Main > Everything Else

The Clinton gun ban has expired!

<< < (11/52) > >>

tep0583:

--- Quote from: shmokes on September 14, 2004, 11:57:58 pm ---So does that include rocket propelled grenades or shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile launchers?  Does it include weaponized anthrax or sarin gas?

It's a cop-out to hide behind the second amendment.  It's like saying that not allowing cars on the road that aren't "street legal" is taking away your ability to drive.

THESE RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE!!!

--- End quote ---

That was my point.

(BTW- the whole RPG, SAM, nuke arguement is the usual cop-out that I always see in these arguements. You seem to be a well-read guy, look up the miller case and how it defined 'arms' as it applies to the 2nd)


--- Quote ---The Supreme Court has upheld time-and-place laws for speech, such as those prohibiting protestors from coming within set distances from abortion clinics and people entering and exiting those clinics.  Protestors must apply for protesting permits.  Slander and Libel are illegal.  Physically threatening people is illegal.  The FCC censors television and radio stations.  In 2003 the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a devout Muslim woman would not be allowed to wear her full-faced veil in her drivers license picture, even though she belongs to a centuries old religion which forbids her to show her face to strangers or men outside her immediate family.

--- End quote ---

And this equates to a 'need' for free speech how?


--- Quote ---
Illinois v. Perkins (1990) - Supreme Court ruled that police officers may pose as prisoners to interrogate other prisoners without reading them Miranda warnings.  Coerced Self-incrimination obtained in this way is admissible in court.

Brown v. Illinois (1975) - Supreme Court ruled that confessions may be admissible even when they were preceeded by an illegal search and seizure (the confession, of course, would probably not have occurred if the police didn't already have the evidence they obtained illegally)

--- End quote ---

See above. These are not 'needs', they're rights.


--- Quote ---U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985) - The Supreme Court ruled that people at borders may be subjected to warrantless searches without any requirement of reasonable suspicion.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) - The Supreme Court ruled that minors are not protected by the 4th Amendment to the same degree as adults. (A high school student was forced to comply with a warrantless search of her purse, looking for marijuana)

Illinois v. Wardlaw (2000) - The Supreme Court ruled that running in a high crime neighborhood is enough to justify a stop and initial warrantless search by police.

Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - The Supreme Court ruled that cars do not enjoy the same 4th Amendment protection from search & seizure as houses and offices. (Cops stopped and searched the car without a warrant looking for alcohol -- this was during prohibition)

--- End quote ---

Still not a 'need'. We're still in rights-land here.

--- Quote ---
I'm sorry, I'm sure this is dull lesson in constitutional law, but I tried to say all this in broader terms just a few posts ago and it seems to have been ignored.  The protections in the Bill of Rights are extremely important, but they have to be balanced.  You can't let people sacrifice virgins and drink their blood in order to not infringe on their freedom of religion.  

--- End quote ---

You're doing very well here. I'm in complete agreement.


--- Quote ---Some weapons HAVE TO BE BANNED.  You might make a compelling argument (though I don't know how) that assault rifles do not reach this level, but clearly there is a threshold as to what weapons can be legal.  Please refer to the list of weapons at the beginning of this post.  Would you argue that a nuclear briefcase bomb cannot be outlawed because of the 2nd amendment?

--- End quote ---

If you followed through with your legal research, you'd already have your answer. 'Arms' as defined by [i[US vs. Miller[/i] (1939) defines arms outside such broad terms. I believe it distills down to no expectation to the right to own weapons above and beyond that issued to the average infantryman. (I'm sure our more knowledgeable members can abridge this interpertation as nessessary. I'll not have time to delve into it for a couple of days) That ends any talk of rocket launchers, heavy weapons, and even nukes.

Note that this doesn't even assure your access to actual "assult rifles" (select-fire weapons), as they were put under heavy restriction during the same time period. (although I do not know if it is the same action, I believe that was in 1934)

I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm standing up for one of the same rights that are so important, until it comes to the second.

tep0583:

--- Quote from: Mameotron on September 15, 2004, 01:08:07 am ---Actually, if you can get a permit from The Nuclear Regulatory Comission, there is no law against owning a properly liscenced Nuclear device of any kind.


Yes, I'm being a smarta$$, I get what you are saying.

I must admit that if you are ever put in a situation where someone points a gun at you, it completely changes your outlook on gun control.

--- End quote ---

Get a permit for a nuclear bomb, post it here.  i want to see what one of those looks like.  ;D

It sure changed MY view of gun control. I now believe in equalizing the odds.

