08-22-2019, 12:22 PM
(08-21-2019, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was agreeing they aren't the same, only that the end result is the same with either case.
Sure, but how you get to a position is important.
Quote: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/
Free speech protection is preventing the government from punishing you for your speech. Obscenity restrictions have virtually vanished. Also, our slander and libel laws are far less restrictive than any other first world democracy. I don't really think that article does much for your argument.
Quote: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.
You're now taking about infractions and municipal code violations. In that regard I agree, most of them deal with quality of life and general public safety. More importantly, none of them come with severe consequences if violated. Far more police work is about dealing with penal code infractions. In any event, none of them violate a Constitutional right.
Quote:So, you're in favor of universal background checks, then? Because that would seem to be what you are agreeing to, here.
I have no issue with background checks. I don't think I should have to pay for them, but it's not an exorbitant amount. As for universal checks, there's a lot more to it than it first appears. Do I have to get a check done if I loan my friend a firearm to go hunting or to the range? Do I have to get a check done if I gift a firearm to my spouse, child or nephew/niece? Most importantly, to make universal background checks work the government would need a registry of every firearm in private possession. Such a registry would undoubtedly be used to confiscate private, and legally purchased, property the next time the Dems hold Congress and the White House and there's a mass shooting. Consequently, I cannot support it.
I would reiterate a point you didn't address. Why do we want to restrict the right to own a firearm for felons but yet the Democratic party wants to restore those people's voting rights? If you're not responsible enough to own a firearm than how are you responsible enough to help determine what laws are passed and what politicians are elected? Seems like a contradictory argument to me.
