Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Published Voting Lists (by gun ownership)...Follow

#127 Mar 05 2013 at 6:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Is there any legitimate reason an employer would need to know this information? I don't think so, but I'm open to someone providing one that doesn't create the potential for discrimination based on the choice to exercise a constitutional right.


The last time you gave such a proposition, you ignored the response.


No. I ignored *you*. Which is not the same thing. Present a direct and relevant response and I'll give it attention. Go off on some random tangent and get mad when I don't follow you? I'll ignore it (well, most of the time).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Mar 05 2013 at 7:16 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Is there any legitimate reason an employer would need to know this information? I don't think so, but I'm open to someone providing one that doesn't create the potential for discrimination based on the choice to exercise a constitutional right.


The last time you gave such a proposition, you ignored the response.


No. I ignored *you*. Which is not the same thing. Present a direct and relevant response and I'll give it attention. Go off on some random tangent and get mad when I don't follow you? I'll ignore it (well, most of the time).


Don't project your failure to counter a valid point unto me. I labeled your tactic quite well. You have no intentions of actually having a real debate on the topic, but the tangents that you created only to accuse people of misquoting you. Remember when you were complaining about how your comments weren't off topic, even though you were the only person referencing certain points?

In any case, please explain how the quote below was a "random tangent" that you couldn't follow.

Almalieque wrote on page http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=1356379936132083970&p=15 wrote:

Gbaji wrote:
So still no answer to my question? No one has any clue what kind of restrictions we could place on gun ownership in the US that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. But somehow I'm wrong to point out that if you can't do this, perhaps you shouldn't argue that "restricting gun ownership" is the solution. Strange. Very very strange.


Steps:

1. Acknowledge that we (the US) have a "gun problem". Yes, there are other factors involved, but those factors don't take away from the actual gun problem. Yes, gun control affects "law abiding citizens" unfairly, but so do every other law created. Furthermore, every criminal was once a "law abiding citizen" and legally purchasing a firearm doesn't make you a "law abiding citizen". It means that you legally purchased a weapon, just how a thief legally purchased gas to fuel his car. Therefore, the term and concept takes away from the problem.

2. Determine what types of firearms should be accessible to the general public. This needs to be generalized across the nation. Allow states to add to, but not allow to take away. Realize that the average person does not need access to weapons with large magazines, certain automatic settings, etc.

3. Ban the production, buying, trading, selling, importing, etc. of the aforesaid weapons.

4. Implement a national background check to include factors such as people living in the same house.

5. Standardized national necessary gun training for purchase. States can add to, but can not take away.

6. Out of state purchases will be treated by the laws of the sellers home of record listed in the database and proven by the seller at purchase.

7. Implement new and enforce current auditing for gun vendors to include a database correlating with the national background check.

8. Implement and conduct an UNANNOUNCED Don't Ask Don't Tell gun buy back program at a later date. Add benefits like a tax write offs to people to return guns that were banned.

9. Any possession of illegal weapons will result in "harsh" punishment. For example 5+ years in prison based on the weapon. This excludes weapons in the buy back program but includes vendors caught in buying/selling illegal weapons through audits.

10. Implement strict "gun-free" zones in high crime areas which include rent-a-cops (job creation Hooah!) and metal detectors. Implement "show me your papers" metal detector searches during certain hours and certain places (i.e. 2200-0500 at the park, car-wash) with stated signs.
#129 Mar 05 2013 at 11:11 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
It's not illegal, but if we allow for the fact that a company may choose to not hire someone who has a concealed carry permit, then we must also acknowledge that by providing that information to a potential employer, the government is effectively creating a negative consequence for anyone who does obtain such a permit which in turn constitutes an infringement of the 2nd amendment right. The question isn't whether an employer can choose not to hire someone who owns a firearm (or has a CC permit), but whether the government should make information about who owns firearms or permits available to potential employers in the first place.

IMO, given that such information *could* be harmful to the gun owner, the government has an obligation to keep such information privileged. Presumably, it collects such information for law enforcement purposes, and it should stick to using it only for those purposes. This is why I keep pointing out that the only reason one might want the government to make this information public is as a form of intimidation against those who might exercise their 2nd amendment right.


So it isn't illegal. Just like it wouldn't be illegal for me to get a registered voters list in Hawaii, which lists which party the person is registered to, and I can start a company and only hire democrats. Just like it wouldn't be illegal for me to look up an address listed on a resume to see if a potential candidate owns his own home or rents, and only hire people who own their own homes.

