Ask NorthSideSox72 - candidate forum

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, no, I suppose I'm just irked by the fact that you've made cracks about my age in the past and I've told you how much it bothers me and others have, too, and it's such a pain in the ass. Frankly, I think I'm just as bright as any old guy on this board was when they were my age.

 

Just posted about it on the Catch-All thread but I've got two old guys who are lying about me and smearing me and insulting me all around and have stripped me of the one thing I enjoy and benefit from in CPS and I'm just tired from it. With authority and insults and am a little on edge. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't have reacted with umbrage at your comments a month ago, as I certainly would've because I'm sick of people insulting me because I'm young. It's just that, I'm particularly...vulnerable, if that's the word. Beat down, and then it bugs the s*** out of me to have a person who moderates at a forum I enjoy -- the only forum I habit -- insult me and to feel like I can't say a damn thing in response because if I'm not extra-careful someone'll suspend me.

Given the climate of the thread, I felt a little joke was OK. Obviously it wasn't. Sorry again.

 

Any further on this though, please, take it to PM. Or if you feel my joke was that bad, report it to another Mod. I don't want this or any other thread so thoroughly derailed.

 

Moving on...

[sox4lifeinPA]

I'm not sure why my name came up in this thread, but if someone has issue with something I've done, then by all means confront me with it.

 

I hope everyone can be reminded that this is supposed to be fun and thought provoking. Not dumb and fight provoking.

[mr_genius]

I hope everyone can be reminded that this is supposed to be fun and thought provoking. Not dumb and fight provoking.

 

shut the f*** up

[sox4lifeinPA]

shut the f*** up

 

 

YES That's the support we get at the PA campaign

[SoxFan1]

Thank you GP and NSS72 for your answers.

 

PA...eff off.

Edited December 2, 2006 by SoxFan1

[sox4lifeinPA]

PA...eff off.

 

I'm counting that as an endorsement

 

 

PA's F You Crew now taking applications

[FlaSoxxJim]

Let me say this. As a former law enforcement officer, I would love to be able to support registration for the very reasons you mention. It would make cops' lives that much easier, and probably even get more criminals off the street.

 

The only problem is, registering specific weapons is almost exactly what the framer's sought to prevent (short of an outright ban). The main purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or self-defense, but about keeping power out of the hands of government. This may seem an archaic concept in the modern world, but I think Mao's quote still works even today. Its an important check to protect our freedoms. I just can't abide it, despite the obiovus advantages you rightly cite.

 

I don't know if the other candidates are still browsing this thread, but if so I would love to see Rex, Tex, and PA chime in on this question. With only four official debate topics there are lots of other platform planks that are not really being addressed.

 

NorthSide has really impressed me throughout the debates and the whole campaign cycle. On taxes and environmental issues particularly, I'd say he'd be looking like my guy. He's likely to lose me over the gun control issues, but 'd like to give the other candidates a chance to shoot themselves in the foot on the issue as well before I make that decision.

 

I'm not so rabidly anti-gun that I want them all legislated out of owners' hands. And although it's not my cup of tea, I respect the right of people to enjoy responsible and regulated hunting. From an animal population control perspective many hunting activities integrate well with conservation and wildlife management needs, so that isn't the issue.

 

The issue is one of pursuing sensible gun control that does not conflict with a reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment. I don't believe that gun registration infringes on the rights of The People to a well regulated Militia any more than any federal registration requirements infringe on our right to privacy. Perhaps we need to examine how such records can be used and under what circumstances they can be accessed (such as after a weapon is used in the commission of a crime that can't be deemed part of a private citizen's activity to ensure the security of a free State).

 

The Constitutional framers themselves knew their job wasn't finished once the Bill of Rights was penned. Just 10 years after the Second Amendment was drafted, President Jefferson in his first annual message to the nation said: "We should at every session continue to amend the defects . . . in the laws regulating the militia." Five years later in an annual address he again noted the matter of rogue private militias: "The criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed."

