You know how I know youre full of it? You dont add the context from the previous post describing exactly whose rights would be curtailed and exactly why.
I've already done that, twice I believe. I would have expected you to remember you are trying to deprive felons and the mentally ill of gun rights.
So are you saying I'm full of it because I assumed you knew who you were wanting to deprive of 2nd Amendment rights?
Those who commit violent felonies have violated the rights of others and as such give up portions of their rights due to the nature of their crimes.
I was not discussing them. I completely understand where you are coming from, and it is a logical thought.
Those who are judged by a court of law to be mentally unstable to the extent they are deemed a threat to themselves and others are not in their right frame of mind, as such weapons that can be used to harm themselves or others should not be within their control.
This is the part I'm curious about.
Has the "mentally unstable" taken an improper action? Are they not law-abiding citizens? Why are their rights less than yours? If we deem something to be dangerous, does that give us the right to deprive a person of their rights?
For the record, while I struggle with this issue personally, I'm not really in disagreement with you. The difference is I'm not the one talking about protecting rights with no infringement.
This is known as rhetoric, and rhetoric that you know to be false. The restrcitions within Manchin-Toomey far outweigh any protections. Someone isnt presenting their arguments in good faith anymore...
It's not rhetoric. Here's what it did, from Pat Toomey's (the Republican) website:
TITLE ONE: GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF PROHIBITED PURCHASERS INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system.
• Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.
• Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees
• Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
• Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.
TITLE TWO: REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES
Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.
• Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.
• Protects gun owners from arrest and detention by fixing interstate travel laws for gun owners who are transporting legal firearms across state lines.
• Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
• Allows dealers to complete transactions at gun shows that take place in a state for which they are not a resident.
• Ensures that sales at gun shows are not prevented by delayed approvals from NICS.
• Requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships.
• Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
• Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.
• Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.
• Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks
• Adds a 15 year penalty for improper use or storage of records.
TITLE THREE: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE
Summary of Title III: : This section of the bill creates a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including guns, school safety, mental health, and violent media or video games.
The Commission would consist of six experts appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and six experts appointed by the Speaker of the House. They would be required to submit an interim report in three months and a completed report in six months.
WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO:
The bill will not take away anyone's guns.
The bill will not ban any type of firearm.
The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.
The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.
The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965
EDIT: I underlined the ones which provide more protections and/or freedoms. Please understand that by not underlining them, I'm not saying they are definitely restrictions (for example, Title III).
So contrary to your statement, mine wasn't rhetoric and contrary to your statement, the restrictions did not outweigh the protections.
So what we've now established is that you accuse me of being full of it for assuming you would know your own statements, you wish to allow the government to selectively choose which law abiding citizen gets 2nd Amendment rights and who doesn't, and you accuse me of posting rhetoric when the summary from the Republican's website shows me to be telling the truth, or at the very least, shows me to be posting a supported conclusion.
I'll ask again. Could we please just discuss this civilly without the accusations?