The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Fishbone Jones]

I also don't care about their dirty money. I don't want it. I would sooner destroy my property than let them have it.

And that dirty money is yours to begin with. Those payments are your own taxes you submitted to the government.

 

[Haggis]

And that dirty money is yours to begin with. Those payments are your own taxes you submitted to the government.

And likely tsxable.

 

[IKnowNothing]

At the end of the day we have common law requiring fair payment for property made illegal, the government literally had to take out a massive loan to pay off slave owners. The government doesn’t get to pick and choose nor do they get to declare what they will or will not pay for.

You've said this a couple times now, and you've been given bad information.

A- banning through police powers is not the same as expropriation. If the government is not taking the property to own and derive public benefit from it then it is not expropriation and those legal guidelines don't apply.

B- Re- Compensated Emancipation - they didn't have to, they chose to - as a combination of bribe to enact the desired policy change and bailout to the impacted industries. Sommerset v Stewart laid out that there was no basis for slavery (people as property) under british common law in 1772.

 

[suffolkowner]

You've said this a couple times now, and you've been given bad information.

A- banning through police powers is not the same as expropriation. If the government is not taking the property to own and derive public benefit from it then it is not expropriation and those legal guidelines don't apply.

B- Re- Compensated Emancipation - they didn't have to, they chose to - as a combination of bribe to enact the desired policy change and bailout to the impacted industries. Sommerset v Stewart laid out that there was no basis for slavery (people as property) under british common law in 1772.

legalised theft is all it is. If it applies to firearms what else does it apply to?

 

[NavyShooter]

Because our Constitution contains no mention of property rights, it applies to everything.

 

[suffolkowner]

Because our Constitution contains no mention of property rights, it applies to everything.

the Constitution doesnt mention a whole lot of things being a very restricted set of documents. The Charter of course specifically avoided property rights.
I havent followed the CCFR case or what their arguments are or what they are limited to

 

[Furniture]

I just saw a few memes and a video making Mrs Provost a pop can and a gopher. The stupidity of the internet meme mentality might have just killed any glimmer of hope for this going away. I hope the idiots who made the memes feel good about "pwning L1b74rd5"...

 

[Halifax Tar]

I just saw a few memes and a video making Mrs Provost a pop can and a gopher. The stupidity of the internet meme mentality might have just killed any glimmer of hope for this going away. I hope the idiots who made the memes feel good about "pwning L1b74rd5"...

You cant go off unhinged like that and not expect the nether regions of the internet not to respond. I'm surprised as song hasn't been made yet.

My brother in Christ if the response to that whacko is the what causes the downfall of all this the LPC deserves to be called Lib74rd5.

Please dont ever make me type that again BTW.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Whether it's voting against a motion explicitly targeting repeat violent offenders, or looking unhinged with her guns, it's good the voters in Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville get to see what they're paying for with Provost. Her loyalties are clear.

It's fitting her name gets added to the receipts for the abysmal gun confiscation failure.

 

[OldSolduer]

Her loyalties are clear.

And her loyalties are to the anti gun crowd who are funded by....who?

 

[IKnowNothing]

legalised theft is all it is. If it applies to firearms what else does it apply to?

Two ends of the precedent spectrum come to mind for items that have fallen under the same/similar police powers.

On the intrusive, imposing financial harm end is is asbestos in homes. Government action not only banned its use, but hung a future liability on property owners (in the form of required abatement if disturbed/discovered) that had purchased what was (at the time of purchase) homes made with legally conforming building materials.

On the non-intrusive - incandescent light bulbs. Banned from commercial sale to stop their proliferation, but no effort to stop their use if they were currently in use or storage by homeowners.

Applying the lightbulb method to firearms - no longer available for commercial sale, but private owners still have full use and ability to transact in the secondary market

Applying the asbestos method - no longer available for commercial sale but private owners, still have full use while the good remains in good working order. No replacement parts available for commercial sale forcing premature end of life, and end of life requires owner foot the bill for safe decommissioning.


Both vastly more justifiable than criminalizing use of lawfully obtained property and forcing it out of people's hands. They may not have a legal responsibility to compensate, or compensate fairly- but they sure as hell have a moral one. Objective best practice is to grandfather, and if they need/want change faster then that objective best practice is to pay up. They were they're conducting this is self-righteous and cynical bullying of the "other".