Trump phones NRA to tell them he will oppose universal checks that 90% of US supports

[Belsnickel]

(08-21-2019, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know we're on the verge of a semantic argument here but I don't believe they are the same.  Words can be interpreted different ways.  This is not the same as saying let's have a discussion on how much we want to limit "X" constitutional right.

I was agreeing they aren't the same, only that the end result is the same with either case.

(08-21-2019, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, and, importantly to your next point, only when it causes direct harm to another person.  Direct being the operative word.

Ehh, not entirely. There are more limitations to our freedom of speech than you may realize. This is a bit of a dumbed down take on it, but it is accurate, and not all of these involve direct harm: https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/03/6-exceptions-to-freedom-of-speech/

(08-21-2019, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On this I think you are way off.  Limiting the ability for others to cause you harm is not limiting their liberty, it is protecting yours.  Pretty much every single law in the penal code defines the elements of, and proscribes punishments for, actions that case direct harm to another person.  This distinction is important.  My owning a firearm causes absolutely no one any direct harm.  I will not use it to threaten, injure or kill another person except in a circumstance in which they are attempting to cause me direct harm.  The gun control position is that my ability to own a certain type of firearm also allows other people to own them who will cause direct harm to others.  Consequently, they argue my ability to own this type of firearm causes indirect harm.  This is unacceptable to me and it honestly should be to everyone else.

I would say that the majority of offenses that police deal with day in and day out are indirect harm scenarios. Speeding and other vehicular offenses, for instance, have the potential to cause harm, but most of them go without harm occurring. There are certainly laws on the books that do what you say, however, my understanding is that those don't make up the majority of police work.

(08-21-2019, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You want to proscribe certain people from owning a firearm, that's fine with me as long as they are subject to due process and have demonstrated they should not own a firearm, e.g. convicted felon or domestic abuser.  They have shown they are willing to cause direct harm to others.  Oddly enough, the gun control side of this issue is also the side wanting to give those exact people their right to vote back.  So, these people are not responsible enough to own a firearm but they are responsible enough to determine our laws and political leadership?  Quite honestly you can do a lot more damage at the ballot box than you can with a firearm.

So, you're in favor of universal background checks, then? Because that would seem to be what you are agreeing to, here.