Biden calls for 'assault weapons ban' on Sandy Hook shooting anniversary | Washington Examiner
By: Washington Examiner
So the President who "gifted" the Taliban U.S. Military hardware is telling us we need gun control...
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Joe Biden called for an assault weapons ban on the tenth anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, saying, "enough is enough."
Biden has repeatedly called for the ban throughout his presidency, even after signing a modest gun control measure into law earlier this year.
"Ten years ago today at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, our nation watched as the unthinkable happened," the statement begins. "Twenty young children with their whole lives ahead of them. Six educators who gave their lives protecting their students. And countless survivors who still carry the wounds of that day."
Biden said there should be "societal guilt" for taking too long to address gun control, adding that "we have a moral obligation" to pass and enforce new laws that could prevent future shootings.
"A few months ago, I signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act into law," he said, speaking of the measure pushed by Hollywood star Matthew McConaughey following another school shooting. "We've reined in so-called ghost guns which have no serial numbers and are harder to trace. We've cracked down on gun trafficking and increased resources for violence prevention."
But more must be done, Biden argued, including reviving the assault weapons ban which was in place from 1994 to 2004.
"I am determined to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines like those used at Sandy Hook and countless other mass shootings in America," Biden said. "Enough is enough. Our obligation is clear. We must eliminate these weapons that have no purpose other than to kill people in large numbers. It is within our power to do this — for the sake of not only the lives of the innocents lost, but for the survivors who still hope."
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, reply to themselves or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
Trump and his supporters ARE OFF LIMITS.
Tags
Who is online
43 visitors
Biden has had ample opportunity to attempt to bring this ban back. Unfortunately, for the Check the Block Administration, it's only about the optics. Not actually doing something.
Even in the ban, exhibit 2, is funny to read. According to this ban a weapon that has a detachable magazine and at least 2 of the following makes an "assault weapon"
A "flash hider"? LMAO, are they talking about a compensator that helps steady the weapon when it's fired?
Sorry but NONE of these make a weapon an "assault weapon" the same way that adding racing stripes to a Prius doesn't make it a muscle car.
It would really mean more if these idiot politicians would know what they are talking about.
I call them squirt guns. They make other people squirt blood.
So define assault weapon for us.
Because pretty much any firearm can make people squirt blood.
I actually dont care about the technical specifications for guns. I care about whether or not they are the device of choice for public facing mass shootings, and if they are sold to 18 year olds who use them to spray innocent locations with dozens of bullets in a flash. The "argument" that we shouldnt regulate guns because "liberals" dont know how to talk about their technical specifications is beyond silly.
I can get the same effect with a pencil.
Damn paper cuts will get them every time.
Just got revenge on my coworker with one. Will teach them to shoot staples at me.
[deleted]
Calling them "assault weapons" implies they have a military link or use. They don't. But there ARE firearms that we can purchase that DO have a military link or use. I have 2 Mossberg 590s that I purchased at Bass Pro and Academy Sports and are EXACTLY like the ones I used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What kind of idiot do you have to be to blame the inanimate object instead of the actual user, that is as stupid as blaming the car for a drunk driver.
I'm sure "regulation" to you means registration and confiscation. That would only apply to honest and legal citizen gun owners.
In the meantime, criminals and terrorists, and psychopathic killers would continue to ignore "common sense" gun laws. .
A lot of the recent mass killers bought their guns at gun stores.
“A lot of the recent mass killers bought their guns at gun stores.”
Or simply, sadly, tragically, brought them from home.
They had no police or judicial record. That equates to a legal purchase.
No, the “argument” that you can be completely ignorant about a topic and make public policy on that topic is what’s “beyond silly.” Especially when it means you are infringing on someone’s rights.
Same with me. I have a semi auto Mossberg M702 Tactical Pinkster .22LR rifle that is black and looks just like a M4 style weapon.
If they purchased them at authorized dealers it's an indication that they passed ALL the background checks. They were legally purchased. Screws up the "we need gun control" bullshit.
and don't forget they will "never" blame the TV, Movie or music industry for glorifying guns. Its somehow the NRA's fault, these imbeciles are delusional.
Does hard core leftist liberal anti gunner fit the bill?
When are so called assault weapons are outlawed, only criminals and terrorists and determined psychopathic killers will have so called assault weapons.
And once again it's someone going after something that won't make a large difference in the outcome. Had the so-called "assault weapons" been banned all along, it would have done nothing to prevent 75% of the mass shootings since 1982.
“…it would have done nothing to prevent 75% of the mass shootings since 1982.”
So a full quarter of those families mourning since 1982 may have been spared losing loved ones had these weapons been banned?
Well worth the inconvenience one would compassionately, reasonably think. You’ve made a strong point, unless you care to address those families personally.
No, they would have simply used a different weapon- perhaps a far more effective and cheaper weapon for the environment they were operating in. In many close quarter cases a semi automatic shot gun would be far more effective killing people. They are also cheaper than the AR15.
Those areas too close to easily use a shotgun a semiautomatic pistol is just as effective. Many are even cheaper than semiautomatic shotguns- so get two or three.
Sorry, I don't deal in long range. I don't hunt. Outside of the firearms I have purchased for home defense (very small rooms, very narrow hallways and stair cases)- I don't practice with any at the firing range. My goal is to turn anyone stupid enough to enter my home w/o permission into a fine red mist. I am sure there are hunters and ex military on NT that have experience with long range weapons that could recommend firearms/rifles that are far more affective than scary "assault weapons".
The really great thing- because mass shooters don't give a shit about laws or money- is that 3d printers have come down in price. Not only can you download the specs to create a fully operational firearm- but since it is plastic it will avoid metal detectors. No serial number either- the perfect ghost gun. But what most mass shooters will use them for is downloading bump stocks; and firing mechanisms to turn their purchased semi automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons. Again- specs for doing so are readily available online.
