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

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

It still shows there are more limitations to our free speech than just what does direct harm.

(08-22-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

I genuinely expected those other infractions to be more of the job than penal code violations. Just seems like volume alone would cause that.

(08-22-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

Your concerns seem rooted in a slippery slope argument that isn't necessarily accurate. But we've had this discussion before about how California Democrats have ruined you.

(08-22-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

I didn't address it because it really wasn't a thought experiment that interested me. What I will say, though, is that the reasons for those rights being removed are different. The removal of the right to bear arms is rooted in a public safety argument. I, personally, think that only those that have been found guilty of a violent felony should continue to have that right revoked. If someone was charged with a felony that was not violent or did not involve a firearm, then that right should be restored.

The right to vote being revoked is based upon the concept of civil death. This removes the individual from society as a form of punishment. It was also a tool used by states to keep black people from being able to vote, using crimes that black people were seen to commit more often as the criteria for disenfranchisement. I, personally, am not in favor of disenfranchisement in any form.

Because of these differences in reason for the two revocations of rights (promotion of the public welfare v. punishment of the individual), I don't see the positions contradictory at all.