5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister with gift rifle

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

I can kind of see why you're in a minority if you would give a suitcase bomb to a guy who'd just served time for blowing up a school though.

This comes back around to the penal system. If we are supposed to believe that he will do it again then why is he out in the first place? If we cant trust a person to not blow up a school or shoot some kids or drive drunk then why is that person out and about?

The entire structure of law, punishment and prisons needs a complete rebuild but that's another thread.

There's enough faith in "rehabilitation" to let people out but not to believe they are indeed rehabilitated. That reeks of problems.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


You can't really send someone to prison forever for criminal damage though, can you? Even if it involves a school.

In your world I think you're going to end up with a lot of people serving very long sentences just so that everyone on the outside can own nukes, should they want to. And an awful lot of people setting bombs at least once.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Sure.

You're not going to trap me into some prohibitionist corner.

He can have a warehouse full of suitcase bombs for all I care.

The problem arises in use. Not potential use but actual use.

If he gets his jollies blowing up suitcase bombs on his back fifty to no harm of person or property that is not his own then by all means lets have a cookout and blow up some suitcase bombs.

The second amendment makes it clear that is about firearms and nothing more. Nukes, suitcase bombs, artillery, etc are not firearms.

The only slippery slope is what and how much should be regulated. The democrats want it steep and the republicans want it shallow.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Which I why I said the system need a complete rebuild. Obviously life detainment is a non-starter. But so should be virtual life-detainment as in registries, open records and rights revocations.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I'm not working under the assumption that the 2nd is some holy word of god.

I say shred the BOR altogether. Private property is private property without some ancient document saying so.

Faith in the 2nd is foolish and itself liberty restricting.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by eriktheawful


The only reason that there are a number of dead children due to gun ownership is because there are a number of idiots that cause that situation by being stupid and irresponsible.

Just as there are an even bigger number of idiots that cause a even bigger number of children to be dead because of cars for the same reason.

Yes, I know. I say this above. But the idiots aren't going to disappear and so we have to make a decision about an object's utility vs its risks and then legislate. You may disagree with me about the usefulness of guns but I doubt you disagree with notion of acting that way.

Put it another way, if you don't entertain this system then that's an argument for legalising anything. We do not allow people to have their own nuclear warheads, and yet they are simply neutral objects and only idiots and the insane would damage themselves and others with them.

You know, every time I see the gun control crowed bring out the nuke argument, I have to start wondering about their over all education and intelligence.

Only idiots bring out that argument, mainly because they have no argument that works other than that.

I am firmly against any government telling me what I can or can not own. This country has been slowly lowering itself into a very deep, very smelly cesspool for a long time now. Ever since the government decided to start getting into the business of telling people in this once great nation of ours on how to live.

People used to flock to this country once upon a time, because it was a place that you could truly be free. You could truly take a dream and build on it. Without government involvement. Without government dictating to you how you are suppose to live.

This used to be a nation of mature, RESPONSIBLE adults, who could live free and not have any government playing nanny and wiping their butts for them.

But slowly over time, a large portion of these mature, responsible adults have gone away, and in their place are a people who depend on the government for just about everything.

Please Mr. Government! I need to be told what to do! I need to be told what I can or can not have! I need to have everything taken from me because I can't act like a mature, responsible adult! I need you to tell me what I can or can not eat or drink! I need you to tell me what I can or can not put in my body!

I need to to give me money, so please, please, please tax the crap out of everyone so you can....but I want all my taxes back, plus extra!

Please Mr. Government, I don't know how to educate my children, or provide for their education, so please shove them all in public schools where you can dictate and indoctronate (instead of teaching) my children to believe in what ever you want to make them believe in!

We need you to do this Mr. Government, for the children! For ourselves! Because we're no good on our own anymore........we need you to control and regulate every single second of our lives, because....well somewhere down the line we started breeding people who just don't agree with that nasty piece of paper called the Bill Of Rights. Please tear it up.........we just can't handle freedom anymore. We're just no good at self governing like we used to for all that very, very long time ago.