Only an idiot thinks a mass shooter would be stopped by making a certain type or style of firearm illegal.
I do hope you have at least once fired them in such a confining space. My ex-wife wanted a handgun for home defense and I made sure that she also fired it in an enclosed space to get an understanding of the noise. I've read stories of people who fire a gun in a small confining space for the first time and are so startled by the noise that they drop the gun. I wanted to be sure the ex- would understand what she was getting into.
The gun range I go to has a walk through simulation set up like a house. I have fired all 3 in it (under an instructor's supervision).
I am fully willing to blow out the plaster in my house walls to stop anyone that has entered illegally. Trust me, the semi automatic bullpup makes enough noise to wake everyone in the neighborhood. I am actually thankful for that- as I know my neighbors will definitely call the police. They aren't the polite types either. Gun shots would have them screaming into their cell phones.
I probably misworded my post. I fire all 3 of my home weapons at the gun range regularly. I just don't do any real long range shooting. I fired an AR15 once, not really for me. I also fired some of my friends hunting rifles. Just never got into long range shooting. Maybe I just don't have the patience it takes to line up the shot properly and force myself to relax and breath properly.
Shit like this frustrates me - especially living in California. Is a bayonet mount really the big problem in society? Too many people getting stabbed with rifles?
Things like adjustable stocks, suppressors, and so on actually make the gun safer for home defense use. But the president wants me to use a gun that’s heavy, hard to maneuver with, kicks like a mule, booms like a grenade and puts the average user is such fear of it that they won’t even want to put it to their shoulder and aim properly.
These really show that the anti-gun crowd don't know what they are talking about. And they try to come off like they are some sort of "expert".
For them it's all about the appearances and not anything really based in fact.
Such is the craziness of the gun control crowd.
Most of them are completely clueless.
the 94 ban , it needed 3 of the features mentioned , not 2 , i see they dropped the "heat shield " part .
The big part of both , most of the things are cosmetic and have nothing to do with actual function and the definitions are too ambiguous and left to interpretation ..
Honestly, I’m only half surprised that flashlights aren’t on the list.
Pretty sure the Taliban are selling US military weapons- so long as you are willing to pay the shipping and handling charge. Doubt they are checking for criminal records either. In fact they might be looking for people in the US that have them.
That's it. Sweep problems like Adam Lanza under the rug. Look away. Kick the can.
The real problem is people predisposed to be violent. And a gun did not magically create that predisposition. Take away guns and these same people will start pushing someone onto subway tracks or driving through parades.
An assault rifle ban won't address the problem of violence.
Not selling guns to troubled people is quite a bit more doable than subjecting every citizen to mental health evaluations.
That is where those around that "troubled person" needs to step up. In almost every case, people knew somebody had problems and kept their mouths shut instead of intervening. Simply ceasing the sale of firearms isn't going to do a damn thing.
Sure, all you need to do is get Congress to agree on passing a law that requires all people that certified psychiatrists see and deem a threat to themselves and the public threat to report them to authorities so they can be put on a no sell list. Of course I am sure the psychiatrists would balk at that; since there is already so much of a stigma on using their services. It would just be another reason to avoid them.
Also, we have how many thousands of mentally ill people already on the streets that can't afford mental health services; and the government and insurance companies have punted on them.
Even if you get every last mentally ill person on a database- you would still have far more deaths from gang related shootings. Of course the left doesn't give a shit about those. The wrong racial demographic do the vast majority of those; so it doesn't fit their narrative.
Is that supposed to boost military recruitment? Or will the ranks of law enforcement increase by large numbers?
These proposed gun bans don't really end up banning guns. Gun bans only establishes an elite class of gun users employed by government.
Adam Lanza tried to make a purchase at a gun store and was turned down.
He ended up breaking into his mothers gun case and using her gun(s).
How many Americans who were fit gun owners years ago have now gone round the proverbial bend, became mentally ill or died leaving there guns to unfit owners? There are more guns than people and the easy access to guns multiplies the incidence of gun suicides and crimes of passion. We must emphasize the "Well Regulated" part of the Second Amendment to insure all gun owners are fit gun owners!
"We must emphasize the "Well Regulated" part of the Second Amendment to insure all gun owners are fit gun owners!"
Except you possess no clue as to how that that can be accomplished. In the real world, it can't
Which only illustrates that the real problem is a people problem and not a hardware problem. Focusing attention on guns ignores the underlying people problem. It's a NIMBY solution that only shifts the real problem elsewhere. Biden is only kicking the can because it's easier.
How do we solve a people problem? Indoctrination? Internment camps? Euthanasia? It's always easier to look away.
Too bad history,historians and legal scholars disargree with what you obviously THINK "well regulated ' means for when this amendment was written .
To me it appears you think well regulated means laws and restrictions to be put in place .
Its use in the 2nd is far from that meaning .
Take a real good look at the context well regulated is used and to whom it applies . The Militia , thats who , and a well regulated militia even in the simplest military terms , is one that is equipped pretty much the same , with like or similar equipment suitable for military service .
A good place to look for what well regulated was back then , is to look at the different militia acts passed at or around the same time as the amendment was ratified since the well regulated mentioned specifically says the militia and applies to , the militia, those acts basically are just a list of equipment militiamen were to have in case they were called to service and the structure of said militia , all at their own expense .
Well regulated gun ownership should entail registration, licencing, training and insurance, the same as to operate an automobile...
your opinion , your welcome to it of course, even if it is wrong .
operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVILIGE granted by the state , gun ownership is a RIGHT that existed long before this country existed and the amendment was written .
