Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#102 Feb 25 2013 at 9:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
Without publishing the list, you wouldn't know exactly what the government knows, and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Seems pretty much the idea of "transparency" to me.

Yup. Knowing what the government has in their files is pretty much a basic part of transparency.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Feb 26 2013 at 3:14 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
gbaji wrote:
Wrong. If you were correct, then we have no rights at all (since all rights can be infringed to some degree and under some circumstances).
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#104 Feb 26 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Anyway, privacy (and double for your right to it) is more make believe than your right to free speech.


That's great that you've stumbled upon this worthless semantic position, but let's be practical. Do you think the fourth amendment is real? Yes or no? Assuming your answer is "yes", then does that not constitute some form of protection for "privacy" from the government? Even if you don't like the word "privacy" can we not agree that the 4th amendment does allow for the concept that the government cannot simply demand that we provide it with information about ourselves and our property just because it feels like it, but must have some form of just cause first?

I ask because you keep dancing around this issue, declaring that the "right to privacy" doesn't exist, while ignoring the actual question I'm asking. Does the government have limits placed on it in terms of how it may intrude into our lives and inform itself about what we are doing, what we own, etc? yes or no?

If your answer is "no", then that's you being ridiculous and we can end the conversation. But assuming your answer is "yes", then if our "persons, houses, papers, and effects" are protected from search without cause, does that not apply to ownership of a gun? As I've asked like 4 times now, is there some special reason why guns should be exempted from the normal rule that the government has no authority to know what I buy and have in my home? I mean, there's no enumerated right to own pink fuzzy bunny slippers, but I'm free to go out and buy them with cash at a store, take them home and wear them in my home, and no one in the government will know about it and cannot know about it unless they have a warrant to search my home. I have that freedom every day along with many many others, all available for me to partake of if I want. But this is not the case for gun ownership despite such ownership being an explicitly enumerated right in our constitution. That seems wrong to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Feb 26 2013 at 8:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Does the government have limits placed on it in terms of how it may intrude into our lives and inform itself about what we are doing, what we own, etc? yes or no?

Yes. By itself via the vote of the people. Which means that it can also, through the consent of the people, change the scope of those limits. And the people are generally more concerned about items of social impact (houses, cars, guns, etc) than with pink fuzzy bunny slippers. Therefore, since "the government" isn't some scary monster who might suddenly become obsessed with your footwear, the fact that the government doesn't track such things is more a function of what the people care about than any intrinsic privacy protections.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Feb 26 2013 at 8:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Without publishing the list, you wouldn't know exactly what the government knows, and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Seems pretty much the idea of "transparency" to me.

Yup. Knowing what the government has in their files is pretty much a basic part of transparency.


No. Transparency is about knowing what the government is doing. Requiring that it release otherwise private data that it's collected from the citizens is *not* transparency. And when this is done selectively based on political agenda, it becomes the opposite of the intention of transparency.

I'll assume that the same people who think this is just fine and dandy cause it's information the government collected being shared with the public, would never want welfare lists to be published, or health care covered by medicare/medicaid, or food stamp recipients being shared in the name of transparency. If I'm wrong and you really are ok with that, then by all means speak up. But if you're only ok with this because it's targeting gun owners and you don't like guns, you really need to check what the **** you're doing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Feb 26 2013 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Does the government have limits placed on it in terms of how it may intrude into our lives and inform itself about what we are doing, what we own, etc? yes or no?

Yes. By itself via the vote of the people. Which means that it can also, through the consent of the people, change the scope of those limits.


And? Did we change the 4th amendment recently? The problem is that you talk about how these changes can occur via a vote of the people, but then support changes that don't involve a vote of the people, because it's something you agree with. That's foolish and dangerous.

Quote:
And the people are generally more concerned about items of social impact (houses, cars, guns, etc) than with pink fuzzy bunny slippers.


And? As I said earlier, guns were deadly weapons when the 2nd amendment was written. Just saying "guns should not be as protected because they're deadly weapons" is not a good argument. The founders clearly intended for guns to be not just as protected, but more protected than other things, perhaps precisely because they are deadly.

Quote:
Therefore, since "the government" isn't some scary monster who might suddenly become obsessed with your footwear, the fact that the government doesn't track such things is more a function of what the people care about than any intrinsic privacy protections.