 

I am of the opinion (open to debate) that the well regulated state militias of Articles I and II of the Constitution and the Second Amendment, under the command of the governor of each state (per Jefferson's 1811 clarification) are clear reference to what we now call the National Guard, not the backwoods private armies that pass themselves off as bastions of security for the free State. I do not deny even these entities the right to keep and bear arms as American citizens according to the laws of the land, but I also do not believe that gun registration and restricting certain firearms abrogates those rights either.

 

So,what do the other candidates have to say about this? The all-important FlaSoxx vote hangs in the balance!

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't know if the other candidates are still browsing this thread, but if so I would love to see Rex, Tex, and PA chime in on this question. With only four official debate topics there are lots of other platform planks that are not really being addressed.

 

NorthSide has really impressed me throughout the debates and the whole campaign cycle. On taxes and environmental issues particularly, I'd say he'd be looking like my guy. He's likely to lose me over the gun control issues, but 'd like to give the other candidates a chance to shoot themselves in the foot on the issue as well before I make that decision.

 

I'm not so rabidly anti-gun that I want them all legislated out of owners' hands. And although it's not my cup of tea, I respect the right of people to enjoy responsible and regulated hunting. From an animal population control perspective many hunting activities integrate well with conservation and wildlife management needs, so that isn't the issue.

 

The issue is one of pursuing sensible gun control that does not conflict with a reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment. I don't believe that gun registration infringes on the rights of The People to a well regulated Militia any more than any federal registration requirements infringe on our right to privacy. Perhaps we need to examine how such records can be used and under what circumstances they can be accessed (such as after a weapon is used in the commission of a crime that can't be deemed part of a private citizen's activity to ensure the security of a free State).

 

The Constitutional framers themselves knew their job wasn't finished once the Bill of Rights was penned. Just 10 years after the Second Amendment was drafted, President Jefferson in his first annual message to the nation said: "We should at every session continue to amend the defects . . . in the laws regulating the militia." Five years later in an annual address he again noted the matter of rogue private militias: "The criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed."

 

I am of the opinion (open to debate) that the well regulated state militias of Articles I and II of the Constitution and the Second Amendment, under the command of the governor of each state (per Jefferson's 1811 clarification) are clear reference to what we now call the National Guard, not the backwoods private armies that pass themselves off as bastions of security for the free State. I do not deny even these entities the right to keep and bear arms as American citizens according to the laws of the land, but I also do not believe that gun registration and restricting certain firearms abrogates those rights either.

 

So,what do the other candidates have to say about this? The all-important FlaSoxx vote hangs in the balance!

 

Thanks for all of that, sir, I appreciate the comments.

 

The "militia" discussion is interesting, and the term can be interpereted in mulitple ways. But ultimately, what it did not mean in that context, was to somehow protect the right to arms for a standing military. The National Guard, in its current use, is basically a standing military. It is no longer a collection of citizens protecting regional and local interests. It is part of the national military for all reasonable purposes. Therefore, I do not believe the protection should be limited to them.

 

Further, interestingly, there has been only one Supreme Court case that ever looked at the 2nd Amendment materially. In fact, the highest court in the land has been seemingly avoiding the topic. That one case was U.S. v Miller, 1939. In that case, while the court did in fact find connection with state militias, it should also be noted again that the National Guard is a far cry from what "state militias" have previously been. And, interestingly, among the dissent opinions in that case, it was pointed out that the amendment as stated probably protects most vigorously those weapons that are the most powerful - as opposed to the opposite.

 

Now, I am not of the opinions that people should own bazookas and M60's. However, I think when you get to the point of arguing 10 bullets in a pistol magazine versus 15, then you need to ask if maybe you are missing the point of the amendment. And further, ask yourself if that really accomplishes anything.

 

 

So,what do the other candidates have to say about this? The all-important FlaSoxx vote hangs in the balance!

