorizing all those families at the #OCCUPYPHEONIX encampment.

Notice how the cops just stand there and let him threaten everybody.

That's on the NRA and their deplorable minions who wanted this guy to be heavily armed so he could start massacring people.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. I missed this earlier

Those murders were despicable. I think Ready was probably unstable and should have been on the prohibited list with the NICS. I don't know how he acquired his weapons.

He was allowed to keep his guns even after terrorizing all those families at the #OCCUPYPHEONIX encampment.

JT Ready killed family members and himself in acts (AFAIK) unconnected with the Occupy Phoenix demonstration.
Since he should have been prohibited from buying weapons, your beef there should be with the Army and/or the FBI; someone dropped the ball.

Notice how the cops just stand there and let him threaten everybody.

I watched the video. I didn't notice any threats. If you did, your beef is with the cops.

That's on the NRA and their deplorable minions who wanted this guy to be heavily armed so he could start massacring people.

I know of no specific NRA role in the events.

[beevul]

12. I don't trust you.

Whats the difference.

[stone space]

15. I respect you enough to not carry a gun.

I don't trust you.

Whats the difference.

JT Ready didn't respect anybody. Not the people at the occupy encampment who he threatened with impunity, nor the people he later massacred.

I'm not asking you to trust me with a gun. You have no reason to trust me. And it would be an unreasonable request on my part if I did.

[beevul]

16. Like hell you do.

If you had any respect for people like me, you wouldn't be trying to dictate the choices available to us, and you'd be focusing on the problem individuals and the things that cause them to misbehave instead.

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that its your words that matter, rather than your actions.

[stone space]

17. Wow. I'm not sure what's got you so upset here.

Like hell you do.

If you had any respect for people like me, you wouldn't be trying to dictate the choices available to us, and you'd be focusing on the problem individuals and the things that cause them to misbehave instead.

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that its your words that matter, rather than your actions.

I told you that I respect you.

I would never carry a gun.

I'm not JT Ready.

He forced his guns on those innocent people at that #occupyphoenix encampment, and massacred 4 people, including a 15 month old baby girl.

That wasn't me. That was him.

I already told you that I won't carry a gun, out of respect for you, especially after you said that you don't trust me. It would be wrong for me to carry a gun when you don't trust me.

[Marengo]

33. Do you trust him to carry a gun? Trust him enough not to demand the government prevent him...

From carrying a gun?

[stone space]

34. Of course not.

Do you trust him to carry a gun?

Don't be silly.

[Marengo]

35. Why don't you trust Beevul to carry a gun? What has he done to earn your distrust?

[stone space]

36. For the same reason that he doesnt trust me.

I'm wasn't offended.

Why are you?



In fact, I agreed to not carry any guns, out of respect for him.

He has no reason to trust me with guns, any more than I would have a reason to trust him with guns.

[Marengo]

42. Am I to assume that fundamentally you distrust anyone with firearms? Other than to say...

He didn't trust you, what has he done, what action has he taken, to earn your distrust? I'm not offended, I'm somewhat puzzled by your view point.

[beevul]

82. Who said I was upset?

Wow. I'm not sure what's got you so upset here.

Who said I was upset? Oh that's right, you did.

I told you that I respect you.

Yet you show nothing but disrespect at every opportunity.

I already told you that I won't carry a gun, out of respect for you, especially after you said that you don't trust me.

You wouldn't carry a gun if it meant another 5 thousand dollars a year in salary either. Your choice not to carry has got nothing to do with me or you respecting me.That you seem not to realize that every last one of us know that this is the case where you are concerned...well...I don't know whether to feel insulted because you seem to think everyone is blindingly stupid, or sorry for you for having the requisite lack of self awareness.

It would be wrong for me to carry a gun when you don't trust me.

Mine and others trust is not required for you to carry a gun, nor is your trust required for me or others. Sorry.

[Marengo]

13. Who do you trust with firearms?

[stone space]

23. It doesn't matter.

Who do you trust with firearms?

There are cases where all reasonable people of good faith can agree that the person can't be trusted with guns. We don't even need to consider cases where we would disagree.