We got stupid somewhere down the line, so we need you to round us up and put us in day care.

/sarcasm

And that is what's wrong with the country, and has been for many decades now.

edit on 3-5-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

So you are a conservative, libertarian, anarchist.....what exactly? You sound like an anarchist to me with that pathetic attitude. I don't know any country that has no government, well except for somalia and afghanistan and they have tribal religious warlords fighting each other. Its terrible.

America is not a socialist country so maybe people like you should stop playing that card.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

That's because your argument is a strawman one. And is used by gun control advocates quite a bit.

Whether they do this because they think it's cute, or because they think it's some death blow to an argument over what people can or can not own, does not mater, because the argument itself is quite stupid.

Trotting out the argument of "Guns" vs "Nuclear Weapons" does not make you or anyone else look smart, cute, or is any kind of 'checkmate' move.

It makes people that bring it out look: desperate.

Since you insist on going on and on about the "usefulness" of guns (which are quite useful to me because I don't live next door to a police station, and it would take them over 20 minutes to get here if they were in the car, ready, and floored the gas. I also use them to hunt and provide food, which helps lower the cost of my food bill. Bows are much harder to use, and many times your game will only be wounded and run off), let us take a look at how "useful" a nuclear weapon is:

Name one useful thing that a nuclear weapon would do for a family.

Just one. That makes sense, and helps people.

And I never said that there were no "idiots" during our golden age. I know there were idiots. Had to be.

Else where did the ones that are now in power and the people that voted for them come from?

You really are having difficulty understanding what I write. Because you're just making up your mind about what I've said (incorrectly) and then for some reason repeating my argument back to me.

I agree that guns are useful. I own some and I shoot things with them. I'm simply saying that this ownership comes with a responsibility to both use my weapons correctly, and also acknowledge that others don't and won't. So my freedom has a cost that will sometimes involve the deaths of children.

Do I think this is worth it to preserve the use I get from guns? Just about, yes. Do I think it's worth therefore letting just anybody own a gun if they want one? No.

By assessing the utility of a nuclear weapon and deciding it has none, and then limiting people's usage of them, you are limiting people's freedom. But in a way that is understandable given the (IMO correct) conclusion you have drawn from their usefulness vs their risk.

You are also making this calculation with firearms. So am I. My conclusion is that it's best to have stringent checks on who can buy them because there are plenty of idiots who want them but can't handle them. These checks wouldn't prevent responsible people from owning them or taking advantage of their utility, but would go some way towards stopping idiots causing tragedies. That's all.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by seabag

My "Marine mindset" provided the so-called "real world" and freedom you enjoy today. You're welcome!

By getting your arses kicked all over the world? Korea - that one's going well. Vietnam... oops, Afghanistan, oh dear, just given that one back. Iraq... not exactly a shining victory.

Have you guys and your 'mindset' ever actually won anything?

A lot of the tea party folks are rather honest and have good intentions(ron paul fans) but don't look to the neoconservatives for common sense. They want "a small government"(what a joke) everywhere except in the military. They live for the military and the police. They seem to want a police state but don't have the nerve to admit it. I have seen many cops calling people names after the boston trajedy and its sad.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Which I why I said the system need a complete rebuild. Obviously life detainment is a non-starter. But so should be virtual life-detainment as in registries, open records and rights revocations.

I'm not sure there's a system available that could allow for the level of freedom you envisage. If you want everyone to be able to own anything they want, subject to them having no previous conviction, you're going to see a lot of 9/11s. Except with nukes.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


My political beliefs are just like what I do or do not own: none of your business.

How I feel about this country, how it's been and where it is headed is my right to feel that way. Voicing that opinion is also a right of mine.

Just as it's your right to disagree with me.

I know. I spent 10 years in service to this country to defend those rights that you and I both enjoy.

And when I swore an oath to defend those rights, the day that I left the service, did not negate the oath. I'm no longer obligated by it as far as my country is concerned, however, when I take an oath, I make it for life.

The fact is, regardless of my political beliefs, I still did take a chunk of my life and gave it to this country to use as it saw fit to use in order to defend the people in it.