And if you really want to go further , because of the 14th amendment , the restrictions of government infringement also applies to the states .
remember the 14th is a reconstruction era amendment that came to being to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves , the 14th states that there shall be equal protection of all citizens rights , one of those rights the newly freed slave got was the 2nd , so it can be argued that the 2nd also can not be infringed by state governments because of the 14th . because it codified that the states could not do that which the federal government was forbidden to do as well and that is also supported by the 10th amendment .
Way i see it , gun grabbers are basically fucked 7 different ways from sunday, and dont know whether to spit or shit .
“Well regulated gun ownership should entail registration, licencing, training and insurance, the same as to operate an automobile.”
yeah, good idea. criminals are sure to embrace that idea with great emthusiasm.
And you are right back to where we are now. Do you actually think a criminal will abide by that? But to use you analogy; look how many stolen automobiles are being driven around with unlicensed, uninsured drivers.
There is no such thing as a right without government. Government is what grants rights.
The concept of God given rights Is a philosophical or religious statement. They are not something that actually exists.
You might say "Well If there was no government I would still have my gun" which is true but that would just be the reality of the situation and not based on any "right".
Without the government controlling rights someone could own their own personal nuclear weapon and display it in their backyard in order to intimidate people.
That is 100% ass backwards thinking, Government restricts rights, they don't grant rights.
So you don’t believe in the concept of human rights.
Of course not, all things flow from a benevolent all loving government, just ask the Uighurs.
And the German Jews, the Polish the Rumanians the Ukranians the Philipinos, And how bout the Chinese under both the Mongols and the Japanese?
Of course there aren't that many of those people around anymore, and because of the history deniers, we are going to have to suffer under such political policies again and many more will die...
The difference is Government uses bulldozers and excavators to bury the dead....
Gun Banning policy is a ticket to mass graves courtesy of the federal government...
And there you have it, the base philosophy of all socialists and dictators.... Those that think they have the right to decide for everyone... Anyone not agreeing with the government line has no rights....
Maybe you wanna ask a former african slave how that feels...
Do you have the "right" to own property?
Thank the government. Without the government you have no proof the property is yours. "Rights" without government are a concept, they are not a reality.
Of course I said nothing like that, but let's consider the source.
There are untold people who do not agree with our government who have and exercise their rights every day.
Yep the source is you....
You did say...
You now denying you said that?
Bullshit. Government does not grant me the right to own property. The government only registers my ownership.
No, the source of that statement is YOU.
Without government you claim a "right" to own property that is not enforceable.
It's absolutely enforceable, the same way it was enforceable before there was Government. I will say it again, Government is to protect the weak, it does not grant rights, It merely restricts them.
So if owning a gun is an inherent human right independent of government, how in god's name are we stopping people at an artificial government enforced "border"? Do they not have an inherent human right to move around their earthly environment any way they see fit?
You cant answer my questions or dispute what I am saying. What you are describing is anarchy, - the government makes, or tries to make, people behave in a civil way.
What we are arriving at here is the major , unsolvable problem with libertarianism - it doesnt work.
It's almost like the Government is restricting their rights to move about. Were they allowed to freely migrate before the government came into existence and restricted their right?
And yet I have at every step, you just fail to recognize it, you are a big fan of an all controlling government. Some of us are not. you need government.
If there is a God given right to own a gun or own property, then there is a God given right for people who live south of the "border" to go north without being stopped.
You are not addressing the point , you are stating an opinion.
Tell me why the government does not determine "rights".
Because they don't have the power to give rights, only restrict them, through penalties. The government doesn't grant you free speech, you can obviously say anything you want, they can restrict what you say. The fact that you can't see this is telling, and does clarify your position on numerous issues.
Who said anything about God? and which God? Who is restricting their right to go north? Can you answer that John?
Not without being stopped if there is a law against it where they are going. Stop John. We have all the rights in the world as human beings. As pointed out to you above, government tells us what we CAN'T do. And they can't come here (supposedly although the present conditions point the other direction) as it violates our law. Period
Government determines what we can't do out of the whole scheme of things. We are born with inalienable rights and those can ONLY be denied us by government. Again, it restricts them
Your response to Mark @ 3.2.8...
YOU said it....
You said it alright, you also equated it to a religious practice/philosophy rather than the LAW ensconced in the constitution as the second amendment which was part of the first ten amendments which are also known as the bill of rights, those rights which the federal government has no right to remove...
AS far as the nuclear weapon argument? the courts since I believe '26 or so, (year could be wrong) ruled that all citizens have the right to, (unremoveable by government) to any and all weapons normally carried by a US military serviceman in the normal course of his duties...
For your argument to be valid, we would have to have US infantrymen carrying nuclear weapons... That's the LAW....
Now that has been regulated to delete two classes of weapons, short barreled shotguns and assault weapons... (you know those rifles that are capable of firing fully automatic) And the last decision of the Supreme Court on the issue, SPELLED THIS OUT....
You remember that one John, the Heller decision?
Your argument is completely without merit and false as well...
Do people from south of the border have an inalienable right to enter the US and live here without being stopped by immigration or having to go through an immigration process?
Someone here said the right to own a gun precedes any government, call it a god given right, an inalienable right, or whatever you want. Just tell me why such a right does not apply to people who want to settle in , say, Wyoming, with no immigration restrictions.
I'm not sure any of you are getting my point.
We all get your point, it's very transparent, you believe rights emanate from the Government, I believe this thinking is bullshit, and government only restricts rights. But I respect your right to be wrong.
I T I S A G A I N S T T H E L A W O F T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S
That whole sovereign nation thing. I am sure you understand. And BTW, weren't you one of those who pissed and moaned about Abbot and DeSantis shipping people all over the country? Can't have it both ways.
So government can control what people do.
You absolutely do not get it.
According to the Declaration of Independence ALL people have inalienable rights. That would include people from Spanish speaking places like El Salvador.