Take George Zimmerman, for example.

He most certainly has demonstrated that he can't be trusted with gun privileges, but he still has a right to vote, IMNSHO.

[Marengo]

26. I didn't ask who you don't trust, rather who you do trust with firearms. Can you answer?

[stone space]

28. Again, it doesn't matter.

I didn't ask who you don't trust, rather who you do trust with firearms. Can you answer?

So long as we both agree that there exists at least one person who can't be trusted with guns, the statement in the OP is a call for disenfranchisement.

Focusing on our disagreements is besides the point here.

I'm talking about that which all reasonable people can agree on.

People who both you and I agree can't be trusted with guns.

I don't want them disenfranchised, because the right to vote is a basic and fundamental human and civil right.

[Marengo]

30. You appear to be dodging as my question stands on it's own. Why can't you answer?

Are you unable, or unwilling?

[stone space]

38. The OP doesn't advocate disenfranchising folks who CAN be trusted with guns.

The OP DOES advocate disenfranchising folks who can NOT be trusted with guns.

That's what I am objecting to here.

I'm standing up for human and civil rights of folks who can NOT be trusted with guns.

Those are the people whose voting rights are under attack in the OP.

So no, I'm not going to change the subject.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. Just to narrow the focus...

...perhaps you could identify generically who "can NOT be trusted with guns."

[stone space]

41. For purposes of this discussion, that would be...

...the intersection of the set of all people who I believe can not be trusted with guns and the set of all people who you believe can not be trusted with guns.

Just to narrow the focus...

...perhaps you could identify generically who "can NOT be trusted with guns."

For example, one element of this set might be George Zimmerman, provided, of course, that you don't believe that he can be trusted with guns.

If George is not in the intersection of the two sets that I mentioned above, then perhaps we can find another element of that set.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. I understand your set description

I was asking for a criteria based qualification.

[stone space]

44. As you are the bottleneck here, not me, that's pretty much out of my hands.

I understand your set description

I was asking for a criteria based qualification.

Is Zimmerman in the intersection or not?

I can't tell you that. That's something that you will have to tell me, since, again, I'm not the bottleneck.

I do know that Zimmerman is in at least one of the two sets being intersected, but only you can tell me if he is in both.

[Marengo]

46. How does Beevul fall into the same intersection as Zimmerman? What similarities are there?

[stone space]

49. Are you assuming that Beevul is in the intersection?

How does Beevul fall into the same intersection as Zimmerman?

Interesting...

[Marengo]

50. Do you, or do you not, trust Beevul with guns. Do you, or do you not, trust Zimmerman with guns?

[stone space]

51. No and no.

Do you, or do you not, trust Beevul with guns. Do you, or do you not, trust Zimmerman with guns?

But that puts neither Beevul nor Zimmerman in the intersection of the two sets, as I have no control over the second set being intersected.

You'll have to ask him the same two questions that I just answered for you, and then maybe we can finally get somewhere.

[Marengo]

61. What about Beevul and Zimmerman are similar to cause you not to trust either?

[stone space]

64. Do you believe that Beevul and Zimmerman are similar?

What about Beevul and Zimmerman are similar to cause you not to trust either?

Wow!

Interesting...I'm not sure what to make of that.

[Marengo]

66. I'm not quite sure what to make of your apparent difficulty following your own train of thought.

YOU said neither could be trusted with firearms. By what metrics do you judge each not trustworthy? Is there one or more similar characteristics?

[Marengo]

68. Are there any character or trait based intersections between the two within your set?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. I infer that you are unable to answer the question

You don't have a criteria based idea(s) of who should not qualify to own a gun.

[stone space]

48. For the most part I don't control the criteria for the intersection.

You do.

Is Zimmerman in the intersection or isn't he?

He's in the one set that is under my control, but the other set being interested is under your control.

Is he in it or not?

You need to tell me.

I can't tell you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. I guess you don't

I am again asking for the criteria which determine you set.
I have not much interest in discussing particular individuals as much as I would the criteria used in the determination.