DrewKaree:

--- Quote from: Floyd10 on September 15, 2004, 03:23:48 pm ---Well What Im saying is, not everything you've said is entirely true. I listed reasons... I dont memorize my posts...
--- End quote ---
ok, that's part of debating, you don't believe everything I said is true, and then you list reasons for why you believe what you believe.  I'm not attacking you here, I just can't make sense of your reasons, as they don't seem to fit the points you selected, or they are simplistic statements that aren't substantive.  I'll give you an example or two:


--- Quote from: Floyd10 on September 14, 2004, 04:01:18 pm ---
--- Quote ---After you've given us that foolproof plan, then you can tell me all your reasons for why ELSE we shouldn't be allowed to have them, but until then, we, as americans, are free (as in land of the free?) to purchase things that may be detrimental to our health and to the health of others.  I'll gladly give you the ability to ban all guns, no matter the type, when you ban:

--- End quote ---
WHOAH WHOAH WHOAH! slow down!
--- End quote ---

this is what I mean by not substantive.  Please realize I'm not looking to offend, it just doesn't have meaning unless you flesh out your words better.  I'm sure you DO mean to say something here, I just can't see what it is.  That's why I ask for clarification - to further the debate, rather than guess what your intentions are


--- Quote from: Floyd10 on September 14, 2004, 04:01:18 pm ---
--- Quote ---1) alcohol (one of the top causes of traffic fatalities, right? AND bad for you!)

2) smoking of all kinds, ESPECIALLY the left-handed cigarettes, since second-hand smoke is attributed to cancer deaths in non-smokers

--- End quote ---
Not true. Marijuana (which is relatively harmless), Crack, Cocaine, Extacy, Shrooms, and more I'm not mentioning.
--- End quote ---
and here's an example of what I mean by hard to follow, please clarify.  You list 2 points and respond with "not true".  What exactly do you believe to be not true, and the second sentence seems as if you want to make a point with it, but there's nothing you are attaching those words to cohesively.  That's all I'm saying.


--- Quote from: Floyd10 on September 14, 2004, 04:01:18 pm ---
--- Quote ---4)knives of ANY kind - second-most preferred weapon used in armed robberies, and something that can kill, if used by someone with criminal intent

--- End quote ---
Close... Switchblades are illegal. Gravity knives is a stretch.
--- End quote ---
what exactly is close?  


As far as memorizing your posts, I understand the sarcasm in that.  It'd be foolish to think that you WOULD memorize your over-600 posts.  What's not foolish is me asking you to go back, re-read what you said, and help me understand what you mean.  

Here's MY insertion of sarcasm:  Yeah, I guess you'd rather memorize your posts than to read what you wrote.

That's all I'm asking for james - not a personal attack on you, you seem to be a good young $#!7...you are probably a very personable human being.  It would behoove you to polish your debate skills, since others may look to you as "Cool guy I need to listen to".  If I can get you to see reason, *slyly insert pointed jab here* maybe I'll be able to get you to become a nice normal Republican, after all.  
 ;)

I'd have you over and buy you a beer to calm you down, but you'd turn me in for obtaining alcohol for a minor...commie ;)

tep0583:

--- Quote from: shmokes on September 15, 2004, 02:35:50 pm ---
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on September 15, 2004, 01:17:05 am ---If someone intends to kill someone, they will search for a weapon.  Whether it's a knife, gun, rope, baseball bat....they will use SOMETHING.  
--- End quote ---

That's nonsense.  You're lumping all gun-violence into the relatively small context of premeditated murder with motive.  The gun facilitates it.  Your argument is like saying, "Student aid doesn't increase the number of people who choose to go to school, befcause when someone really WANTS to go to school they will find some way to do it."  But, of course, the easier you make something -- the more accessible you make something -- the more that thing is going to happen.  It is astronomically more difficult to kill someone (especially to kill someone and get away with it) with any of those other weapons you mentioned (knife, gun, rope, bat).


--- End quote ---
Yeah, because everybody knows how easily knife and rope purchases can be traced back to someone.

When it comes down to it, if I really want you dead, my ability to get a gun isn't going to matter one whit. If I have half a brain and plan the act, I have a better than average chance of getting away with it. The typical criminal in the country gets caught because they're stupid, not because of the weapon they used.
 

--- Quote ---...so we're back on need, now?  How do you know you'll never need a rocket-propelled grenade launcher?  What if we are occupied?  They certainly have been useful for Iraqi resistance fighters...  And I thought your side believed that this was about a right to own these weapons, not about a need.