I'll give you one last chance - why is there an inalienable right to own property or own a gun , but there is not an inalienable right for people from the "hispanic" places to walk up here and live their lives without an immigration process?
You now appear to be simply trolling others,
Maybe because the government has RESTRICTED that right like we have been claiming they do all along.
Now why would i need a backpack nuke , or an atomic annie artillery piece ( yes it IS legal to own a cannon ) to intimidate someone , when a simple semi automatic does the same thing ?
what i think you mean by what was being regulated was "select fire " firearms , ones capable of firing either semi or full auto, those actually DO fit the description and definition of what the military says an "assault rifle" actually is .( pescky military stole the gun grabbers thunder by having an actual definition so they had to make one up and came up with assault WEAPON, which basically is anything that makes them piss down their leg ) .
I never said "god given right " what i said was the right to own a weapon , in this case a gun , is a right that has existed before the institutions of government were even considered , that would make it a natural or human right , the weapons change and they have through out human history with tech advances , but the right of a person to have one is and always has been there and it is dictated by their means or what they can afford to say it better .
As for the current presidents push for a ban , well the last ban didnt do squat as was pointed out except maybe bring what was banned more to public attention and increase its popularity( and cost) . but that legislation didnt have to face 3 things , those being the desicions of heller , brown , and bruen . and that is saying npothing about not having the votes to pass such legislation federally .
Any future legislation will be viewed and measured through those optics , like it or not .
Then , there is the 4 C's
1 consideration
2 consent
3 co-operation
4 compliance
any one of those things missing and gun grabbers and authoritarian types are pretty much screwed .
Obviously not or there wouldn't be mass shootings! or are you claiming the government allows them? they can only impose consequences for actions that they deem illegal.
Ownership of property is a legal concept that exists by virtue of an authorizing agent (in this case the agent is our government). One cannot literally own something unless there is a mechanism whereby the ownership is validated (and, to a degree, protected).
Government is necessary for you to legally own something.
Do you really think that's a gotcha? Why would you think the right to freely immigrate is an inalienable right?
To me, it is because every nation necessarily must manage its legal immigration (and curtail illegal immigration). Each nation needs a process which will ensure that national resources can accommodate the immigration quotas and to filter out those who are bad for society (e.g. known criminals).
So you believe no one owned anything before governments were formed?
You can really see the divide between the totalitarians and those who believe in individual rights when this topic gets discussed.
It is not a belief, it is by definition. Without an authorizing entity, legal ownership does not exist.
People have had control over 'property' prior to any authorizing entity, but they could not possibly legally own it without the authorizing entity.
Totalitarian? Good grief man, spend less time trolling and more time thinking things through.
Ownership has always existed and predates the concept of legality.
otalitarian
Yes, the belief that a government grants rights to its subjects that otherwise have none is the hallmark of a totalitarian society. That's not controversial, despite your trolling.
If the "government" reverses the second amendment one day and takes away your right to own a gun, will you accept that or will you say its not the governments business?
You dont get it either - there are no "rights" without government, otherwise the El Salvadorans would have the "right" to come to America to live without having to go through an immigration process.
Is there a more "inalienable" right than freedom of movement?
Control has existed. Legal ownership, however, is a legal concept.
Look at the context which started this ... it is speaking of legal ownership:
If the government does not 'register' (even if implicitly by meeting the requirements of law) your perceived 'ownership', you do not legally own it.
If you occupy land, you do not legally own it simply because you are the occupant. You occupy it, you do not own it. You only own it if you meet the legal requirements established by the authorizing agent (in this case, government).
Go ahead, test it out. Occupy some land and then attempt to sell it without establishing the legal right of ownership per our government. You will find out quite quickly that your perception of ownership is a fantasy.
You omitted a very important part of that second paragraph:
"The People" means US citizens. "The People" do not include illegal aliens.
PS - It's UNalienable rights ... not INalienable rights.
You just wildly extrapolated from the specific notion of legal ownership of property into ALL possible human rights. That is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I wrote.
You engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty and then have the temerity to label my explanation of legal ownership as trolling.
LOL. The Declaration of Independence is widely believed to be a document that has universal application in all times and in all places.
Do you seriously believe that you, as an American, have unalienable rights but people from Latin America don't ?
same thing
Don't be absurd. Of course they do. But the geographic location doesn't afford them the right to exercise them due to GovCo restricting them.
You just dont get it.
I didn't dispute that inalienable is a synonym. I merely stated that the Declaration of Independence's text uses the word unalienable.
Ditto. You have your thoughts and others have theirs. We all have rights but we also live under the rule of law. There is a law against murder. Without it, I could just kill my neighbor with impunity.
As an aside, do you not have an apostrophe key? If you do, why don't you ever use it?
Under government , and law, ownership of property is not based on who has the biggest baseball bat or gun or army. Before government is anarchy. If you have something I want and I take it from you , well too bad for you. That includes property. No one "owns" a piece of land, or a car, or many other things until the government sanctions that ownership. That is reality which seems to be a bridge too far for some.
That's right but we do have the right. GovCo just makes it official.
So if one day a different Supreme Court rescinds or alters Heller, the court case that affirmed individual right to own guns, you will be ok with that? Allright, good.
The point is that there is no "right" to carry a gun, it is granted by the government, which has happened. But if it goes away one day dont start saying you have a "natural" right to carry one.
JB, are volunteering to go down to the hood and check the mental fitness of all the gang bangers to make sure they use good judgement before they whack Corn Pop.
Supreme Court is governed by the Constitution and cannot fuck with it in the case of the right to own guns. Period. Nor would they. The only thing they could do would be interpret it differently but NOT rid it completely.
That's doesn't help your argument. In order to better protect property rights (not create them) , we have agreed, as a society to require land registration. That doesn't mean no one owned the land before it was registered, nor would it mean no one owns the land if we did away with registration system. Its simply an efficiency.