[stone space]

54. You want to disenfranchise people and you don't even know who they are?

Weird.

I don't even know what to make of that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Perhaps you could hold up your end of the discussion...

...by answering the question.

[stone space]

58. Both Beevul and Zimmerman are in the set under my control.

Perhaps you could hold up your end of the discussion...

...by answering the question.

'

Your turn.

We'll get this figured out yet!

I know we can do it!

Together, you and I can figure out whether Zimmerman and Beevul are in the intersection.

We'll just put our heads together!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Actually, I'll leave it you to make the determination who is a member of your set

I'm unable to answer your question and you refuse to answer mine.

[stone space]

63. I answered. You didn't.

Actually, I'll leave it you to make the determination who is a member of your set

I'm unable to answer your question and you refuse to answer mine.

Is defending a call to disenfranchise anybody who can't be trusted with a gun in the OP really worth all this evasion on your part?

If you could defend it, there'd be no need for evasion.

But you can't.

So you won't say whether or not you believe that Zimmerman can be trusted with guns.

...and I submit that, if individuals can't be trusted with guns, they surely can't be trusted with votes

That's quite pathetic.

I mean, if you can't defend disenfranchising somebody as unsympathetic as Zimmerman and stripping him of his right to vote, then how can you possibly defend it in general?

Come on, by using Zimmerman as an example, I was making it easy on you.

Or do I need to think of somebody even more unsympathetic to apply your disenfranchisement logic to?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

77. re: "I answered. You didn't."

Apparently you're operating with a defective definition of "answered".

[stone space]

78. Tired of the diversions and deflections.

I just did a counterpoint OP with the opposing viewpoint to your OP, instead.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172200221

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. I'm happy for you n/t

[Marengo]

62. Why are they in the same set under your control?

[stone space]

65. Because they both satisfy the condition for set membership.

Why are they in the same set under your control?

[Marengo]

67. And that condition would be?

[stone space]

69. I don't trust them with guns.

And that condition would be?

[Marengo]

70. Why not? Based on what criteria?

[stone space]

71. Why are you so obsessed about this?

[Marengo]

72. Why are you so reluctant to answer? It's very odd, as if you are fearful to answer. You must have...

well established criteria to base a judgement as to whether or not an individual, or groups, cannot be trusted with firearms. It would have required MUCH less time and effort to simple list those rather than obviously avoid the question. Why don't you want to share this information? Why would you not want any one to know? It's very peculiar.

[stone space]

76. What is this fear thing all about?

It's very odd, as if you are fearful to answer.

Is this some sort of primate display of dominance or something?

[Marengo]

80. Why won't you answer the question? If not out of fear, than why the reluctance?

[stone space]

81. Again, fear. Is fear the only way you have to assert dominance?

If not out of fear, than why the reluctance?

You have a tactic, but what is your goal?

What is achieved?

[Marengo]

90. Why won't you answer the question? What am I to assume is the reason for your reluctance to do so?

[Duckhunter935]

92. He does that a lot

He also has had several posts locked for clearly breaking the SOP. Even after being told by the host nicely the reason, he continued posting threads and disrespecting the group host.

[Marengo]

45. What metrics, in general terms, do you base a belief someone is not to be trusted...

With firearms?

[Duckhunter935]

73. He won't answer

[Marengo]

74. Apparently not. One is left to wonder why.

[Duckhunter935]

75. He never answers simple questions

He runs away or changes the subject. Every so often he just just responds sadly with insults.

[stone space]

83. Why are you baiting and engaging in personal insults?

He never answers simple questions

He runs away or changes the subject. Every so often he just just responds sadly with insults.

What's that all about?

[Duckhunter935]

85. Unfortunately what has happened

In dozens of encounters with you have proven them to be factual. I am sorry if you take that as insulting. I apapologizto you sir, but they are facts.

[stone space]

86. Your insults are not facts. They are just personal insults.

[Duckhunter935]

87. Which ones?

That you do not answer questions?

That you run away when called to respond to questions?

That you insult people? You really do not want me to go there.