Also, by the way, just so people don't misinterperet me... feel free to use my Q&A thread for others' opinions. SoxFan1 and FlaxxJim both asked for other opinions, so have at it. Mi casa, su casa.

[Rex Kickass]

I think it is time as a society to reexamine why we have the second amendment and why it's important to us. I believe that an American should have the right to own weaponry, if he/she chooses. I believe that an American should be able to own guns. However, I think it can be consistent with the second amendment to limit and regulate the sale of weaponry.

 

The Second Amendment isn't impeded by the idea of prohibiting the sale of weaponry to convicted felons, and it isn't impeded by limiting the types of ammunition that are available for sale in this country as well. It certainly isn't impeded by the idea of keeping a national gun registry. We use data, acceptably or not, that is much more benign to be on the watch for terrorists - including our financial transactions as well as library records. Why shouldn't we be able to keep track of who is owning which gun? We can put safeguards on the registry to allow its use in specific law-enforcement procedures only, for example.

 

I do support a national gun registry - with proper safeguards. If done properly, it can help ensure our safety without jeopardizing our liberty.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Out of principle, Jim, I will respond in my thread.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Out of principle, Jim, I will respond in my thread.

 

 

PA, looking to bring back "Separate But Equal"

 

Over there I go.

[NorthSideSox72]

Out of principle, Jim, I will respond in my thread.

 

So what, my thread's not good enough for you? Am I a clown to you?

 

 

 

I think it is time as a society to reexamine why we have the second amendment and why it's important to us. I believe that an American should have the right to own weaponry, if he/she chooses. I believe that an American should be able to own guns. However, I think it can be consistent with the second amendment to limit and regulate the sale of weaponry.

 

The Second Amendment isn't impeded by the idea of prohibiting the sale of weaponry to convicted felons, and it isn't impeded by limiting the types of ammunition that are available for sale in this country as well. It certainly isn't impeded by the idea of keeping a national gun registry. We use data, acceptably or not, that is much more benign to be on the watch for terrorists - including our financial transactions as well as library records. Why shouldn't we be able to keep track of who is owning which gun? We can put safeguards on the registry to allow its use in specific law-enforcement procedures only, for example.

 

I do support a national gun registry - with proper safeguards. If done properly, it can help ensure our safety without jeopardizing our liberty.

I definitely agree that we need a modern perspective. And I agree on selling to convited felons, and in some extreme circumstances, certain types of ammunition. But the registry stands in direct opposition of the purpose of the amendment. I just can't justify it, despite some of the positives it might bring.

[Rex Kickass]

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

How does a registry prohibit people to keep and bear Arms?

[NorthSideSox72]

The Second Amendment:

 

How does a registry prohibit people to keep and bear Arms?

It doesn't. It renders the amendment impotent in a different way. The government should not be allowed to maintain a list of who owns what guns.

 

Having read some of the federalist papers, and various texts from the framers, its pretty clear what the purpose of the amendment is. And a registry intrudes on the freedoms that were intended to be protected.

[Rex Kickass]

This isn't a list of who owns guns. This is a list of who purchases guns. There is a difference there. Why is it ok for the government to track a credit card's purchases but not ok for the government to track a list of gun purchases? We already do the former, but not the latter.

 

Again, a national gun registry can be created in a way that would not violate the spirit of the second amendment. It could be inaccessible without a warrant, for example.

[NorthSideSox72]

This isn't a list of who owns guns. This is a list of who purchases guns. There is a difference there. Why is it ok for the government to track a credit card's purchases but not ok for the government to track a list of gun purchases? We already do the former, but not the latter.

 

Again, a national gun registry can be created in a way that would not violate the spirit of the second amendment. It could be inaccessible without a warrant, for example.

Rex, come on now. It's not a list of who owns guns, just who purchases them? That's ridiculous. If its purchases, then anyone who legally owns them and bought them from a dealer of any sort would be the owner of record. Its effectively a list of who owns guns.