Have you never read the Declaration of Independence? John Locke?
You are essentially arguing against the core rationale underlying our country in particular and liberal democracy in general. You are using the rationale of feudal kings.
Using this as an example then, one can say that Native Americans have no standing on how their land was stolen as the government didn't sanction their ownership. In fact all the forced migrations to reservations could be viewed as simply evicting squatters. This seems to be your stance based on your interpretation of land ownership.
Which is a religious statement and belief. It should have no legal standing.
What do you think the Second Amendment states? The right to bear (carry) chewing gum?
Wrong. The right to keep and bear arms (2A) was granted by We, the People, to the legislators, not the other way around. Only after the people in each state agreed to the amendment were legislators allowed to incorporate 2A into the Bill of Rights.
The same process applied to all of the other amendments.
Civics 101.
We have the right to request legal ownership. We do not have the right to simply deem legal ownership.
We have the right to request a driver's license to then operate a motor vehicle. We do not have the right to simply hop into a car and start driving.
What you call "making it official" is actually turning a desire for ownership into actual legal ownership. Without "making it official" there is no legal ownership. You can pretend to own a car that you bought from a friend, but without "making it official" by virtue of title transfer, your friend still legally owns the car. Your perception of ownership would be false.
You are totally missing the point.
Your tone was that JR was wrong.
There is no such statement...
My argument needs no help, it is a statement of definition. You are (amusingly) denying the meaning of legal ownership.
Without an authority in which to house legal ownership, there is no legal ownership. You can sit on a piece of land and shoot guns at those who would uproot you, but that does not establish legal ownership. Controlling property is not the same as legally owning it.
If the Indians had an inalienable right to their land that could be respected without government, they would still have it, wouldnt they?
The government decided they didnt own the land, and they have had to mostly live on reservations ever since.
I think your argument proves my point more than it refutes it.
Just going according to your own words and that of the US Constitution, John!
They had the right. But as explained to you ad nauseum, the government took it away. Didn't give it to them, took .... it.....away.
Is John Locke God?
John Locke's philosophy was the basis for white settlers claiming they "owned" land that had previously belonged to the Indians because the settler put up fences and starting growing wheat. Of course the Indians would object to the loss of land and sometimes attack the settlers. Were they wrong to do so? This only ended when government entered the picture. You dont own something like land because you claim that you own it, you own it once a controlling authority like the government says you do.
I believe Native Americans have no concept of ownership when it comes to land (nature in general) but rather one of respectful usage of same for sustenance. But if they did, their legal ownership would exist based on their (collective) authority (one did not exist). Per the authority of US government, there was no legal ownership that it recognized. That is how Native Americans were legally pushed out of their homelands ... by legal US authority. Two very different systems at play.
While what the US did to Native Americans was morally wrong, that does not change the fact that legal ownership exists relative to an authorizing agent. Native American ownership today is legal per the authority of the government. The ownership is recognized and enforced.
John - you've seen and read this before, but based on that comment, remember - the Native Americans hold their lands in "Aboriginal Title" - a title that has not nor can not, per the courts of the world, be taken from them with the exception of Congress passing acts to TOTALLY disavow such title - which has not happened.
"Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.
Aboriginal title is also referred to as indigenous title , native title (in Australia), original Indian title (in the United States), and customary title (in New Zealand). Aboriginal title jurisprudence is related to indigenous rights, influencing and influenced by non-land issues, such as whether the government owes a fiduciary duty to indigenous peoples. While the judge-made doctrine arises from customary international law, it has been codified nationally by legislation, treaties, and constitutions .
Aboriginal title was first acknowledged in the early 19th century, in decisions in which indigenous peoples were not a party. Significant aboriginal title litigation resulting in victories for indigenous peoples did not arise until recent decades. The majority of court cases have been litigated in Australia, Canada, Malaysia, New Zealand, and the United States. Aboriginal title is an important area of comparative law, with many cases being cited as persuasive authority across jurisdictions. Legislated Indigenous land rights often follow from the recognition of native title."
Your assumptions are incorrect. Move on.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Agreed,
The text reads as Un-A-Lienable, which means that no claim or encumbrance can be made against them, they cannot be sold or transferred... And the Declaration goes on to state that governments are created by men to assure this principle...
Inalienable is just a different form of the principle and can be used interchangeably...
“Unalienable” vs. “Inalienable”: Is There A Difference?
The interesting part especially for John's immigrant rights argument is this....
Scroll to the bottom of the linked page top read it...
John's wrong again...
Thank you. I think he was trying to accuse me of not stating a famous sentence that many of us memorized in grammar school. At the time of my post, I didn't believe that some people didn't know it. I'll know better next time.
I am being literal. You made no such statement in any of your comments.
You may have thought that in your head or made some assumption but you literally did not type a statement to that effect.
Moving on.
Thanks, I guess. Great words on paper (again). Lovely sentiments.
Is there a similar religious statement in the Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy?
Did anyone he say was?
You dont own something like land because you claim that you own it, you own it once a controlling authority like the government says you do.
so you believe the Indians never owned any land and it would be impossible for them do so with without a central authority granting them legal title.
Your entire argument is just bizarre. You refuse to realize the theory of rights that our country was literally founded upon. By all means, if you refuse to recognize reality go found a country using Louis XIV's France or fascist Italy as a model, since that's the system you so desperately want
Nope, what my argument proves is that government restricts, it does not grant.
Native Americans (prior to outside influences) did not consider land to be something that can be owned. So, no, from their perspective they did not have a concept of ownership.
Land ownership is realized through law. Law is reified by government. To own land one must meet the legal criteria established by the nation in administrative control of said land. The land ownership is granted and enforced by government.