[stone space]

88. Do you have anything besides insults?

Because your insults are starting to really bore me.

You haven't even been a part of this discussion.

[beevul]

89. They're accurate observations of your behavior.

If you find that insulting, behave differently.

[Duckhunter935]

91. Indeed, that is true

[Marengo]

100. Where did you run off to? Lots of pending questions here, crickets are gathering.

[Marengo]

93. Prove him wrong by answering my simple questions...

1. What criteria do you apply to determine you do not trust a person with firearms?
2. What condition has Beevul met to fall within your do not trust set?

[Duckhunter935]

94. You really expect an answer?

[Marengo]

95. I've been engaging him under the assumption he was participating in good faith. Perhaps...

I was mistaken. The evidence would seem to suggest so.

[DonP]

96. 5+ irrelevant flame bait threads locked in a few days and our genial host is reaching his limits

With a total lack of self control, methinks he is on his way out the door.

Very hard to do in the Group.

[Duckhunter935]

98. Yes indeed, the host here is the best

At allowing open discussion as long it even is remotely related to the SOP. Takes a lot to rule him up, he has given several kind warnings that have just been blown off in a very disrespectful way.

[Eleanors38]

97. Heh. The very long strand appearing on the screen should tip you off...

A lot of folks think the game of dodgeball was banned in schools because it allowed some kids to bully others. I don't agree.

It was just plain boring.

[stone space]

3. Why are you opposed to the right to vote?

if individuals can't be trusted with guns, they surely can't be trusted with votes.

I strongly believe that convicted inmates who are currently serving prison sentences have an absolute right to vote from their prison cells, and that this right should be respected by governmental authorities.

No, we can't give prison inmates guns, but...

Just because somebody can't be trusted with guns is not a reason to disenfranchise them of their most basic and fundamental human and civil rights, as you suggest here.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. re: "Why are you opposed to the right to vote?"

I'm not opposed to voting. I was pointing out an issue about trust.

[stone space]

7. I'm talking about disenfranchised inmates who neither of us trust to have AR-15s in their cells.

re: "Why are you opposed to the right to vote?"

I'm not opposed to voting. I was pointing out an issue about trust.

You don't trust them with guns, and I don't either.

Why do you want them disenfranchised?

The Right to Vote is a basic and fundamental human and civil right.

It's not something that you should take away from people simply because you don't trust them with deadly weapons.

That's undemocratic.

Disenfranchisement is deplorable.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. The R E A L L Y short answer

I don't. I typed slowly just for you.

[stone space]

9. Too short. You don't what? Don't trust them with votes, or don't stand by your OP?

if individuals can't be trusted with guns, they surely can't be trusted with votes.

Because your OP sure reads like a call to disenfranchise anybody who can't be trusted with guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. The only question in your reply (post #7):

Why do you want them disenfranchised?

My answer: "I don't."

It is time for you to shift it into neutral because you missed the point of the OP.

In case you'd like help with that -
A- Excessive limits on the RKBA are not in general steps toward tyranny.
I say this because many governments place limits, some of which are excessive, on their people's RKBA. This doesn't mean such countries have tyranny. While tyranny will usually enforce severe limits on arms, the limits do not innately bring tyranny.

B- Rather it is the maintaining of said rights and freedoms which demonstrate that tyranny is absent.
I say this because, as I said above, "While tyranny will usually enforce severe limits on arms, the limits do not innately bring tyranny." I value a government making the effort to demonstrate it being subject to the people rather than the reverse.


My final musing is my own inference of a thought of the Founders. They instituted a form of government respectful of the pre-existing state governments and of the people in general. In reading the 10th Amendment: (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) acknowledges that relationship. The vote in local, state and federal matters and elections is another demonstration of the effort to trust the people. I can in specific see voting rights being removed for certain acts but not for crimes in general. I think some states impose that but I'm not sure. Once again, I'm against it. I didn't reference prisoners. I can see why you drew the conclusion you did but I don't have an interest in seeing political limitations enforced on those in jails and prisons.

Here's a rephrase you can use: The vote is a demonstration of the trust government places in the hands of the people as is the RKBA.