I am not suggesting that these things should happen. I'm just curious why gun owners should have a special rule set aside just for them.

It's almost... almost like you want them to get special treatment just because they are gun owners.
#130 Mar 06 2013 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
They're special because if they're not they'll use their guns on you. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#131 Mar 06 2013 at 9:58 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
They're special because if they're not they'll use their guns on you. Smiley: schooled
So it's really kind of like what you do for a living. Smiley: tongue
#132 Mar 06 2013 at 10:12 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It's not illegal, but if we allow for the fact that a company may choose to not hire someone who has a concealed carry permit, then we must also acknowledge that by providing that information to a potential employer, the government is effectively creating a negative consequence for anyone who does obtain such a permit which in turn constitutes an infringement of the 2nd amendment right.

Nope. It's consistently amazing to me how poorly you understand constitutional law. You'd think through ******* osmosis reading threads here you'd have picked SOMETHING up. Did you mean 4th amendment, again? I mean, also wrong, but at least on the planet that contains the ballpark. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment prohibits passing a law requiring gun owners from going door to door in their neighborhoods with all their weapons, demonstrating to every neighbor they know how to handle them safely, or requiring facial tattoos that read "I OWN A GUN!".

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#133 Mar 06 2013 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
It is fun to watch him jump between original intent and current interpretation over and over again.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#134 Mar 06 2013 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Dontcha know - the 2nd Amendment trumps all other rights and all other provisions of the constitution.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#135 Mar 06 2013 at 10:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's enumerated!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#136 Mar 06 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Belkira wrote:

It's almost... almost like you want them to get special treatment just because they are gun owners.


It's not that all. Gun owners don't want a list because often times, lists such as that have negative connotations. They are afraid that such negative connotations will lead into a public dislike of guns which will lead into further laws that will hinder their gun desire. Such laws will prevent gun owners from protecting themselves when the government turns on us.
#137 Mar 07 2013 at 6:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
A citizen has the right to own a gun. He or she also has the responsibility to accept all terms and restrictions attached to gun ownership.

For a guy who argues that a woman who submitted to sex rather than be killed wasn't raped, you sure are delicate about the snowflake status of gun owners.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#138 Mar 07 2013 at 2:37 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Samira wrote:
A citizen has the right to own a gun. He or she also has the responsibility to accept all terms and restrictions attached to gun ownership.

For a guy who argues that a woman who submitted to sex rather than be killed wasn't raped, you sure are delicate about the snowflake status of gun owners.


Are you referencing to me?
#139 Mar 07 2013 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
Are you referring to me?

Are you referencing me? (Is that a reference to me?)

Sorry, buddy, you're going to have to repeat the year once again. Think of it as your own personal groundhog day.
#140 Mar 07 2013 at 5:07 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I ask again, are you reffering to me? I was giving you the benefit that you weren't a complete idiotic troll, but your response says otherwise.
#141 Mar 07 2013 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
**
297 posts
Quote:
For a guy who argues that a woman who submitted to sex rather than be killed wasn't raped, you sure are delicate about the snowflake status of gun owners.


You say this Alma? Along with the fact that the person you asked "are you refering to me?" hasn't responded yet you going off on a third party is so full of win

Edited, Mar 7th 2013 6:29pm by Zymunn
#142 Mar 07 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
In any case, please explain how the quote below was a "random tangent" that you couldn't follow.
Almalieque wrote on page http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=1356379936132083970&p=15 wrote:

Gbaji wrote:
So still no answer to my question? No one has any clue what kind of restrictions we could place on gun ownership in the US that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. But somehow I'm wrong to point out that if you can't do this, perhaps you shouldn't argue that "restricting gun ownership" is the solution. Strange. Very very strange.


Steps:

1. Acknowledge that we (the US) have a "gun problem". Yes, there are other factors involved, but those factors don't take away from the actual gun problem. Yes, gun control affects "law abiding citizens" unfairly, but so do every other law created. Furthermore, every criminal was once a "law abiding citizen" and legally purchasing a firearm doesn't make you a "law abiding citizen". It means that you legally purchased a weapon, just how a thief legally purchased gas to fuel his car. Therefore, the term and concept takes away from the problem.

2. Determine what types of firearms should be accessible to the general public. This needs to be generalized across the nation. Allow states to add to, but not allow to take away. Realize that the average person does not need access to weapons with large magazines, certain automatic settings, etc.