We all (for the most part) have an option to purchase land. If we meet the legal requirements and the seller agrees to our terms, we can purchase land and become the legal owner. Short of legal ownership, one can pretend ownership but that is no more real than pretending to own a star.
a tive Americans (prior to outside influences) did not consider land to be something that can be owned.
"In reality, Greer writes, most people in the pre-Columbian Americas were primarily farmers, not hunter-gatherers. Around major Mesoamerican cities, cropland might be owned by households, temples, or urban nobles. As in Europe, less-cultivated areas like forests and deserts acted as a kind of regulated commons. They might belong to a person, family, or community, with legal provisions for local people to gather wood, berries, or game. In Iroquois and Algonquian nations, women in a particular family typically owned specific maize fields, although people of the area often farmed them, and distributed the harvest, collectively."
meet the legal requirements and the seller agrees to our terms, we can purchase land and become the legal owner.
Again, you keep conflating a system to make land ownership more efficient into the only way land has ever been owned. Repeating your mistake won't rectify it. If the government went away tomorrow, people would still own things
Just read the declaration.
Governments do not create rights, they are created by men to help secure them.
We live in a time where the land on the planet is almost entirely claimed by governing authorities (and by individual owners through the governing authority). That which remains unclaimed requires a process (per a governing authority) to claim it. For example, for you to stake a claim to land in Antarctica you would need to meet the requirements of the Antarctic Treaty System which is the result of cooperation of ~50 nation states (Antarctic Treaty nations). You cannot simply stick your family flag in the ground, build a home and declare the property owned by you.
Legal property ownership is an emergent property of government within a nation.
You are still trying to deny what it means to legally own land. Truly a futile pursuit so why do you keep trying?
Governments do not create ALL rights, but they do create SOME rights and the right to legally own land was created by law (via government). One cannot legally own land without an overall authority that grants and enforces the ownership rights. You cannot legally own land by merely stating your claim to it any more than you can legally own a star by merely declaring a claim.
You do, however, have the right to pretend that you have ownership.
Not at all. But the rules we voluntarily adopted and follow in 2022 have not been followed since the dawn of mankind.
overnments do not create ALL rights, but they do create SOME rights and the right to legally own land was created by law (via government).
No, the government did not create the right to own land. It's laughable to anyone with the most basic understanding of the declaration of independence or our nation's founding principles to believe that the right to own land is granted to them by the government. Did you believe the government created the right to life too? That we have no right to live unless President Biden grants it?
Totalitarians view rights the way you do. Liberals (in the classical sense) believe they are innate to our humanity.
Irrelevant. The concept of legal land ownership is an emergent property of law and law is the result of legal authority (government). Without law there is no legal land ownership.
You cannot legally own land without law. You cannot have law without a legal authority over said law. The legal authority over law in the USA is our government and the right to legally own land is a function of law.
You continue to deny the most basic of ideas.
No. Attempt to stay focused on the legal ownership of land in the USA.
Explain what one must do to legally own land in the USA. I want to see if you support your own (ridiculous) protest and write: "I just claim it as my own (end of story) because it is my right to do so and the government (the law) has no say in the matter".
Person A " I own this land" - Person B "Who says so?"
Until you have government, you cant answer that question.
Without a government's protection men with more or bigger guns would just take our lives and our property. The primary function of government is to protect the lives, well being and property rights of its citizens. Everything government does relates to those things...
erson A " I own this land" - Person B "Who says so?"
Person A.
It's possible. but again, that's why our forefathers decided to form a government. To secure our rights. It's straight out of the declaration of independence. And when a government fails to secure or recognize those rights, it's no longer a just government and is tyrannical.
The lack of basic civics knowledge is very sad. .
Yep, right there. Government is formed to secure our rights, not grant them.
its not that simple , but this discussion is getting boring
Except for the personal insult how does what you said in comment 3.2.93 in any way refute what I said in 3.2.91?
Do you not understand the difference between creating and securing a right?
but this discussion is getting boring
On that, I can 100% agree with you.
Except that without a government to secure its citizens lives and property rights, supposedly granted by imaginary beings, those rights exist only in theory as Sean's Person B would and could simply kill Person A and steal everything they owned...
Other than that, do you always applaud insulting comments?
It does both.
Many moral rights exist as inalienable (albeit these are a function of society which is intertwined with societal law). Legal rights, however, do not exist without a legal authority. No legal rights can exist without a legal authority.
If you disagree then explain how a legal right can exist without law (defining the legal right) and government (making and enforcing the law)?
So, for example, our government secures our right of free speech and our moral right to life. It does not enable these rights, it secures them (but even this security is conditional ... we do not have 100% freedom in either).
Government, however, does absolutely create and secure the right to legally own land. Similarly, government creates and secures the right to legally pilot aircraft, be legally married, legally form a business, execute a legal contract, legally vote, legally pass inheritance, etc.
So you can claim ownership of land in the USA all you wish but it is pure fantasy unless you legally own it and to legally own it you must meet the requirements of property law and be granted the right of ownership as a consequence.
Maybe. Or maybe person B knows that if does so, Person A's neighbors have agreed to kill anyone who steals from them. Maybe Person B knows that if kills someone and takes their land, he's set the precedent for others in the area to do it to him and doesn't want to sleep with one eye open. Maybe person b is afraid of being socially ostracized. Maybe Person B isn't a psychopath and has a sense of right and wrong.
. Who knows? The simple recognition of property ownership has communal benefits regardless of the existence of any formal government.
Let's take an ancient community ... people who have moved from hunter/gatherer into an agricultural community. This community is a society (not a nation) and it will almost always have rules. These rules are primitive laws and they are enforced by the power base of the community (elder council, chieftain, etc.)