Who are "the people" though? If "the people" think that ownership of guns should no longer be a protected right, then "the people" can do exactly what you spoke about and amend the constitution. But since some of the people want the laws to change, but clearly not enough to amend the constitution, you just ignore that restriction and pretend that "the people" care more about gun ownership, so it's ok to ignore the protections.

Amend the constitution if you really think "the people" agree with you. If you can't, then stop pretending that this is what "the people" want. We have a process in place for this Joph. You even mentioned it earlier. So why not use it instead of just claiming you have support for whatever you want to do?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 Feb 26 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's no need to change the Constitution if enough people (or the right people, realistically) believe that the measures are keeping within the Second Amendment. Did we have to change the First Amendment to make copyright infringement illegal or disallow shouting "fire" in theaters?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#109 Feb 26 2013 at 9:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
There's no need to change the Constitution if enough people (or the right people, realistically) believe that the measures are keeping within the Second Amendment.


That's dancing around the issue though. "Enough people" is defined quite clearly within the amendment process outlined in our constitution. So what you're really saying is that if people you agree with (presumably the "right people" you're speaking of) want to change the meaning of a part of the constitution, it should be allowed. Which, as I've said already, is foolish and dangerous.

Quote:
Did we have to change the First Amendment to make copyright infringement illegal or disallow shouting "fire" in theaters?


No. But those were never considered to be expressions of "free speech" in the first place. Similarly, we didn't have to change the 2nd amendment to make killing someone with a firearm illegal either. All are abuses of the right in question, and do not require abridging the right as a whole. You don't have a right to use speech in a way designed to harm another, and you don't have a right to use a firearm in a way designed to harm another. But some of the restrictions on gun ownership would be considered far too onerous if they were applied to speech. We don't require that people file a request with the government to be able to speak out of fear that they might speak in a harmful way, do we? Yet you seem perfectly ok with requiring that people file a similar request to own a gun, clearly based solely on the grounds that they might use the gun in a harmful way.

Would you accept not being able to speak in public without getting some kind of license first? No? Yet you have no problem with a similar restriction on guns. The restrictions we're talking about go well beyond simply applying rational boundaries to the right itself. It appears as though the objective here is to use fear of people using guns in ways that are already illegal to push for restrictions on gun ownership in general. How does that make sense? Again, we don't restrict speech because some people might use speech in harmful ways. We punish those who do so. That's how we should be approaching these sorts of things. But for some reason, in the case of guns, people's normally sensible understanding of things gets tossed out the window out of some irrational fear of violence.


At the risk of repeating myself, bending the rules of constitutionality in this case is foolish and dangerous. Because if you allow it in this case, you've given "the right people" the power to make other changes which aren't supported by "enough people". Is that really a good idea? I don't think so.

Edited, Feb 26th 2013 7:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Feb 26 2013 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,676 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's great that you've stumbled upon this worthless semantic position, but let's be practical.
Maybe if you believe that hard enough it'll become true.
gbaji wrote:
Do you think the fourth amendment is real?
Are you giving up on the second amendment and now hoping that the fourth amendment will be of use to you? Is that what you're doing? I mean, it is and the question is completely rhetorical, but don't let it be said I didn't at least pretend to give you a chance to clarify. Try the tenth amendment next, that one actually had a degree of success.

Anyway, it's hard to pretend how much privacy you have when it only really takes is a "reasonable" excuse to remove it. Or, you know, a cop can stop and frisk you with only probable cause (IE: their own discretion) and don't need a warrant for that. Not only that, but grand juries can use illegally obtained evidence. Even beyond that, there are cases where evidence previously thrown out because they were "illegally obtained" are later brought back in when proven that it would have been found eventually based on information independent of the illegal search or if the prosecution can prove the evidence would have been found and seized by legal means not based on evidence or information illegally seized. Did you know that if a cop pulls you over and asks if he can search your car you're entitled to tell him no? What you might not know is you can't leave until he gives you the okay, and he in turn can call in a K9 unit to sniff your vehicle, and if the dog reacts then he doesn't need your permission anymore.

Besides all that, though. Totally can't get up in yo' business.

