*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[boost]

A background check is not a presumption of ignorance.

We have a right of free movement, but that right is curtailed in all sorts of ways. We can't waltz into the pentagon. As for licensing for operating vehicles, I think you're playing a semantic game here. In so much as driving is a right, any limits as to who can drive is a restriction of that right. What sorts of things they can drive are a restriction of that right. To say otherwise without backing it up is a classic wuf hand wave.

Regarding your military argument: the military is a class of people who has (in times without the draft) willingly given up some freedoms and in turn gained others. Drivers are also a class of people who have given up (much smaller) freedoms and in turn gained others. What's the difference?

This wasn't the right of Congress I was referring to. Congress has the right to declare war, to impeach, etc. My point being here, we have a system of elected paternalism, and you seem opposed to it. I'm curious if you're aware of the ramifications of you convictions: essentially the whole system falls apart-- if you are aware, then I'm curious what system you propose replaces the current one.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A background check is not a presumption of ignorance.

Just a heads up that this is the first time you've mentioned a background check.
If we're comparing each other to wuf - as though that's a negative thing ( wuf) - then you moved the goal post.
Really, I don't think it's a good move on our part to talk about other people in this way. Let's just talk about each other.

I was responding to this:
"For example, you aren't arguing for no licensing/regulation/oversight at all, yet all these things clearly fly in the face of a presumption of innocence."

I do think that licensing, regulation and oversight are hinging on a presumption of ignorance, not guilt.

A background check isn't a presumption of ignorance on the person applying for the license. It's a straight up fact that the licensing agency is perfectly ignorant about the applicant aside from the fact that they're an applicant.

What, specifically, the background check entails and the terms of what amounts to a license rejection is a deep, nuanced question that I'm not equiped to care about. So long as there's an agency which is accountable to the public for drawing these lines, I'm OK.

We have a right of free movement, but that right is curtailed in all sorts of ways. We can't waltz into the pentagon. As for licensing for operating vehicles, I think you're playing a semantic game here. In so much as driving is a right, any limits as to who can drive is a restriction of that right. What sorts of things they can drive are a restriction of that right. To say otherwise without backing it up is a classic wuf hand wave.

IDK what you're getting at, here.
I disagree with the underlines portion.
Maybe you should back up what you said and not simply hand wave?

I drive a motorcycle. In addition to the Driver's License tests and associated fees I had to complete to acquire the standard license, I had to pass another, more stringent level of tests and pay more fees. The stakes went up and the licensing requirements went up. That's practical and sensible.
The same applies for long-haul truckers and a Commercial Driver's License. Not only do the tests get harder and the fees get higher, but the consequences of minor traffic violations gets more severe. The laws don't change, but part of the license requirement is that even breaking a minor traffic law can result in revocation of the CDL endorsement.
The stakes are higher and the licensing requirements are higher and the consequences of stepping out of line are higher.
That's all good and proper, IMO.

Regarding your military argument: the military is a class of people who has (in times without the draft) willingly given up some freedoms and in turn gained others. Drivers are also a class of people who have given up (much smaller) freedoms and in turn gained others. What's the difference?

The difference is that joining the military is a life commitment, dictating nearly 100% of your time.
Whereas driving is a personal skill that enables access to a vast swath of public and commercial services, while leaving the driver with full freedom to choose which / whether they want to utilize any of that access.

This wasn't the right of Congress I was referring to. Congress has the right to declare war, to impeach, etc. My point being here, we have a system of elected paternalism, and you seem opposed to it. I'm curious if you're aware of the ramifications of you convictions: essentially the whole system falls apart-- if you are aware, then I'm curious what system you propose replaces the current one.

A central part of my position is that I want a dedicated gov't agency that determines what licensing, regulation, inspection, fees, etc. would be the law.
How is this indicative of what you've just said, here?
The "ramifications" are not based on my position, so I wont address that. Or, could you re-state that in the light that I'm not opposed to elected governance at all?

[boost]

I was responding to this:
"For example, you aren't arguing for no licensing/regulation/oversight at all, yet all these things clearly fly in the face of a presumption of innocence."

I do think that licensing, regulation and oversight are hinging on a presumption of ignorance, not guilt.

Please elaborate on this distinction, and how you've come to it. To my eye it's convenient, but not meaningful.

A background check isn't a presumption of ignorance on the person applying for the license. It's a straight up fact that the licensing agency is perfectly ignorant about the applicant aside from the fact that they're an applicant.

What, specifically, the background check entails and the terms of what amounts to a license rejection is a deep, nuanced question that I'm not equiped to care about. So long as there's an agency which is accountable to the public for drawing these lines, I'm OK.

Why is this power ok to vest in a publicly accountable agency, but not the power to draw the line at which weapons can be had by the general public, and which cannot?

IDK what you're getting at, here.
I disagree with the underlines portion.
Maybe you should back up what you said and not simply hand wave?

What I'm getting at is I rights are limited in all sorts of ways for pragmatic purposes. Rights are the gears and their appropriate limiting is the oil for the machine. I feel that you'll call a limit you don't like a violation of a person's right to a presumption of innocence, but when you agree with a limit on a right, you find some other, softer way to refer to it.

I drive a motorcycle. In addition to the Driver's License tests and associated fees I had to complete to acquire the standard license, I had to pass another, more stringent level of tests and pay more fees. The stakes went up and the licensing requirements went up. That's practical and sensible.

Not allowing the general public to have access to military weapons of mass destruction is also practical and sensible.

The same applies for long-haul truckers and a Commercial Driver's License. Not only do the tests get harder and the fees get higher, but the consequences of minor traffic violations gets more severe. The laws don't change, but part of the license requirement is that even breaking a minor traffic law can result in revocation of the CDL endorsement.
The stakes are higher and the licensing requirements are higher and the consequences of stepping out of line are higher.

As it is so for having access to tactical nukes and A1 Abrams battle tanks. You imagine there's some hard line between the sacrifices necessary to be granted the responsibility of a CDL and being granted the responsibility of stewarding our weapons of war. I don't see a hard line. I see a clear continuum.

That's all good and proper, IMO.

The difference is that joining the military is a life commitment, dictating nearly 100% of your time.
Whereas driving is a personal skill that enables access to a vast swath of public and commercial services, while leaving the driver with full freedom to choose which / whether they want to utilize any of that access.

This is not a meaningful difference. The risk of an inadequately trained or mentally unstable person gaining independent control over military weapons justifies the increased difficulty encountered when trying to gain access to said weapons.

A central part of my position is that I want a dedicated gov't agency that determines what licensing, regulation, inspection, fees, etc. would be the law.
How is this indicative of what you've just said, here?
The "ramifications" are not based on my position, so I wont address that. Or, could you re-state that in the light that I'm not opposed to elected governance at all?

My Secondary axiom is, "Whatever laws we have should apply equally to all."

My angle with congress and their rights is that exclusive rights are a necessary part of our society. If you don't care to explain how our government will function without parts of it having exclusive rights, then I'm unsure how you can stand by the claim that the military should not have exclusive rights in the form of access to weapons not available to the general public.