The concept of legal ownership would exist even in these primitive cultures if there were rules, sanctioned by the community power base, for securing legal ownership (and that the ownership is protected by the community). So if you were to successfully secure ownership to a little bit of land, your legal ownership would prevent another member of the community forcibly taking control of your property. The community has granted your legal ownership and, to be relevant, the community will secure your legal ownership by enforcement of its rules.
You do not simply make a claim and have legal ownership. Legal ownership is a societal function ... borne out of law (or rules) defined by the society.
It's amazing that you continue to ignore the founders and their influences like Locke or Blackstone, who clearly see the right to property as a natural right, and simply repeat without any proof whatsoever other than your own say so that the right to own property was created by the government. Could you favor us with a single source supporting your claim?
I understand rights once imagined in theory require an army to execute and maintain in real life. The question is, do you?
Lol. you now think property rights have never been recognized absent a standing army?
Buddy, reading English or American history will blow your mind.
Two neighbors simply agreeing to mutually defend each other's property do not constitute laws, nor a society. Or you are stretching the definition to farcical levels.
For them to legally own their property, there must be laws that define and enforce legal ownership. In lieu of that, the two neighbors do not legally own their property and have simply agreed to defend each other's turf.
Imagine a hunter/gatherer commune that has established a camp. Do they legally own the encampment site? They will all defend it (probably to the death) against intruders. But there is no ownership here. If they perceived a primitive concept akin to ownership it would be a mere fantasy. They did not own the campsite anymore than the intruders who might have just wiped them out. The question of ownership is moot, the relevant factor is control.
To have legal ownership there must be laws (and this can be rules) made by an overriding authority (nation or even a primitive commune) that define and enforce the legal ownership. Legal ownership is an emergent property of law.
Now if you remove your restriction that these two neighbors cannot be a society then we could have a society of two. This society can make laws that apply within its scope and enforce same. So the two neighbors can make their land legally theirs and enforce same but this legal ownership is only valid in their tiny society of two. If their society is conquered their ownership dissipates as well because .... wait for it .... legal ownership depends on —and only applies within— the laws of the society in control.
So, for example, if the USA were conquered, your legally owned home may no longer be legally owned by you. Consider what took place in WWII when the Germans occupied conquered nations.
This is going to be last statement on this. As John said above, its getting boring saying the same thing over and over.
It's indisputable that our country, our Constitution and our legal system incorporates Locke and other authorities doctrine asserting that property is a natural right. That simply cannot be honestly debated. Your view, that property rights derive solely from the government, was most prominently argued by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Leviathan is explicitly an ode to, and justification for, absolute monarchy. It is considered by many to be a philosophical blueprint for the totalitarian states that arose in 20th century. America and liberal democracies have rejected Hobbes. There's no pretending otherwise.
Legal ownership of property can only exist if there is a legal system of law. A legal system of law requires an authority that makes and enforces the law.
You can pretend to have the legal right of ownership to some land, but your fantasy is meaningless in reality unless you have met the requirements and have been granted ownership by the legal authority (in this case, our government executing our laws).
When were property rights secure without a powerful government?
The Kings of Europe easily stole Native American's land because they did not have a powerful central government to secure them.
oh it might get more interesting , i understand the illinois legislature is discussing a semi auto ban of their own on the state level, it of course will be challenged , and in view of heller , brown and bruen, likely be struck down .
but the thing to watch will be the "unintended consequenses " .
one i can think of is the state becomes a "drive through" state for truckers , no loads accepted to be picked up or dropped off, if i remember the shortest route through is 80/90 from the indiana to iowa border , that would mean no stops at all either . chicago would see all kinds of trucks on the road , just very few stopping and dropping if my thoughts come to fruitation . .
There you go again, using all your fancy words and college education and extensive knowledge to humiliate MAGAs...
Are you into humiliating people, JBB?
There were many powerful governments that didn’t secure individual property rights.
And you know damn good and well that your impertinent nonsense had exactly zero to do what I contended. When and where were property rights ever secure without a strong central government protecting them?
No, do you enjoy showing your ass for other's amusement?
If we literally embraced Locke's notion of private property rights by original appropriation and labor, it would be mere concept unless reified via enforced law by the authority controlling the domain which includes the property.
In short, you do not legally own any land in the domain of the USA without first meeting the requirements of US law and being granted the right to legally own said land. It matters not what you wish were true or your philosophical or religious constructs of what should be true. Legal ownership comes from law and law comes from a governing authority for the domain in question.
Do you enjoy seeing my ass, why?
I find it amusing that you enjoy making an [[DELETED}]
I’m glad that you’re amused, maybe now you will be less angry.
You still don't get it.
Without us the government doesn't exist! We are what grants the government the right to operate. We remove that right and the government ceases to exist!
One thing I have not seen mentioned so far is that any land that is legally privately owned, the US Government can take from you under use of two words. Eminent Domain, meaning our rich uncle can just step in and say we need your land and it now belongs to the government. I've seen it happen more than once.
Eminent domain punctuates the fact that legal ownership of land is an emergent property of law which is a function of government. Legal land ownership in the USA is accomplished by a system administered by government in which parcels can be acquired by citizens. Ownership of land is certified by holding a deed and is enforced by our system of laws.
In short, if I try to occupy land that you legally own, you can tap our legal enforcement system to uphold the rights you hold. Per the USA, you are the true owner of the land and my protests to the contrary are mere fantasy.
And, per your point, the law also provides a public ownership option of eminent domain to forcibly acquire land for public use under certain conditions.
Biden is a fucking moron, thank goodness we have supreme court who will shove his idiocy up his ass.
Ezekiel 37:9-14 ERV Then the Lord said to me, “Speak to the wind for me. Son of man, speak to the wind for me. Tell the wind that this is what the Lord GOD says: ‘Wind, come from every direction and breathe air into these dead bodies!'"