Can you say the same? And if not.........what have you done for your country?

reply to post by eriktheawful


So how are democrats any less american than you are?

How are libertarians, greens, constitutionalists less american than republicans?

I have been on ATS for many years sir and I can see the military "small government" types are almost exclusively republicans.

I am NO FAN of obama but I sure as hell am no fan of romney and the plutocratic republicans either. I choose third party and for good reason.

Punishing the parents?

How? They are being punished enough by losing their child.
By putting them in jail, will not help their son who probably needs
them more then ever.

They could be given community service to talk about gun
safety to other families though.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

So how are democrats any less american than you are?

How are libertarians, greens, constitutionalists less american than republicans?

I have been on ATS for many years sir and I can see the military "small government" types are almost exclusively republicans.

I am NO FAN of obama but I sure as hell am no fan of romney and the plutocratic republicans either. I choose third party and for good reason.

Did I say that Democrats are less American than me? No.

Did I asy Libertarians, Green, Constitutionalists are less American that Republicans? No. Sure didn't.

I'm happy for you to have been here a long time and are able to form an opinion about Republicans. Good for you.

And I'm happy that you've been able to decide what your political beliefs are. Again, I'm happy to have spent time defending your right to that. You're very much welcome.

But I'll give no opinion on each party, or peoples in those parties. I will not (unlike you) point fingers directly at any one party, or any one group of people (except the federal government).

But again, what I believe in is really none of your business. You can draw assumptions all you like. Just remember what the word "Assume" looks like when you break it down.

However, I will say: no. I'm not a republican. And no, I did not vote for Obama, nor Mitt.

But that is about all that you'll get out of me. Especially when this thread is absolutely NOT about my (or anyone else) political beliefs or idealology.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

I'm not sure there's a system available that could allow for the level of freedom you envisage. If you want everyone to be able to own anything they want, subject to them having no previous conviction, you're going to see a lot of 9/11s. Except with nukes.

edit on 3-5-2013 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)

Living in constant fear of your fellow man is no way to live.

Not to mention I think you are seriously downplaying the difficulty and expense involved in retaining a nuclear device. If entire nations with money to burn and physicists working around the clock for years cant manage to assemble one it's just a tad ridiculous to believe that every super-villain wannabe and cave-dwelling jihadi will be walking around with one in a tote bag.

reply to post by eriktheawful


The federal government does not run itself, political parties do. I am no fan of any big government, but the hypocrisy of lets destroy social welfare while we go invading countries in the middle east annoys me somewhat. I won't lie to you about it. Or the militarised police units we have.

Some gun control is necessary and I don't have to be a democrat to support it.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


It's hard to get one because they are against the law!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

If entire nations with money to burn and physicists working around the clock for years cant manage to assemble one it's just a tad ridiculous to believe that every super-villain wannabe and cave-dwelling jihadi will be walking around with one in a tote bag.

Good point.

It is already 'against the law' to set off conventional bombs at a public place and the terrorists do that. It must be more than just a pesky law that keeps them from lighting up a nuke in an American city!

reply to post by crazyewok

Bollocks.

No one is saying ban guns. Just make a mandatory saftey course.

No bollocks! Nobody said anything about banning guns! The quote is clear.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

By acquiescing on mandatory training and licensing to exercise a fundamental RIGHT we would in fact be surrendering liberty!

Originally posted by butcherguy

Good point.

It is already 'against the law' to set off conventional bombs at a public place and the terrorists do that. It must be more than just a pesky law that keeps them from lighting up a nuke in an American city!

So you're just going to rely on the difficulty of procuring a weapon of mass destruction to protect you? It would be best to live in a country where if the police arrested a self-confessed jihadi with a dirty bomb, they were obliged to let him go?

Sometimes legislation is necessary. Mature societies - mature people, in fact - recognise this. Besides, the point is not practical, but theoretical. If you allow someone to own a gun and ignore the risks of doing so because it is their 'right', why should you not apply that principal to any inanimate object?

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Double

Post