Main > Everything Else
The Clinton gun ban has expired!
Dartful Dodger:
--- Quote from: shmokes on September 15, 2004, 06:47:41 pm ---Blah blah blah
I'm afraid of guns
blah blah blah
--- End quote ---
Gun control is in place like most laws, to protect the stupid from hurting themselves and others.
More people die from cars, than guns. Getting hit by a car is deadlier than getting hit by a bullet. This has been said 100 times before, but you're not listening so I'm saying it again. Guns do not kill people...
It's not just guns, people are stabbed, strangled, and hit by a cars in moments of rage. The people afraid of guns only know guns from the horror stories they see. They will also see more stories about people getting hurt or killed in a car accident, than stories about people driving to their destination unharmed, but since they drive all the time they understand how safe cars can be.
Of course none of this matters because as of now the ban is dead, and I can buy all the guns and magazines I NEED.
What a beautiful sunset that was.
tep0583:
--- Quote from: shmokes on September 15, 2004, 06:47:41 pm ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Right, but my arguements do not ceter on the needs of people to have these rights. It centers on the notion that these are rights that are granted to us and they sould not be taken for granted.
Limiting people's distance from an abortion clinic does nothing to hinder their freedom of speech. Its more of a public disturbance issue. These people still have the right to protest and the right to say anything they please. They do not, however, have the right to harass people in the process. It s the same thing that keeps PETA from harassing hunters in the woods.
They have the right to free speeh, but they do not have the right to impeede other's rights in the exercise of their rights.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
I'd have to argue that the same applies to "heat of the moment" killings as well. The chances that you're going to have as "assult rifle" at the exact moment you decide you "want" to kill somebody has to be very slim. Once you go to get the rifle, it's premeditated. In these cases, the AWB "Ban" would have had no effect on the outcome whatsoever.
If you're arguing against CCW and handguns, I can se where this applies, but I simply cannot make the connection to military-style weapons. You're just not going to go everywhere with one slung on your back.
Robberies are already illegal. Someone who is gong to partake in that act probably isn't too concerned if their "assult rifle" is legal or not. (And, come on, like they'd be robbing someplace if they could afford one, in most cases, anyway)
--- Quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
It DOES prohibit government from regulating anything defined as 'arms' (now genarally accepted to be those weapons defined by US vs. Miller) by the 2nd. It very clearly states that the people's rights to own these sort of weapons "shall not be infringed". Any restrictions to the owenership of these arms counts as "infringement".
The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to provide a set of rights to the people that were to be "untouchable" to the government. They were not ment to be tampered with, which is the entire reason they were set down so specifically in the Constuition. I believe any weakening of these rights, even with good intentions, has the potential to weaken tham all. I've comprimised as much as I plan to. I see no use whatsoever in further restrictions, especially when current restrictions seen to be far too great a burden for the legal system. Anything further simply only infringes on the rights of the law-abiding citizens of this country. That, to me, is very wrong and will not make anyone safer in the slightest way.
That's my whole problem with "feel-good" legislation. It does nothing to address the real problems and punishes the innocent, everyday, lawful citizen. That leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: shmokes on September 15, 2004, 06:47:41 pm ---Once again, you are talking about premeditated murder with a motive, which accounts for a very small percentage of homocides.
--- End quote ---
and the argument for this ban continues to focus on "a very small percentage" of weapons and how the end of the ban *use hysterical tone* will increase gun violence and deaths at an alarming rate.
I'm not just talking about premeditated murder. Just watch several Cops episodes. You'd almost certainly see an incident of knife violence, and I have seen someone die due to their stab wounds. Are you telling me the redneck with the blood-stained wife beater planned that? If that guy was so friggen intelligent, he'd have known that failure to brush his teeth leads to the loss of all his pearly whites (although he can now whistle like a madman through all the openings).
--- Quote from: Dartful Dodger on September 15, 2004, 07:55:29 pm ---
--- Quote from: shmokes on September 15, 2004, 06:47:41 pm ---Blah blah blah
I'm afraid of guns
blah blah blah
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
That's gotta be the most smartass sarcastic and funny thing I've seen that I haven't said myself! That's so friggen funny, I may show up in IL just to meet a guy as smart-ass as myself. Good one.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: tep0583 on September 15, 2004, 11:21:36 pm ---It DOES prohibit government from regulating anything defined as 'arms' (now genarally accepted to be those weapons defined by US vs. Miller) by the 2nd. It very clearly states that the people's rights to own these sort of weapons "shall not be infringed". Any restrictions to the owenership of these arms counts as "infringement".
--- End quote ---
This is nonsensical. If it's stated so "clearly" why do we need U.S. v. Miller to define arms are? If a bazooka can be defined out of the term "arms" why can other weapons not suffer the same fate? Are you suggesting that a well regulated militia could not make use of grenades, mines and missile launchers? How can we provide freedom of the press and still provide fair trials? How can we support the anti-establishment of religion in public schools, without abridging someones right to free exercise?
It's quaint to think of the Bill of Rights as black & white, but it's simply unworkable. They should not be tossed about willy-nilly, but they are not as cut-and-dry as you suggest.
--- Quote ---Blah blah blah
I'm afraid of guns
blah blah blah
That's gotta be the most smartass sarcastic and funny thing I've seen that I haven't said myself! That's so friggen funny, I may show up in IL just to meet a guy as smart-ass as myself. Good one.
--- End quote ---
You need some sleep, Drew ;)
Mameotron:
OK, now I'll jump into the whole Guns don't kill people argument. I have to say that after carefully reading through this thread I believe that yes, we do need some form of gun control. We do not need any innefectual "feel good" legislation that only further burdens the legal system.
For example, it is already a law everywhere that you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes. In my state, the law now says that the PERSON who sells cigarettes to minors, not the establishment, gets fined for doing so. The responsibility has been placed solely on the cashier. So why did they just pass a law requiring cashiers to card people who appear to be under the age of 27? This is worse than just nonsense, it clutters the judicial system and serves no real purpose.
And if you want to get real technical about the guns don't kill issue...
People only pull the trigger, they don't do the killing. Let them off the hook. The gun itself does no killing, either. It just sends the bullet at the person. It's the BULLET that does the actual killing, so let's make the bullet manufacturer liable for all gun related violence. After all, guns are useless without the bullets.
That was, of course, an illustration to show how absurd that argument is. The truth is that people are fully and solely responsible. But today everybody wants unlimited rights and no responsibility for their actions. It is this trend that offers us almost no other option but to increase controls.
I am glad the ban expired. I was never for it in the first place. I think that it was a meaningless piece of legislation, since everything on the ban could easily and legally be bought at any local gun show. The prices didn't even go up much, either.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version