Biden is speaking to the wind, and his words are just "blowing in the wind", because breathing air into all those dead bodies, the numbers increasing day after day is not going to bring them back to life. America has obviously found the solution for reducing the excess population, and now that Christmas is approaching, you may once again hear Ebebeezer Scrooge's sentiments about that.
When you start to read stories like these, posted today, you might realize that desiring all those guns has gone too far.
Upset KFC customer shoots employee after restaurant runs out of corn, police say
Police in St. Louis are investigating after a KFC employee said a customer shot him because he was angry the restaurant was out of corn.
According to a St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department incident report, the shooting took place just after 6 p.m. Monday at the fast food chain in the city's Central West End.
Officers responded to a hospital where the 25-year-old male employee had been privately driven after being shot in the abdomen, police said.
Investigators said the shooting suspect attempted to place an order in the restaurant's drive-thru lane. He became upset and threatened employees when he was told the business was out of corn, police said.
Subway shooting over mayonnaise: Man fatally shot Atlanta Subway restaurant worker after sub had 'too much mayo,' police say
LINK ->
I have been watching things north of the border lately , seems the liberal majority government is facing some "pushback" on a certain bit of firearms legislation because they tried to slide in some more "restrictive " provisions that would pretty much eliminate a laundry list of firearms that are normally associated with hunting , seems first nation and conservatives are not too happy and facing being escorted out after calling out the liberal majority as liars in parliment when the liberals said it wont affect hunting .
jolly good fun watching the "polite " cousins to the north get their titties twisted .....
I saw that. Apparently there will be a list of exceptions for normal hunting use provided.
and they are also asking what colour unicorn is desired ......
but hey if you believe ......
just like the origional bit of legislation initially only had to do with handguns , but the liberals slid in the part that essentially banned many popular and common hunting firearms , i would trust the liberal list of "exemptions " less than i trust gas station sushi on the middle of death valley .... classic over reach by nimrods i think .
Thankfully the USA has the 2nd , and the courts to counter some of this type of BS.dont have to count on the "benevolence" of the "ruling" party .
For some reason I feel safer where nobody has a gun than I would where everybody does. Chacun a son gout.
you have expressed that before , and that is your choice to make .
What is not your choice to make is to make the choice for me or anyone else .
such is life ., and yes , everyone does have their own tastes .
Did I say I did? Hey, you're happy living where a person gets shot and killed for putting too much mayonnaise on someone's sandwich, and I don't think I said you shouldn't live there did I?.
Well some of your past statements could make one think that you would like that choice to make for others or at the very least that the government should decide . You didnt say it THIS time though .
I do distinctly remember you wishing you could get a son of yours to move out of the states and back to Canada , a choice if left to you he would be north of the border yesterday unless my impression was wrong , but it is his choice , you have said as much yourself .
i simply agreed that you and I are both entitled to make our own choices , and neither of us can make it for the other , or anyone else .
* side note off topic and off discussion : might want to check your local market and see if they have chinese water deer or if it is available , seems there has been some imported and are hunted here in the states and in the UK by my understanding from asia , that would give you some venison if you are of amind to give it a try again .
These days I'm not leaving my apartment. If anywhere would have it it would be the big box METRO store, that imports many food items. I need to go there because I'm ouit of hot mustard, wasabe, sliced smoked salmon, some spices and a couple other things I can't get elsewhere else here. I'll look for it because they have a lot of different meats. In winter, Chinese people eat lamb which is my favourite meat. Thanks for the tip.
Do you like watching road movies?
And you can thank the chinese government for that, but then they have all the guns, otherwise they couldn't enforce it...
Nobody has a gun except those that have the power of life and death over you...
Very reassuring... NOT!!!
Citizens being well armed prevent them from being made into serfs
Morning...we have just had a mass shooting of sorts here on Monday and it has shaken this country to the core once again..
Three innocent people lost their lives two being young police officers and one a person who came to their aid. Two other officers escaped.
Three maggots two male and one female who did the shootings have been exterminated as they should be..they are no loss and will no longer walk this earth....they forfeited that right when they pulled the trigger.
Yes we have laws and assorted bans of certain types of guns after the Port Arthur massacre...we own guns, buy guns and use guns.
Do I feel safe in my country.. totally and absolutely.. have no fear in going anywhere at anytime...
But our mind set and mentality towards guns and ownership is so different to the States...what works here will never work there, no matter who is in power...
We grieve our loss of three lost souls..
🇦🇺💔🥀
Totally agree,like 00's of 000's of others I was shocked when I heard the news over the ABC. The best result was the perpetrators of these murders also lost their lives, saving the government millions keeping them in prison for the remainder of their lives.
Am Vietnam veteran, 68-69. The weapon I was issued, an M-16, hasn't any need or purpose on the streets of America.
I also had access to an M-60 machine gun and an M-79 grenade launcher. These are weapons of war.
and M-16 is a select fire capable weapon , so it meets the "assault rifle definition " so i tend to agree there is no purpose or need for it to be in the hands of anyone including the police but the military .
here is the splitting of hairs , an AR-15 is not an M-16, it is wholly semi automatic with no full auto capability .
And semi automatics have been available for civilian purchase for over 100 years , they were available to civilians before the military adopted them . believe the first one was a winchester available in 1907 that was available to the public .
Leftist liberal anti-gun mindset = But a AR-15 is black and looks like a M-16/M-4, so by default it must be a assault rifle!
Gun haters are a total joke. Nearly all of them.
If they were really serious about diminishing gun death and not just controlling others not of like mind, they would get after inner city gun violence which is almost exclusively handguns. But no, they keep selling this assault weapons ban, to all their dimwitted worker drones, as the be all answer. Which it is not. Not even close.
Therefore once again, Biden is a joke.
Sad .....
Amen to that.