 

A credit card does not represent a check against the government. Gun ownership does. So, in my opinion, there is a big difference between the two.

 

If a registry is created against my beliefs, then I would certainly want to make sure it was warrant-only access.

[Balta1701]

If a registry is created against my beliefs, then I would certainly want to make sure it was warrant-only access.

I'd be in favor of such a registry...and I fully agree that you should need a warrant to get access to it. This includes the President, btw.

[FlaSoxxJim]

This isn't a list of who owns guns. This is a list of who purchases guns. There is a difference there. Why is it ok for the government to track a credit card's purchases but not ok for the government to track a list of gun purchases? We already do the former, but not the latter.

 

Again, a national gun registry can be created in a way that would not violate the spirit of the second amendment. It could be inaccessible without a warrant, for example.

 

Your ideas on registration that does not compromise the Second Amendmant closely mirror my own. NorthSide is polling real strong in Flaxx County, but He's taking it on the chin on the gun control issue.

 

Oh, the suspense!

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd be in favor of such a registry...and I fully agree that you should need a warrant to get access to it. This includes the President, btw.

Actually, if I win the office and this bill comes before me, I was planning on putting an exemption before my signature stating that I could follow or not follow the law as I see fit, and that I could see the list any time I damn well pleased.

 

[southsider2k5]

Good discussion. Does anyone see the similarities between the Patriot Act and the first amdendment, and things like gun registries and the second admendment? To me they both take chisels to the amendments and chipaway at them little by little.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Good discussion. Does anyone see the similarities between the Patriot Act and the first amdendment, and things like gun registries and the second admendment? To me they both take chisels to the amendments and chipaway at them little by little.

 

I do see that they are analagous to a degree, yes. The difference for me is that responsible gun registry legislation would be built from the ground up as a way to ensure that Second Amendment protections are guaranteed (eg, by requiring warrants to access the registry and only then to access that portion relevant to an investigation) as opposed to the Patriot Acts which were built from the ground up as a way to skirt the protections of the First Amendment.

 

I realize both could have the potential for abuse by the wrong Executive powers. But all of our SoxTalk candidates are above reproach so I'm not worried.

[sox4lifeinPA]

What happens to a group like the Branch Davidians who stockpile guns for whatever reason? Does the government watch them like hawks? (assuming all of the guns were bought legally)

 

is there a threshold with purchasing guns? I'm against a database as described in thread. I'm for safety, but I'm against government tracking.

 

If my demographic ever becomes the target of government persecution I don't want them coming to my door knowing exactly what kind of guns I have.

 

I don't mean to sound like a "AM coast to coast" conspiriacy freak, but it's not far fetched.

[southsider2k5]

I do see that they are analagous to a degree, yes. The difference for me is that responsible gun registry legislation would be built from the ground up as a way to ensure that Second Amendment protections are guaranteed (eg, by requiring warrants to access the registry and only then to access that portion relevant to an investigation) as opposed to the Patriot Acts which were built from the ground up as a way to skirt the protections of the First Amendment.

 

I realize both could have the potential for abuse by the wrong Executive powers. But all of our SoxTalk candidates are above reproach so I'm not worried.

 

I disagree. I see gun registries in the same light as I see intercepting phone calls. Registering your guns doesn't necesarily stop you from owning a gun, just as having your phone tapped, doesn't stop you from having free speech. Personally I think both are end-arounds designed to chip away at the true intent of the respective amendments.

[NorthSideSox72]

I disagree. I see gun registries in the same light as I see intercepting phone calls. Registering your guns doesn't necesarily stop you from owning a gun, just as having your phone tapped, doesn't stop you from having free speech. Personally I think both are end-arounds designed to chip away at the true intent of the respective amendments.

Well said - that sums up my view as well.

[NorthSideSox72]

Although the debates are closed, and I made my final "ad" post... just so everyone is aware, you can still ask me any questions you'd like to in this thread. I'll answer them through the election. Thanks for all your excellent questions to this point!