Skip to main content

View Diary: Riding a populist wave toward 2014 (224 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Please quote where the President said (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indie17

    yesterday or any other day that banning such weapons would be an infringement on the liberties of innocent Americans.

    I think he said the opposite.

    I lived in a time when I could be conscripted into the Army and forced to fight in an immoral war founded on lies. That was an infringement on the liberties of innocent Americans.

    Saying I can't purchase a weapon for civilian use that can fire 100 shots in a minute or that can do 30 shots without reloading is not.

    Argue that it is politically risky, but do not argue that there is something wrong with it. Otherwise enumerate what specific liberties you think are infringed.

    •  I will quote the dictionary instead. (0+ / 0-)

      "Liberty--NOUN:
              1) a)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                   b)The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
             2)Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
             3)A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference"

      (I do not quote the definition to be condescending, so please do not take it that way; I quote it only so that we are certain to understand each other.)

      Virtually any ban, by the very definition of the word 'liberty', is an infringement on liberty, regardless of what the President says. (For an absurd example: try to imagine a President expressly saying his intent is to infringe on liberties)

      Your assessment of how important/unimportant or useful/not useful you find a particular liberty is irrelevant. It is a liberty & it is being taken from innocent Americans (if passed).

      And yes, I think it is 'politically risky' at best. 'Leading to an electoral curb-stomping' at worst.
      Innocent American voters aren't going to be courted by taking away their liberties, as trivial as you may find them.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:49:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps you need a definition of "their" (0+ / 0-)

        Or of "taking".

        To take away "their" liberty, the thing being taken must not be just a liberty, but it must be one they possess.

        America is indeed a land of liberty, but that does not mean every behavior is allowed at any time. Some things are not intrinsic rights.  And these things that are not intrinsic rights can be regulated, without it counting as taking away "their" liberties.

        If you think any ban is an infringement of "their" liberty, we can't talk. Congress can ban lots of things, from insider trading to selling cigarettes to minors.  Such things are liberties, but not "liberties of Americans", otherwise known as fundamental rights.

        You haven't argued that owning a weapon with a 30 round magazine is a fundamental right, hence restricting it cannot count as infringing anyone's liberty.

        •  It is one they posses (0+ / 0-)

          Hence, the 'ban'.

          "If you think any ban is an infringements of 'their' liberty, we can't talk"
          Me and the dictionary.
          However, suit yourself....I will allow the next election to do the talking for me.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:44:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  they don't possess it (0+ / 0-)

            Under the Constitution, that particular liberty is not unconditionally possessed by Americans; it is subject to Congress' power to regulate.  Therefore by the dictionary definition of "their", it' s not their liberty and hence it' s not being taken away.

            Your logic is dangerous. It is the same reasoning evil Republicans use to say that forcing insurance companies to insure people with pre- existing conditions or forcing pharmacists to sell contraceptives is an infringement of "our liberties".

            In America Congress has been delegated powers to regulate, and exercising these powers is not an infringement of the liberties of Americans.

            If you want to make a specific argument peculiar to restrictions on weapons, make it, but it is invalid to say any ban on anything is an attack on liberty which should be overturned at the polls.

            •  It is currently possessed. Hence, it is a (0+ / 0-)

              'liberty' by the very definition of the word.

              The courts have upheld warrantless wiretaps, do you find that to not be an infringement on liberty as well?

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:57:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  it is only conditionally possessed (0+ / 0-)

                subject to congress.

                otherwise any law that restricts something currently not restricted would be a taking of our liberties by your definition.

                Warrantless wiretapping is an actual violation of liberty, since the 4th amendment defines a right.  There is no analogous right to unlimited magazines.

      •  Perhaps you need a definition of "their" (0+ / 0-)

        Or of "taking".

        To take away "their" liberty, the thing being taken must not be just a liberty, but it must be one they possess.

        America is indeed a land of liberty, but that does not mean every behavior is allowed at any time. Some things are not intrinsic rights.  And these things that are not intrinsic rights can be regulated, without it counting as taking away "their" liberties.

        If you think any ban is an infringement of "their" liberty, we can't talk. Congress can ban lots of things, from insider trading to selling cigarettes to minors.  Such things are liberties, but not "liberties of Americans", otherwise known as fundamental rights.

        You haven't argued that owning a weapon with a 30 round magazine is a fundamental right, hence restricting it cannot count as infringing anyone's liberty.

        •  Let us look at the definition again. (0+ / 0-)

          "Liberty--NOUN:
                  1) a)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                       b)The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
                 2)Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                 3)A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference"

          You will notice the phrase 'free of control' mentioned 3 times in the definition. You will note that we are talking about Gun CONTROL.

          "condition of being free from restriction or control" The AWB is a form of 'gun control' designed to restrict types of rifles and magazines.

          The definitions of words don't change because their meanings make you uncomfortable.

          If you don't think that the AWB is an infringement on liberty, you need to take it up with the dictionary.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:18:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  only 1a applies (0+ / 0-)

            1b does not apply because it is not a right.

            2 does not apply because the government control is not unjust or undue.

            3 does not apply because it is not a right.

            And even 1a is not being taken because 1a does not belong to all Americans since we are under a federal government.

            •  Take it up with American Heritage Dictionary. (0+ / 0-)

              Apparently you also have to take up the meaning of the word 'or'....as in "A right OR immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference"

              Of course, as you have finally admitted, it does fit the definition of the word liberty.

              Good luck continuing on your crusade against the ACTUAL MEANINGS of words.
              Hats off to you.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 09:42:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  i have no problem with the dictionary (0+ / 0-)

                I have a problem with your application of the dictionary to your claim that a weapons ban takes away liberties of Americans.

                You have to demonstrate that owning a weapon with a thirty round capacity is a liberty of Americans.  You can' t do that from the dictionary. If it's not a liberty of Americans, then regulating it is not an infringement of a liberty of Americans.

                You can't argue this stuff from the definitions of words.  Not all liberties are unconditional by the Constitution.  You have to make a legal argument that this particular one is, which you have avoided doing.  I have argued here that by your logic, any law saying you must or must not do something is an infringement of liberty.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site