3. Ban the production, buying, trading, selling, importing, etc. of the aforesaid weapons.

4. Implement a national background check to include factors such as people living in the same house.

5. Standardized national necessary gun training for purchase. States can add to, but can not take away.

6. Out of state purchases will be treated by the laws of the sellers home of record listed in the database and proven by the seller at purchase.

7. Implement new and enforce current auditing for gun vendors to include a database correlating with the national background check.

8. Implement and conduct an UNANNOUNCED Don't Ask Don't Tell gun buy back program at a later date. Add benefits like a tax write offs to people to return guns that were banned.

9. Any possession of illegal weapons will result in "harsh" punishment. For example 5+ years in prison based on the weapon. This excludes weapons in the buy back program but includes vendors caught in buying/selling illegal weapons through audits.

10. Implement strict "gun-free" zones in high crime areas which include rent-a-cops (job creation Hooah!) and metal detectors. Implement "show me your papers" metal detector searches during certain hours and certain places (i.e. 2200-0500 at the park, car-wash) with stated signs.


I ignored your response because it didn't meet the criteria I asked for. And by not meeting, I don't mean that I don't agree with it meeting it, but that you didn't even attempt to do so. You listed off what restrictions you'd place on gun ownership, but that's nothing new. Anyone can do that. That's not what I was asking for, nor was it the point I was making. My point, which I thought was abundantly clear, was that no one could show how the restrictions they thought we should apply would actually be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings.

What did you expect me to do when, in response to that question, you proceeded to do exactly what I was complaining about people doing (ie: not explaining how their proposed restrictions would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings). So yeah. I ignored it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Mar 07 2013 at 5:40 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
I ask again, are you reffering to me? I was giving you the benefit that you weren't a complete idiotic troll, but your response says otherwise.


I'm not Samira.
#144 Mar 07 2013 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Just to clear up any lingering confusion, Samira isn't me, either.
#145 Mar 07 2013 at 5:44 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I ask again, are you reffering to me? I was giving you the benefit that you weren't a complete idiotic troll, but your response says otherwise.


I'm not Samira.
Don't make it harder for him, he'll just get even more confused.
#146 Mar 07 2013 at 5:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Nothing in the 2nd Amendment prohibits passing a law requiring gun owners from going door to door in their neighborhoods with all their weapons, demonstrating to every neighbor they know how to handle them safely, or requiring facial tattoos that read "I OWN A GUN!".


Except for longstanding court rulings stating that placing onerous conditions on exercising a right constitutes an infringement of that right (which, btw, is specifically prohibited in said 2nd amendment). Unless you're arguing that making a potential gun owner do all that isn't onerous?

Maybe try a more reasonable example next time?

Edited, Mar 7th 2013 3:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#147 Mar 07 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
**
297 posts
Quote:
Unless you're arguing that making a potential gun owner do all that isn't onerous?


Throw a cookout, with a five dollar charge to cover food and drink, and put on a show that you can use your guns safely. Then its only onerous if you don't have friends to help... oh, nvm then.
#148 Mar 07 2013 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
Unless you're arguing that making a potential gun owner do all that isn't onerous?


Throw a cookout, with a five dollar charge to cover food and drink, and put on a show that you can use your guns safely. Then its only onerous if you don't have friends to help... oh, nvm then.


Hahaha... um. Ok. Doesn't change the fact (haven't I already said this like 5 times?) that there's nothing in the first amendment that says that the government can't require you to submit a proposal for anything you want to say to the "ministry of speech" before you're allowed to utter a single word within earshot of another person in a public space. Yet, despite this massive omission, no one would bother even proposing such a law because of the universally understood unanimous SCOTUS decision that would show up about 5 minutes later.

Arguing that if something isn't literally written into the amendment then it can be infringed is a pretty stupid thing to argue, even if one isn't clamming to have any specific knowledge of the constitution. It's even dumber when someone (like me!) has already mentioned the 9th amendment (among others) and how it applies. You can't look at the words of just one amendment and ignore how other amendments affect things. A point I've already made several times as well, but apparently there are some really thick skulls around here.

Edited, Mar 7th 2013 4:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Mar 07 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
**
297 posts
Gbaji wrote:
None relevant dribble


You missed the point. Focus.
#150 Mar 07 2013 at 6:34 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
None relevant dribble


You missed the point. Focus.
Dude... you're talking to Gbaji.
#151 Mar 07 2013 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
**
297 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
None relevant dribble


You missed the point. Focus.
Dude... you're talking to Gbaji.


I know who it is. I am not expecting focus. Just more dribble or more likely being ignored cause he can't respond.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 330 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (330)