The rest of your post was just you asking the same questions over again. If you want the answers just go back a page or two. I like post counting as much as the next person but even I get tired of repetition.

gbaji wrote:
The founders clearly intended for guns to be not just as protected, but more protected than other things, perhaps precisely because they are deadly.
They also intended them in the context of a well regulated militia, and nothing about it being done in secret is mentioned in there, but those little details hurt your argument so it is completely understandable why you continue to ignore those facts.

Edited, Feb 26th 2013 11:08pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#111 Feb 26 2013 at 10:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's dancing around the issue though.

Not at all. We have a whole branch of government which is tasked with (among other things) deciding on what's constitutional and what isn't. We have a whole bundle of laws which, in simple terms, infringe upon our constitutional rights. Does the Second Amendment include language saying "unless you're a felon"? But we violate the Second Amendment rights of felons all the time, don't we? Did we amend the Constitution to do this or was it otherwise decided that it was in the country's best interests and we went with that?

Quote:
No. But those were never considered to be expressions of "free speech" in the first place.

And it says that where in the language of the First Amendment? What? Nowhere? Oh, okay then. My copy of the First Amendment simply says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press. The government forbidding me from running off a thousand copies of the latest best seller is unmistakeably a violation of my rights per any sane reading of the First Amendment. Tell where the Amendment is that made it legal for the government to do this.

Edited, Feb 26th 2013 10:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#112 Feb 27 2013 at 1:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
The government forbidding me from running off a thousand copies of the latest best seller is unmistakeably a violation of my rights per any sane reading of the First Amendment. Tell where the Amendment is that made it legal for the government to do this.

Photocopies? That's fair use. Digital copies become infringement because computers are magic. The 4th amendment argument is especially amusing considering the gutting it's likely about to take in Maryland v. King. You know who believes in a right to privacy? The ACLU. You know who doesn't? Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and likely Kennedy.

____________________________
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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#113 Feb 27 2013 at 4:02 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:

That's dancing around the issue though. "Enough people" is defined quite clearly within the amendment process outlined in our constitution. So what you're really saying is that if people you agree with (presumably the "right people" you're speaking of) want to change the meaning of a part of the constitution, it should be allowed. Which, as I've said already, is foolish and dangerous.


Do you not believe that sentiment is neutral on any position and from any person, regardless of political or personal preferences?
#114 Feb 28 2013 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:


Owning a gun is not a crime. There's no reason to have a "list" at all, much less allowing it to be published. Period. End of story.

If it's public information it can be published. Period.

if its collected by the government it's public. Period (unless it's exempt. Period).

This story is far from over sweetie.




Edited, Feb 28th 2013 10:08pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#115 Feb 28 2013 at 3:15 PM Rating: Excellent
****, I didn't know buying a house was a crime.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#116 Feb 28 2013 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's published lists of voters. Therefore, voting must be a crime. But voting is just like gun ownership, therefore gun ownership is also a crime. QED.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Mar 01 2013 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
******
49,676 posts
Don't forget car ownership. But neither are specifically mentioned in the constitution, so it's okay to spy on those.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#118 Mar 01 2013 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Don't forget car ownership. But neither are specifically ENUMERATED in the constitution, so it's okay to spy on those.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Mar 01 2013 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Just a bit more fodder. This article in daily local paper is about a company (Down East Energy) that lost an employee to a workplace shooting. Following the event they had crafted company policy to disallow any employee owned firearms on the grounds (building and property). However a bill passed shorty after, by our then fully republican government, over-ruled the companies right to carry out this weapon ban. It allowed for anyone with a concealed weapon permit to be able to leave their gun in a locked car regardless of where the locked car is parked - I believe schools are exempt but not other city or state buildings. So, by law, one can bring a gun to the parking lot of the courthouses, prisons, the little nuthouse I work at and most any other place, regardless of the will of the property owner (talk about rights infringement...Smiley: rolleyes).

Anyway, this company, following the new law about guns in cars in parking lots, sought to find out which of their employees had a concealed weapons. They were unable to dredge up the info, but only because they're not a savvy media company that knows the ins and outs of accessing public records.

KJ wrote:
Down East's records request didn't yield any information because the state police dosn't have a central database of concealed-weapon permit holders.