[stone space]

18. I would, but I can't see an "edit" button on the OP. Can you see one?

Here's a rephrase you can use: The vote is a demonstration of the trust government places in the hands of the people as is the RKBA.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. I said YOU could use it because you seem to be the one with a problem understanding

I'm not changing the OP JUST FOR YOU because the majority here EXCEPT FOR YOU understand the OP.

I'd say that if you want to dictate EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT in an OP you should write one but you don't seem to be having much luck with that here.

Yes, I can see an edit link. Maybe have a word with the admins about starting your own 'ban the NRA group'.

[stone space]

20. As it stands, your OP advocates disenfranchisement.

If that is intentional, then there is no need for anybody to edit it.

[DonP]

21. No, it really doesn't

It's a pretty straightforward statement and comparison of two equally significant civil rights, as defined by SCOTUS, our party and our President.

YMMV but nobody cares if it does.

[stone space]

22. The OP openly and directly advocates disenfranchisement of anybody too dangerous to have guns.

Here. Read it again.

if individuals can't be trusted with guns, they surely can't be trusted with votes.

This is a call for disenfranchisement of anybody who can't be trusted with guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Another of your unproven assertions n/t

[stone space]

25. It's not my assertion. It's the OP's gunhumping assertion.

From the OP:

and I submit that, if individuals can't be trusted with guns, they surely can't be trusted with votes.

The OP is arguing for disenfranchisement.

[Marengo]

27. What do you mean by "gunhumping" in this context?

[stone space]

29. Gunhumping is kind of like chairhumping, but with a gun instead of a chair.

The NRA candidate has demonstrated exactly how this works in the most recent debate.

[Marengo]

31. If that is your answer, then your use of the term is gratuitous and nonsensical in context.

That being the case, what are we left to assume about your motive for using it? A character assault?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. It is your "humping" of your thread-jacking assertion that...

...the OP argues for disenfranchisement.

Your brain fart into JT Ready land is just another example for your failure to remain on the topic of the OP. Your use of the present tense in your reference to him is inaccurate and distracting from whatever you were trying to convey. As far as trusting him with guns, yeah I trust him completely. He's dead and can't hurt anyone unless dropped sufficient height onto them. He can't buy, steal or borrow a gun nor pull a trigger nor can he vote. This reply of yours predates your voting thread-jack so I infer you don't care about his voting rights.

I don't think much of your efforts to CONTROL what I say or how I choose to say it but I'm sure that few in this group are surprised. Some pro-control folks have a long history of reading their desires into (and out of) things they read so as to conform to pro-control thinking.

Since the people (of "We the People" fame) ARE trusted with voting, they ought as well, barring some type of due process, to be able to own weapons, that would include firearms.

AFAIK all states and the federal system restrict weapons from inmates. This is a consequence of conviction and sentencing. Our prisons are constructs of our government here as are prisons everywhere. Those rights and freedoms, which are restricted by their sentencing explicitly or by the conditions of their confinement, do in all respects remain the rights of all of the people. It is within government's authority to restrict a right in those circumstances. The restriction is tied to the individual, his crime and sentence. His right persists but the is superseded by the restriction(s) imposed. I am against the removal of rights unless the courts fix a sentence in accordance with the legislature's existing law that requires it. I am of the opinion that when a sentence is completed, all restrictions should be removed. I don't feel most non-violent criminals should be jailed nor should their rights to voting, speech, firearms, religion... be suspended or restricted.

The fact that you don't, can't, refuse to... get it (the OP's meaning) amuses me. Carry on.

[beevul]

84. About that.

The Right to Vote is a basic and fundamental human and civil right.

It's not something that you should take away from people simply because you don't trust them...

So is the right to keep and bear arms.

So much so, that the framers sought fit to give RKBA an additional layer of protection against sentiments like those you hold about guns, which the right to vote did not get.

That makes denial of the right to keep and bear arms worse than deplorable and worse than disenfranchisement, by your very own logic.

[oneshooter]

99. Perhaps it is because

many of them removed somebodies right to live, probably violently.