--- End quote ---

Unless you're purposely lumping us into one big catagory ("you know, THOSE people"), you've got him confused with me. Oh, and for the record, it was someone on the side you're arguing who pulled out the "need" assessment. I merely explained that a "need" basis for our rights was going to leave us somewhat short of rights.

Yes, gun ownership, like everything else in the Bill of Rights , is a right.



--- Quote ---Ah...the slippery slope.  Ban assault rifles and what's next?  Forks?  Penicillin?  The problem is, these things don't exist in a vacuum.  We balance their overall effect on society.  Do cars kill people?  Yes.  Do they do anything else that significantly affects our society?  I think maybe they do.  Do guns kill people?  Yes.  Do they serve other, useful purposes?  Sure, of course.  But we "ban" cars all the time.  Some cars are not allowed to be driven on U.S. roads (this amounts to an all-out ban), some people are not allowed to drive cars (very young, very old, blind, etc.).  Cars are required to meet certain safety standards before they can be sold.
--- End quote ---

Guns are not exactly the same as cars, and consequently, direct comparisons are difficult at best. Unsafe (or defective) guns are handled as most other products (cars being one of the notable exceptions) and are handled as civil matters, in most cases.

As far as the comparison to unqualified drivers goes, we do not allow those with a history of serious mental problems or criminal histories own guns. Like drivers, the young and those who are found to be unable to accept the responcibility to own a gun are stripped of their right to own them. Unforturnately, there is no good way to deturmine who will and will not turn to grime before they do so. Also, those who suffer from mental problems sometimes deveolp these problems over time. (much the same way as people's driving ability declines as they age).

Why should normal, law-abiding citizens have to pay for the actions of others. That's akin to pulling everybody's driving rights at 65, reguardless of their ability.


--- Quote ---People, I think, tense up and dig their hills in whenever they hear the words "gun control" when, in fact, they truly do believe in gun control.  But since they automatically switch to defend-to-the-death mode any time someone suggests changes in gun regulation it makes them unable to step outside the box and say, "okay...I do actually believe in regulation.  With that said, maybe I should actually give some thought into what amount of regulation is best instead of obstinately claiming that all gun control is bad."
--- End quote ---

All gun control is not bad. Some is nessessary. I do have some problem with the assertation that we need more gun control, when we already have loads of it on the books already. Its another over-used phrase, but why not enforce  the laws already on the books, instead of imposing more restrictions on millions of lawful Americans?


--- Quote ---I don't think all guns should be banned outright.  Many liberals do, and I think they suffer from the same ideological mental block as the "gun-nuts".  They refuse to actually apply any meaningful analysis to the issue.  One side says, "GUNS KILL," and the other side says, "PEOPLE KILL," and niether one can see the forest for the trees.  Maybe, and I'm just throwing this out, but just maybe it's a little of both.  

--- End quote ---

I absolutely agree with you here. Well, except for the guns/people kill thing. In the final analysis, the gun is just a tool. No tool does anyhing without some intelligence to operate it.

shmokes:

--- Quote from: tep0583 on September 15, 2004, 04:40:13 pm ---And this equates to a 'need' for free speech how?

--- End quote ---

Tep, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say here.  I was not trying to illustrate a 'need' for freedom of speech, but rather a 'need' for certain abridgements of freedom of speach in spite of the 1st Amendment.  Just the opposite, you see.

Same goes for all the other rights I listed there.  I was simply saying that in spite of the rights "guaranteed" in any of the Amendments, whether the ones that tend to favor the gun nuts (2nd) or the ones that favor the unpatriotic liberal fanatics (1st), there are limits that must be placed.  The references to court cases were simply illustrating some of the limits on various rights that already exits.  And it is a truncated list, to be sure.  

Also, you reiterated what Drew said about, "When it comes down to it, if I really want you dead, my ability to get a gun isn't going to matter..."  Once again, you are talking about premeditated murder with a motive, which accounts for a very small percentage of homocides.  Many people only kinda want someone dead.  Many people really want someone dead, but only for a few moments and after they cool down they're okay.  Many people don't particularly want someone dead, but want to take their money, and in the heat of the moment someone gets shot.  I agree that for the person who sets out on a planned murder the availability of assault rifles is probably not going to be a big concern.  

I know that associating nuclear bombs with 2nd Amendment protection is extreme, but the extreme example is used simply to illustrate how obvious it is to people on both sides of the issue that the 2nd amendment's "right to bare arms" does not prohibit the government entirely from regulating arms.  Once you can reel people in from a purely rhetorical obstinance of spouting, "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment!" a much more useful discussion, and perhaps solution/comprimise might be had.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page