Peters requested permit information from local police departments but gave up when he realized that his workers lived in many towns.

Nonetheless, he still thinks the information should be public.

"Personally speaking, I've tried to understand the claim ... that publishing such information will only give bad guys the ability to know which good guys have guns," Peters said. "I'm sorry, but I don't buy it."

Peters said he plans to testify against Republican Rep. Corey Wilson's bill to make concealed-weapon data private permanently. It's unclear whether other business owners will join him.


Nothing new here, just that for some there may be a tangible reason to ask the question about who's possibly carrying concealed weapons. Also, there's a strong possibility that Maine will end up making the information private.

Edited, Mar 1st 2013 6:13pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#120 Mar 01 2013 at 8:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
That example kinda makes my case for me though Elinda. What would the company do with that information? Can we assume it might affect the employment of those who have concealed carry permits in this case? You don't think this might result in intimidation of those who might otherwise exercise their 2nd amendment rights? Please tell me you can see why this information should not be shared with the public.

And for the record, no I don't think that any data the government has should be made public. And if we're going to do that, then we should either dramatically reduce the size of government so it has less information about people (maybe a good thing anyway) *or* be consistent about this. I've mentioned this a few times, but would those arguing that it's ok to publish gun ownership lists be ok with publishing welfare or foodstamp recipient names? I'm guessing not, but either way, I'd love to hear the rationale for this sort of thing.

Edited, Mar 1st 2013 6:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Mar 02 2013 at 10:49 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
That example kinda makes my case for me though Elinda. What would the company do with that information? Can we assume it might affect the employment of those who have concealed carry permits in this case? You don't think this might result in intimidation of those who might otherwise exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

I imagine they'd politely ask them not to bring guns to work. It's Maine, no one's terrified of gun owners, trust me on this. It's an almost uniform population of poor and lower middle class white people, there's no boogeyman for them to be afraid of. Well, Cannucks, I guess.


Edited, Mar 2nd 2013 11:50am by Smasharoo
____________________________
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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#122 Mar 02 2013 at 4:12 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
That example kinda makes my case for me though Elinda. What would the company do with that information? Can we assume it might affect the employment of those who have concealed carry permits in this case? You don't think this might result in intimidation of those who might otherwise exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

I imagine they'd politely ask them not to bring guns to work. It's Maine, no one's terrified of gun owners, trust me on this. It's an almost uniform population of poor and lower middle class white people, there's no boogeyman for them to be afraid of. Well, Cannucks, I guess.


Edited, Mar 2nd 2013 11:50am by Smasharoo
They're afraid of ghosts.

Domestic violence is the cause of most all violent deaths in this state. If imagine his goal in keeping guns out of the workplace is simply to cut down the chances on another dead employee. And yes, I also imagine he'd simply ask any employee with a concealed permit not to bring their gun to work. Of course he can't demand it of his employee because that right was taken away from him.

You can assume all you want, but I'm sure if you actually did the research you'll not find a single instance of any intimidation against gun-holders or other 2nd amendment rights in Maine.

Maybe you'd find one - but I doubt it.



Edited, Mar 2nd 2013 11:18pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#123 Mar 05 2013 at 5:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
That example kinda makes my case for me though Elinda. What would the company do with that information? Can we assume it might affect the employment of those who have concealed carry permits in this case? You don't think this might result in intimidation of those who might otherwise exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

I imagine they'd politely ask them not to bring guns to work.


They don't need a list of people with gun permits to do this though. Just make a company policy and move on. The only reason for the company to actually know who has or doesn't have a CC permit is if they might want to use that information to make hiring/firing decisions (unofficially, of course). Even if that's not the intent directly, the fact that they have that information can influence future choices. Assuming we agree that an individuals choice to own or not own a firearm should not be an employment consideration, then the best way to make sure this remains true is to keep that information private.

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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124 Mar 05 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Is it illegal for a company to not want to hire people who carry dangerous weapons...? I mean, companies have used worse reasons when considering to hire someone.
#125 Mar 05 2013 at 6:04 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
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.
#126 Mar 05 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Belkira wrote:
Is it illegal for a company to not want to hire people who carry dangerous weapons...? I mean, companies have used worse reasons when considering to hire someone.


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 64 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (64)